12 May 2013
It seems that for 2012, Hydro Quebec got only 4.1 cents per KWh for export sales.
Below is an excerpt from an April 27 "Lapresse" article (very poor translation using Google) http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/affaires/actualite-economique
"...Hydro-Québec has concluded in recent years dozens of agreements with private producers for the purchase of electricity it did not need.
Result: Hydro-Quebec says now have 28.5 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity surplus accumulated by the end of 2020.....
In wind, Hydro-Québec Distribution has signed more than 20 contracts to supply a total of 72 TWh by 2020. ............
But there is more. Because to report $ 99 million more than in 2011 on the export side, Hydro-Québec has used an impressive amount of energy its production, or 30.1 TWh compared to 20.8 TWh (2011) .
Hydro-Québec has collected an average of 4.1 ¢ per kilowatt hour exported. In 2011, the corporation had received an average of 5.2 cents. ............
The analyst believes Blain Hydro-Québec must now look to new sources of revenue. Large industrial customers (who already pay a special electricity tariff) should pay more, he said.
Hydro-Quebec could also make an offer to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to sell their electricity at prices they could not refuse. A lesser evil when the Crown corporation "liquid" these days its electricity less than 4 cents per kilowatt hour for our southern neighbors."
My Comment: If my memory serves correctly, Muskrat Falls (DG2) production costs alone are 22 cents per kilowatthour (plus 14.7 cents for transmission, for a total of 37 cents / KWh). Nalcor comes up with a misleading 7.6 cent production cost figure by shifting real costs to future generations (their escalating supply price, 'take or pay' pricing scheme)........ the difference in the figures show how much our children and grandchildren will be burdened by high cost Muskrat power............... Not only will they have to eventually pay the real 37 cent cost, but it is they who will also have to pay the early year shortfall (the difference between the 37 and 7.6 cent figures), as Nalcor has confirmed that it will not be foregoing its return on equity, but merely deferring it.
So our real Muskrat Falls costs are about 10 times what can be expected from export sales revenue (if any).
Why does Nalcor care? We pay ------ Nalcor gets revenue --- any revenue. Do they care? NL ratepayers are legislated to pay the cost (whatever it is), while Nalcor/government gets whatever revenue it can and others (not NL ratepayers) have well-below-cost power.
Who is government/Nalcor really working for?
10 May 2013
Newsworthy Comment (from electrical engineer Winston Adams re "energy efficiency")
"In regard to your comments on the new Guide for Energy Efficient Homes.
1. The rationale for Muskrat Falls was to meet our growing need for wintertime electric heat, where according to Nalcor and MHI we were approaching "saturation" going forward as to efficiency savings.
2. As you have pointed out elsewhere, efficiency improvements over the last 20 years gave a 17 percent reduction in average house energy usage. That is almost 1 percent per year reduction. According to Nalcor and MHI we could expect little more in efficiency reductions.
3. Yet, now, by the governments own Guide for new construction, there is a 27.2 percent efficiency energy reduction with these new code methods. And that is with using the old inefficient baseboard heaters! Such efficiency benefits have long been known, which disproves the 'Saturation theory"
4. The Guide shows that the cost for this efficient construction is $4736.00 per house. Working the numbers it will give a reduction in the baseboard connected load of about 2.5 kw. At $4736.00 extra construction cost, it gives about $1894.00 per kw of demand reduction. Compare that to the $26,000 per kw for the 300 MW we are supposed to need from MF, or the more than $10,000 per kw for MF average output, and the superior economics of customer efficiency jumps out. And studies support this.
5. And if you add in customer efficient heaters (heatpumps that operate without electric heater backup down to -15C) , this is another low cost efficiency improvement that cuts winter time energy by another 27 percent, at a cost of about $1500.00 per kw reduction. Other jurisdictions are promoting this approach big time, by financially assisting homeowners.
6. What is self evident is the false assertion by Nalcor and MHI that we were approaching saturation in efficiency measures for our houses.
7. There is a mention of the efficient mini split heat pumps in this guide, but not a promotion of them. Given that 90 percent of our housing stock are older houses, this is where the heatpumps can make the biggest dent in our efficiency gains, being very suitable for these older homes.
I submitted data to the PUB from my pilot study, showing 40 percent winter month reduction in an old 55 year old 2 story house. This represents another component for relative low cost alternative to the expensive new generation like Muskrat Falls. The PUB has recently ordered Nfld Power to report on the benefits of these by April 2014." (emphasis added)
09 May 2013
Isn't it interesting --- one of the first things that government's new "Guide to Building Energy Efficient Homes" shows is that the dinosaur age, energy consuming "baseboard electric heater" still meet the new 2012 Building Code ------- ENOUGH SAID. http://turnbackthetide.ca/at-home/construction-&-renovation/guide_to_building_energy_efficient_homes.pdf
07 May 2013
HOODWINKED ?
