Peer review
This filing rests on 48 engineering estimates. They are documented and derived — but only a qualified reviewer can turn an estimate into something a regulator can rely on. Here is what is open, who can settle it, and everything found so far.
4 of 48 seats taken (8%).
What we are asking of you
- Join the discussion. Create an account — a pseudonym is fine, and we never ask for your real name. Say which discipline you practise in; here, that is the credential that counts.
- Take one claim. You do not need to review the whole filing to be useful.
- Verify it against the source. The registry, the ledger code, and the math addendum show every substitution.
- Say what you found — confirmed, wrong, or right for the wrong reason.
- Support what holds. A Board reads a filing differently when practising engineers have endorsed the parts they can.
Join the discussion Pseudonyms welcome · your email is never published · privacy
Two tracks, kept separate and kept together
Peer review
Technical validation of one specific number. Each estimate has its own thread carrying the claim, its derivation, what would settle it, and a verdict form. Ends in a finding that can change the filing.
Open discussion
Questions, argument, and plain-language explanation. No credential needed.
They share the same categories on purpose. A plain question is often the fastest route to a bad assumption — it is how a seat gets claimed. And a verdict that stays in engineering language changes nothing politically, so findings get explained back in words a neighbour can use. Two silos would give a technical corner nobody reads and a public corner with no evidence in it.
Completed reviews
Evidence. Ordered by contribution: finding an error ranks above confirming a number.
| Reviewer | Discipline | Claims | Finding | Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent technical reader Practitioner — External assessment of public claims versus missing proof; not a licensed Board witness | Power systems & resource adequacy | scenario_conservative_mw scenario_reference_mw hub_net_electric_mw elcc_bess_illustrative unmanaged_electrification_mw hybrid_20yr_low_b | Disputed Core portfolio worth testing; the file has not proved it replaces 750 MW of gas at equal reliability or for $1.5–1.8B. Strongest defensible description is a ~400 MW domestic flexibility portfolio plus a 200 MW import bridge. | thread 2026-08-19 |
On record in support
Position, not evidence — kept deliberately separate from the reviews above so that goodwill never stands in for verification. Anyone may add their name; you do not need a credential to think both plans should face the same test.
No one on record yet. Support is welcome from anyone — you do not need a licence to say the Board should test both plans to the same arithmetic. Say so in the forum and it is recorded here with a link to your words.
Claim a seat
Each engineering estimate is a seat. Taking one is a public statement that you will check it — it stops two people quietly doing the same work, and it makes the gaps obvious to everyone.
- Find an open seat in your discipline below.
- Post in that category saying which registry key you are taking and roughly when you expect to report. One line is enough.
- It appears here as claimed, with your name or pseudonym and a link to your post.
- Report what you found and the seat is filled — whatever the verdict.
A seat that goes quiet for a month returns to open. No hard feelings, and you are welcome to take it again.
Open for review, by discipline
Each card names who can settle these claims and what evidence would close them. Expand to see the claims themselves.
District energy & heat-pump engineering
4 of 5 seats openWho can settle this: A professional engineer (mechanical) with district-energy or large heat-pump experience, or a sewage-heat-recovery specialist.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
Manufacturer performance curves for a low-lift sewage-source machine at Winnipeg effluent temperatures, plus metered data from an operating plant (False Creek, Markham) at comparable lift.
