Today, Hydro responded to the most recent letter from the Group of Nine, shared with Media October 2, 2025.

Our full response can viewed by clicking on the button below. A point-by-point rebuttal of Mr. Wilson’s analysis is also available for reading.

Full Letter

Dear Group of Nine,

The Board of Directors (the Board) of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) is responding to the letter of October 2, 2025, from the “Group of Nine” in the context of the caretaker convention on under which we are currently operating arising from the provincial election. The Board notes that it received the latest letter through the media, and the letter has not to date been received by any individual director or Hydro management.

Given that the majority of signatories to the letter are experienced in matters related to public service, we would expect there is an understanding that Hydro, and the Board are constrained in their ability to respond publicly at this time due to the caretaker period restrictions. In that regard, the Board wishes to express disappointment that the Group of Nine would issue public remarks that knowingly cannot be fully responded to during an election. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed and has been publicly available since December 12, 2024. The Board questions the timing of the October 2, 2025, letter and previous letters coupled with the fact that none of the signatories have accepted numerous invitations to meet with Hydro leadership who negotiated the MOU. The caretaker convention allows Hydro and the Board to correct misinformation. The content of this response reflects those public communication restrictions.

As with the previous letters, the most recent correspondence from the Group of Nine also contains numerous false claims. Following conclusion of the election and the caretaker period, the Board reiterates that Hydro leadership would be pleased to meet with any or all signatories to discuss their concerns and provide accurate, factual information related to the MOU. This would allow for a productive exchange whereby areas of concern can be explored, and Hydro can demonstrate how various concepts are indeed considered in the MOU. This offer, which has been extended on several occasions, stands.

The Group of Nine and Mr. Wilson have alleged that Hydro, Ms. Williams and materials around the MOU communicate “half-truths and omissions.” This is false. The MOU is appropriately comprehensive and covers the existing facility at Churchill Falls as well as the development of new projects in Labrador. These are complex, multi-billion projects that have necessitated many means of public explanation and communication. Over the last ten months, there has been an extraordinary effort undertaken by Hydro to communicate high level summaries and the details of the MOU. The Group of Nine has taken a small subset of public comments and attempted to use those to call into question Hydro’s overall communication efforts. This is inaccurate.

Hydro has an obligation to communicate with residents of the province to explain what this historic MOU means for people with incredibly varied backgrounds, interests and communication preferences. With that in mind, Hydro has endeavored to communicate as much as possible since December 2024. Hydro has been available to the public in many formats including, but not limited to, the following:

• Hydro’s executive and experts appeared for four days in the House of Assembly to answer questions;
• Answered questions for attendees during four public webinars;
• Completed countless media interviews and written responses to media;
• Posted hundreds of pages of documents on a publicly available information portal;
• Appeared in numerous public speaking engagements; Held briefings for interested parties; and
• Shared public information videos on the various aspects of the MOU.

As we are in a provincial election, Hydro is currently limited in the forms of communication it can undertake.

Regarding claims around the accuracy of the materials on the public record, all information contained on the ourchapter.ca website, and in all other Hydro communications related to the MOU is factually correct and has been vetted by the experienced Hydro team and its many internal and external experts. The financial calculations utilized by Hydro have been created by Hydro’s financial team in conjunction with our consultant, J.P. Morgan. Unequivocally, the financial analysis completed by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Dalton is significantly flawed. This has been confirmed by Hydro’s internal experts and J.P. Morgan. A detailed explanation of Mr. Wilson’s specific errors is attached as Schedule A. The recent independent analysis of Mr. Luke O’Brien is similarly aligned with that of J.P. Morgan.

This is not to say that Hydro or the Board is discouraging scrutiny or questioning of the MOU. On the contrary. The Board regards this as a critical part of the process. The Board feels it necessary to remind the Group of Nine that it and Hydro have been informed by numerous current industry experts for at least several years throughout the development of the MOU. Those external experts, along with Hydro’s dedicated internal experts, continue to advise Hydro leadership and the Board during the negotiation of definitive agreements.

Specifically, to address the forecasted $33.8 billion in payments from Hydro-Quebec to CFLCo., this is not a fixed set of payments. This has been repeatedly stated by Ms. Williams in many forums. We draw your attention to this critical portion of Schedule F in the MOU. If the forecasted payments from Hydro-Quebec were fixed, it would not be possible to meet the key MOU requirement that prices will change should market prices accelerate beyond what is currently included in the forecast. If the market prices move higher than what is forecast over the term, so will the price paid for Churchill Falls electricity. This is a fundamental premise of the MOU. Hydro will not sign a fixed price contract. This has been stated numerous times in many public forums.