(for whose benefit? and at whose expense ?)
CLICK TO ENLARGE
It seems that for 2012, Hydro Quebec got only 4.1 cents per KWh for export sales.
Below is an excerpt from an April 27 "Lapresse" article (very poor translation using Google) http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/affaires/actualite-economique
"...Hydro-Québec has concluded in recent years dozens of agreements with private producers for the purchase of electricity it did not need.
Result: Hydro-Quebec says now have 28.5 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity surplus accumulated by the end of 2020.....
In wind, Hydro-Québec Distribution has signed more than 20 contracts to supply a total of 72 TWh by 2020. ............
But there is more. Because to report $ 99 million more than in 2011 on the export side, Hydro-Québec has used an impressive amount of energy its production, or 30.1 TWh compared to 20.8 TWh (2011) .
Hydro-Québec has collected an average of 4.1 ¢ per kilowatt hour exported. In 2011, the corporation had received an average of 5.2 cents. ............
The analyst believes Blain Hydro-Québec must now look to new sources of revenue. Large industrial customers (who already pay a special electricity tariff) should pay more, he said.
Hydro-Quebec could also make an offer to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to sell their electricity at prices they could not refuse. A lesser evil when the Crown corporation "liquid" these days its electricity less than 4 cents per kilowatt hour for our southern neighbors."
My Comment: If my memory serves correctly, Muskrat Falls (DG2) production costs alone are 22 cents per kilowatthour (plus 14.7 cents for transmission, for a total of 37 cents / KWh). Nalcor comes up with a misleading 7.6 cent production cost figure by shifting real costs to future generations (their escalating supply price, 'take or pay' pricing scheme)........ the difference in the figures show how much our children and grandchildren will be burdened by high cost Muskrat power............... Not only will they have to eventually pay the real 37 cent cost, but it is they who will also have to pay the early year shortfall (the difference between the 37 and 7.6 cent figures), as Nalcor has confirmed that it will not be foregoing its return on equity, but merely deferring it.
So our real Muskrat Falls costs are about 10 times what can be expected from export sales revenue (if any).
Why does Nalcor care? We pay ------ Nalcor gets revenue --- any revenue. Do they care? NL ratepayers are legislated to pay the cost (whatever it is), while Nalcor/government gets whatever revenue it can and others (not NL ratepayers) have well-below-cost power.
Who is government/Nalcor really working for?
10 May 2013
Newsworthy Comment (from electrical engineer Winston Adams re "energy efficiency")
"In regard to your comments on the new Guide for Energy Efficient Homes.
1. The rationale for Muskrat Falls was to meet our growing need for wintertime electric heat, where according to Nalcor and MHI we were approaching "saturation" going forward as to efficiency savings.
2. As you have pointed out elsewhere, efficiency improvements over the last 20 years gave a 17 percent reduction in average house energy usage. That is almost 1 percent per year reduction. According to Nalcor and MHI we could expect little more in efficiency reductions.
3. Yet, now, by the governments own Guide for new construction, there is a 27.2 percent efficiency energy reduction with these new code methods. And that is with using the old inefficient baseboard heaters! Such efficiency benefits have long been known, which disproves the 'Saturation theory"
4. The Guide shows that the cost for this efficient construction is $4736.00 per house. Working the numbers it will give a reduction in the baseboard connected load of about 2.5 kw. At $4736.00 extra construction cost, it gives about $1894.00 per kw of demand reduction. Compare that to the $26,000 per kw for the 300 MW we are supposed to need from MF, or the more than $10,000 per kw for MF average output, and the superior economics of customer efficiency jumps out. And studies support this.
5. And if you add in customer efficient heaters (heatpumps that operate without electric heater backup down to -15C) , this is another low cost efficiency improvement that cuts winter time energy by another 27 percent, at a cost of about $1500.00 per kw reduction. Other jurisdictions are promoting this approach big time, by financially assisting homeowners.
6. What is self evident is the false assertion by Nalcor and MHI that we were approaching saturation in efficiency measures for our houses.
7. There is a mention of the efficient mini split heat pumps in this guide, but not a promotion of them. Given that 90 percent of our housing stock are older houses, this is where the heatpumps can make the biggest dent in our efficiency gains, being very suitable for these older homes.