5 seats — 1 filled, 0 claimed, 4 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
heat_pump_cop_delivered | 4.13 ratio | delivered heat per unit electric input, low-lift sewage-source heat pump (~3.3 units source heat moved per unit work) | Open | take this seat |
hub_effluent_stage_net_mw | 38 MW | effluent-only stage net electric value (equals hub_net_electric_mw; kept for stage naming) | Open | take this seat |
hub_net_electric_mw | 38 MW | effluent-stage displaced electric heating: 50 MWth delivered less 12 MW compressor; assumes displaced load is resistance heating (COP 1) — stated assumption with ASHP sensitivity | Filled | Independent technical reader |
hub_resistance_coincidence_pct | 100 % | stated assumption: share of 50 MWth serving buildings that would otherwise use electric resistance at the critical hour; 50 × pct − 12 = net electric credit | Open | take this seat |
hub_thermal_mwth | 50 MWth | NEWPCC effluent-stage hub, delivered heat: 37.6 MWth source (4C river-safe draw) + 12 MW compressor work at delivered COP 4.13 | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in NEWPCC heat recovery Converted by Order 6 — the measured heat pilot
Power systems & resource adequacy
20 of 22 seats openWho can settle this: A professional engineer (electrical / power systems) or a resource-adequacy analyst who models loss-of-load expectation and effective load-carrying capability.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
An independent ELCC study applying identical accreditation rules to gas, storage, demand response, interties, and thermal displacement — the same study this filing asks the Board to commission.
Reviews in this discipline: Independent technical reader — Disputed
22 seats — 2 filled, 0 claimed, 20 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
bess_mw | 300 MW | battery storage, 4-hour (1,200 MWh) | Open | take this seat |
dsm_mw | 150 MW | demand-side management / response | Open | take this seat |
elcc_bess_illustrative | 0.85 fraction | illustrative accreditation haircut on 4-hour BESS; not an ELCC result; used only for the 613 MW sensitivity | Filled | Independent technical reader |
elcc_dsm_illustrative | 0.8 fraction | illustrative accreditation haircut on residual DR; not an ELCC result; used only for the 613 MW sensitivity | Open | take this seat |
gas_dry_year_emissions_t | 1600000 t CO2e | drought scenario if the full 750 MW run often (~50% CF at ~0.49 t/MWh); not a Hydro finding | Open | take this seat |
gas_dry_year_intensity_g_kwh | 40–50 g CO2e/kWh | implied grid intensity if ~1.6 Mt is added to a ~33 TWh year; still well below a fossil-heavy grid | Open | take this seat |
hub_compressor_mw | 12 MW | compressor load at delivered COP 4.13 on effluent stage (49.6 / 12) | Open | take this seat |
hub_delivered_thermal_exact_mwth | 49.6 MWth | 37.6 source + 12 compressor work; hub_thermal_mwth rounds to 50 for planning | Open | take this seat |
hub_source_thermal_mwth | 37.6 MWth | 4 °C × 9.4 MWth/°C. 9.4 is rounded; 195 ML/d × 4186 J/kg·K is about 9.45 MWth/°C. 4 × 9.4 = 37.6 is exact by that round. | Open | take this seat |
intertie_reference_mw | 200 MW | 300 MW physical transfer × 2/3 cold-hour planning credit; not an ELCC result; availability has not been demonstrated; conservative counts 0; no existing firm contract identified | Open | take this seat |
reservoir_buffer_pct_illustrative | 13 % | schematic dual-season reservoir buffer — NOT metered Hydro data | Open | take this seat |
summer_heat_beta_mw_per_c | 42 MW/C | slope chosen so P(+35C) = summer_peak_anchor_mw | Open | take this seat |
summer_heat_threshold_c | 18 C | temperature above which summer load rises in the chart sketch | Open | take this seat |
summer_load_base_mw | 2800 MW | summer load curve base in fig13-style sketch | Open | take this seat |
summer_peak_anchor_mw | 3514 MW | illustrative chart anchor at +35C; not a filed Hydro peak | Open | take this seat |
summer_peak_band_mw | 3800–4200 MW | illustrative summer heatwave system peak band | Open | take this seat |
unmanaged_electrification_hydro_coincident_mw | 288 MW | 45000 homes × hydro_electric_heat_coincident_kw; 45,000 × 6.4 = 288; not added to shortfall_2030_mw; not a replacement for unmanaged_electrification_mw | Open | take this seat |
unmanaged_electrification_mw | 675 MW | identity, not a forecast: 45,000 of about 300,000 gas-heated Winnipeg homes at 15 kW resistance-equivalent draw with the furnace off at -35C. Distinct from shortfall_2030_mw and not added to it; a dual-fuel heat pump keeps the coincident draw far below this line. | Filled | Independent technical reader |
winter_heat_beta_mw_per_c | 42.23 MW/C | calibrated (peak_2024 - base) / (thresh - (-35)); research form ~48.5 before PD anchor | Open | take this seat |
winter_heat_threshold_c | 15 C | temperature below which heating demand initiates | Open | take this seat |
winter_load_base_mw | 3000 MW | non-heating base load in research heating model | Open | take this seat |
year_round_bess_overlay_min_c | -10 C | peak-hour battery overlay applies in months whose mean daily min is this cold or colder (core winter). Not a metered dispatch threshold. Batteries remain two 300 MW × 2 h spikes, not monthly MW. | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in Winter capacity Converted by Order 2 — independent cold-weather audit
Capital cost estimating
6 of 7 seats openWho can settle this: A quantity surveyor or cost consultant with utility-scale infrastructure experience, or a utility finance analyst.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
Class 3 or better estimates with quantities and unit rates, and filed fuel and carbon curves for the twenty-year comparison.