“The block structure will be designed to provide diversification and ensure the prices paid reflect the fair value of the generation over the entire term of the New CF PPAs. As such, the Parties will work together to develop the terms and conditions of each block to ensure that the principles intended behind the proposed pricing mechanisms remain relevant and fair over the entire term of the New CF PPAs.”

As the Group of Nine and other observers rightly acknowledge, the MOU information is highly technical and detailed and Hydro has an obligation to communicate the MOU’s content with the public. Hydro is, on one hand accused of being “cheerleaders” when explaining the MOU in various avenues noted above, and on the other hand, accused of “not communicating enough” with the public on the details of the MOU. It is difficult to square these two characterizations.

Earlier this year, long prior to the start of the election, Hydro began a public education campaign designed to inform the public about the MOU in a way that could be easily understood and accessed. This campaign included a series of videos available on social and traditional media platforms and focused on the most commonly asked questions from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about the MOU. We evolved these videos since the initial kick off based on our assessment of the broad population’s understanding of the MOU. Videos have been available on Hydro’s YouTube channel since March and have been promoted on our social media channels regularly in the months since initial publishing. The public video campaign was one method to contribute to improved public understanding of the MOU. This is a routine tool utilized by organizations and groups globally aiming to educate those they serve.

As a provincial crown utility, Hydro is subject to the same guidelines for public service conduct during an election period, which all provincial government departments, agencies, boards and commissions must follow. As such, during the caretaker period Hydro has not engaged in any advertising of the MOU outside these established guidelines. The assertions that Hydro or its staff have engaged in any inappropriate conduct related to the election caretaker restrictions, and that the Board should discipline Hydro staff as a result are false and misguided. The Board has been clear that it has full confidence in its CEO, leadership and staff and that position unequivocally stands.

The Board and Hydro management remain committed to ensuring people in the province can continue to be informed about the facts of the MOU and will continue to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as definitive agreements are negotiated.

The assertion by the Group of Nine that the Board is in breach of its fiduciary duty and has acted inappropriately is false. The Board has and continues to follow good governance practices and takes its fiduciary duty seriously. Leading up the signing of the MOU, the Board, for several years, was appropriately briefed by Hydro management and external experts on numerous occasions. In fact, the Board has established two separate committees to review all relevant materials in greater detail before it makes any decisions related to the MOU or the resulting projects. The Board has also had and continues to have access to external legal resources throughout the deliberation of the MOU who have confirmed that the Board has met the fiduciary duty required of any directors of a sophisticated organization.

The Board is privileged to have a broad range of skills among its dedicated directors, which notably includes four directors whose whole professional career was in electric utilities. As Chair, I am grateful for the Hydro directors who have put themselves forward to serve in this important institution and who dedicate themselves to work hard in an official capacity on behalf of the province.

As stated, the Board implemented robust governance procedures while considering options for the Churchill River, during MOU negotiations, and now continues to while definitive agreements are being negotiated. Over the course of these phases, the Board had and continues to have all information required to consider options that went into the MOU and now are being contemplated in definitive agreements.

Mr. Wilson has stated, and the Group of Nine repeated, that they believe no independent valuation was completed for key inputs such as Gull Island during the development of the MOU. This is false. Appropriate evaluations of all assets, existing and future, that were required to inform the MOU were undertaken by Hydro’s internal experts in conjunction with its many external experts. This provided the very foundation on which to negotiate and evaluate options. Obviously, this information cannot be made public as to do so would severely prejudice the negotiation. Hydro will unapologetically continue to protect commercially sensitive information that if released, could significantly harm the negotiating power and financial position of the province.

The Board of CFLCo., also follows good governance practices and takes its fiduciary duty seriously. The Board reminds the Group of Nine that at this stage, the MOU is a nonbinding document. Negotiation of binding definitive agreements is ongoing and Hydro, CFLCo., or any other relevant affiliates, will continue to employ good governance in negotiating and executing binding definitive agreements, or sanctioning of any major projects, neither of which has yet occurred.

The Board and management team at Hydro will continue to work diligently to negotiate the best deal possible for the province. Our directors consider it a privilege to be of service to the province.

Yours truly,
John Green,
Chair of the Board, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro