I received the attached letter from the City of Toronto Interim Ombudsman in response to my posting at Part 122 of this series. The new letter, which follows a letter from Hydro One’s ombudsman (Part 123), characterizes my comments in Part 122 as containing “misleading statements”. I have comments on several details of that letter. To keep an eye on the big picture: former Toronto Ombudsman Fiona Crean recently took a job where she claims now to be a protector of Hydro One customers after having pretended to investigate what I suggest is overwhelming evidence of gross negligence and yet another instance of out and out lying by Toronto Hydro’s CEO Anthony Haines (here is some documentation on his many fake CVs) . After this pretend investigation, Crean did not so much as issue a report on Toronto Hydro. Rather than investigate, Crean’s actions shielded Toronto Hydro from scrutiny. Her response, amplified by her former office, to Part 122 of this series reinforce my concern that Hydro One consumers cannot have confidence in Crean.
Letter_Tom Adams (original image-only pdf)
The Interim Ombudsman’s letter claims that Crean “began an investigation on her initiative into Toronto Hydro’s response to the grid emergencies it declared during the period January 30, 2014 until April 15, 2015.” In all of my communication with the Ombudsman’s office until November 24, I was given the impression that my complaint was being vigorously investigated. It wasn’t until November 24th that I learned that I “was not an actual complainant” or that my 11-month engagement with Crean’s office was in aid of “her initiative”. The time period and scope Crean’s former office report both appear to have been cherry picked so that Toronto Hydro could be excused of wrongdoing.
The letter refers to an April 8th call from the Ombudsman’s office, wherein I was informed of a change in the scope of the investigation. The claim that I understood that the Union Street Blackout was eliminated from the scope of the investigation because it related to a “concern about the maintenance of Toronto Hydro equipment” is nonsense. Any claim that the Union Street Blackout relates to maintenance is directly contradicted by the Hydro One engineering report I included in my original complaint (Part 120). The cause of that blackout was negligent construction, not maintenance. What I understood from the April call was that the scope of the investigation was being changed by the Ombudsman but that an investigation into wrongdoing by Toronto Hydro was continuing. I do not recollect acknowledging that the information I had adduced “would not be relevant or helpful”.
The letter acknowledges that I declined the Interim Ombudsman’s demand that I sign a confidentiality agreement, hence my reporting on this event.
(A previous version of the Interim Ombudsman’s letter was sent to me containing a wrong date for one of our meetings. I asked the Interim Ombudsman to clean up that minor item, with the correction reflected in the version available here.)