7 seats — 1 filled, 0 claimed, 6 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
gas_20yr_high_b | 6.9 B | high corner | Open | take this seat |
gas_20yr_low_b | 4.5 B | low fuel/carbon/financing corner | Open | take this seat |
hybrid_20yr_gross_high_b | 2.25 B | net band high + 0.45 ITC add-back (no-ITC sensitivity); savings vs gas still 2.3-5.0B | Open | take this seat |
hybrid_20yr_gross_low_b | 1.95 B | net band low + 0.45 ITC add-back (no-ITC sensitivity) | Open | take this seat |
hybrid_20yr_high_b | 1.8 B | high corner; band is net of ITC — see gross-basis keys for the no-ITC sensitivity | Open | take this seat |
hybrid_20yr_low_b | 1.5 B | low corner | Filled | Independent technical reader |
hybrid_capex_gross_b | 1.95 B | BESS 0.60 + network 0.50 + hub/piping 0.45 + DSM 0.40; excludes the purchase cost of the 200 MW import credit | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in Money Converted by Order 3 — machine-readable cost models from both parties
Building envelope & radiative materials
6 of 6 seats openWho can settle this: A building-science engineer or materials researcher working on passive daytime radiative cooling films.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
Measured net radiative cooling flux under Winnipeg summer conditions on a real roof area, plus the chiller COP actually displaced.
6 seats — 0 filled, 0 claimed, 6 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
pdrc_net_cooling_w_m2 | 75 W/m2 | illustrative net radiative cooling power under peak summer sun | Open | take this seat |
pdrc_roof_area_m2 | 2400000 m2 | commercial/institutional rooftop deployment envelope for PDRC estimate | Open | take this seat |
pdrc_summer_flux_mwth | 180 MWth | PDRC radiative heat rejection at +35C: 2.4M m2 x 75 W/m2 — thermal flux, NOT electric | Open | take this seat |
pdrc_summer_shave_mw | 50 MW | avoided ELECTRIC A/C load: 180 MWth flux / chiller COP ~3.5 — summer residual ONLY; not winter firm | Open | take this seat |
summer_pdrc_beta_mw_per_c | 3.33 MW/C | electric shave ramp; at +35C yields ~50 MW = pdrc_summer_shave_mw | Open | take this seat |
summer_pdrc_onset_c | 20 C | temperature above which PDRC shave ramps in fig13 | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in Soil & water Converted by Order 6 — the measured heat pilot
Geothermal & borehole storage
2 of 2 seats openWho can settle this: A professional geoscientist or geothermal engineer with borehole thermal energy storage design experience.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
Thermal response testing at the candidate site and a seasonal storage model with local ground conditions.
2 seats — 0 filled, 0 claimed, 2 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
btes_summer_chiller_shave_mw | 70 MW | BTES / Heat Host avoids parasitic chillers in summer — not winter firm | Open | take this seat |
btes_winter_planning_mw | 120 MW | 2035 planning tranche for coincident winter discharge from density-island BTES micro-districts; contingent on two gates — a screening test requiring at least three density islands with LCOH below proxy plus a summer charge source, then a metered single-field pilot; NOT in 413/688/788; equals the summer 50+70=120 by coincidence only — do not add the two 120s. Source: manitoba-energy-plan, P7 GroundPeak, gates G6/G7 | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in Soil & water Converted by Order 6 — the measured heat pilot
Water quality & nutrient management
4 of 4 seats openWho can settle this: A water-quality scientist, limnologist, or professional agrologist working on Lake Winnipeg phosphorus loading.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
Peer-reviewed load estimates at the Emerson gauge and measured recovery rates from an operating nutrient-recovery installation.
4 seats — 0 filled, 0 claimed, 4 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
p_gap_t | 3050 t P/yr | external-load gap, t P/yr | Open | take this seat |
p_newpcc_recovery_t | 130 t P/yr | NEWPCC Ostara-class / nutrient solids recovery in mid-case stack (~4% of p_gap_t) | Open | take this seat |
p_stack_midcase_t | 1260 t P/yr | full multi-measure stack mid-case, t P/yr | Open | take this seat |
p_surplus_range_t | 15–320 t P/yr | compute-surplus-funded remediation by node count | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in Soil & water Converted by Order 1 — head-to-head modelling
Governance, finance & public compute
2 of 2 seats openWho can settle this: A utility regulation lawyer, public-finance analyst, or data-centre infrastructure engineer, depending on the claim.
Join the discussion if you belong to:
What would close it
A drafted surplus-lien instrument that counsel will sign off on, and contracted per-node IT loads from a real operator.
2 seats — 0 filled, 0 claimed, 2 open
| Seat (registry key) | Value | What it asserts | State | Held by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
node_band_kw | 10–20 kW | locked per-site IT band | Open | take this seat |
remediation_floor_pct | 35 % | surplus share to remediation, first lien | Open | take this seat |
Discuss these in Public compute Converted by Order 7 — authorize public heat-first compute
Getting verified to post in peer review
Signing up is open. Any email address works, a pseudonym is fine, and a new account can post in open discussion straight away. Peer review is readable by everyone, signed in or not — only posting there is gated, because a verdict on this register can change the filing and a Board reader has to be able to weigh who gave it.
- Create an account under whatever name you want to be known by here.
- Email hersh.seth@proton.me with your forum handle, your discipline, and your licence or certification number together with the body that issued it. An organisation address helps as corroboration but is never required.
- The number is checked in that body’s public register — Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba for P.Eng. and P.Geo., CTTAM for technologists. It is the register that settles it, not the employer.
- Your account is marked verified and you can post in peer review under the same pseudonym you started with.
What is published, and what never is. The register shows that a check happened, which body was consulted, and on what date. It never shows your licence number, your job title, or where you work — none of that is written into this site or its source, and it is not kept anywhere but the operator’s mailbox. A work address would only prove you can receive mail at a company; the licence is what proves the competence, and publishing the employer would cost some people something for helping.
How credentials are shown
Any of these can review, and all appear in the same register. The tier tells a Board reader how to weigh an opinion; it does not decide whose voice counts.
| Tier | Means |
|---|---|
| Verified licence | Licence number checked against the public register |
| Licensed, self-declared | P.Eng. / P.Geo., not yet checked by us |
| Certified technologist | C.E.T. / A.Sc.T. or equivalent |
| Academic | Faculty or postgraduate researcher in the field |
| Practitioner | Works in the field; domain knowledge is the credential |
| Pseudonymous | Identity withheld by choice; reasoning stands alone |
Many people who could help here work for the utility, a vendor, or the province. We would rather have the argument than the name.
Not on this list
O official data and C computed values are already checkable — sources are named in the registry and the computation is covered by tests. A assumptions are not estimates at all: they need a counterparty to confirm them, which is what the seven orders request.
Verify it yourself → Registry, ledger, and all 108 tests