I submitted data to the PUB from my pilot study, showing 40 percent winter month reduction in an old 55 year old 2 story house. This represents another component for relative low cost alternative to the expensive new generation like Muskrat Falls. The PUB has recently ordered Nfld Power to report on the benefits of these by April 2014." (emphasis added)
09 May 2013
Isn't it interesting --- one of the first things that government's new "Guide to Building Energy Efficient Homes" shows is that the dinosaur age, energy consuming "baseboard electric heater" still meet the new 2012 Building Code ------- ENOUGH SAID. http://turnbackthetide.ca/at-home/construction-&-renovation/guide_to_building_energy_efficient_homes.pdf
07 May 2013
HOODWINKED ?
(for whose benefit? and at whose expense ?)
CLICK TO ENLARGE
|
|
|
Why is Muskrat Falls being built? Why go BILLIONS of dollars in debt for UNNEEDED energy ??
While the Transportation (and Large Industry private sector) produces 73% of the province's greenhouse gas emissions,
Holyrood has NO IMPACT on 92% of the province's emissions (see Holyrood page).
Nalcor claims that residential growth is driving the need for more power. However, government's own two studies confirm that
from 1990 to 2008, while the number of homes increased 19%, residential energy demand
went down 17%.
Furthermore, while an increase in electric heating did occur, it was not due to an increase in overall residential
energy use, but due to electricity displacing residential oil heating (down from 42% to 18% by 2008).
At that rate, saturation of the residential electric heating market can be expected around 2018-2020 (shortly after Muskrat Falls comes on stream). Accordingly,
there is no objective, evidence based grounds for a 50-year, forecast 0.8% increase in demand --- and therefore no objective, evidence based
grounds for Nalcor's and government's claim that Muskrat Falls is in the best interest of ratepayers.
See links to graphs and government studies at DEMAND and Holyrood pages).
Keep in mind that:
04 May 2013
The Sir Robert bond Papers is reporting that Husky is sizing up natural gas development for possible export by 2025 (see link http://bondpapers.blogspot.ca/ )
Given that:
then it is clear that Muskrat Falls is not a needed and not an economically viable project, and requires further and independent evaluation.
02 May 2013
The data used as the basis for the info-graphic (below) is from Nalcor, as published in the Telegram in 2011 (and supplemented by subsequent Nalcor emails). It should also be noted that Nalcor subsequently reduced its Holyrood forecast (shown below, yellow) by 5%.
The Comment below is from Winston Adams (electrical engineer/businessman).
"A picture is worth a thousand words. Your new chart is a critical piece of information showing the declining use of Holyrood production. It must make Nalcor officials cringe. Their, and the government's story, continues to be that Holyrood provides as much as 25 percent of our total needs (which was the case a decade ago in 2003) and will grow further. Then there is the reality: the diverging lines of what they forecast and what is happening. Instead of 25 percent of our needs, Holyrood is now producing only about 10 percent. This divergence can continue with a good Efficiency Conservation Plan, and the isolated option reassessed. There can be a "compelling" argument for this reassessment. This chart will continue to be a reminder to re-examine the forecast, without the blinders on. The Telegram, and Ed Hollett should publish this chart. And it is noteworthy that it shows a decline of oil (thermal) generation at a time when housing size and number of new units have been at an all time high."
- a real focus on efficiency improvements (even without conservation), could result (instead of a 0.1% or 0.8% INCREASE in energy use), in an actual energy use DECREASE (and therefore LOWER, not higher, rates for ratepayers) --- up to 25 - 30% lower.
- with Muskrat Falls, rates are guaranteed to INCREASE 2% per year, and with lower than forecast energy use rates will then have to INCREASE even moreso (due to Nalcor's 'take or pay' contract),
- relatively inexpensive alternatives can virtually eliminate the need for Holyrood.
- one (1) of Holyrood's three (3) generators was off line this past winter (1/3rd of Holyrood's generating capacity), proving that a large part of the island's existing capacity is not needed (and UNUSED) -------------- so why Muskrat ? Why an increased debt burden ? Why higher, unaffordable, rates ?
04 May 2013
The Sir Robert bond Papers is reporting that Husky is sizing up natural gas development for possible export by 2025 (see link http://bondpapers.blogspot.ca/ )
Given that:
- high cost Muskrat Falls power cannot be exported (except at a monumental loss),
- power sales to the mining companies of Labrador can also only be sold at a loss (perhaps as much as 80-90% less than cost),
- a request for power has been received from only 1 mining company,
- there is virtually no demand on the island (about 80% of Holyrood's maximum 4 terawatts of capacity, and 72% of Holyrood's 3 terawatts of firm capacity, was not used last year),
- Holyrood's use has been on a significant downward trend since 2002 (see info-graphic, below), and
- only 10.8% of the island's energy needs last year came from Holyrood),
then it is clear that Muskrat Falls is not a needed and not an economically viable project, and requires further and independent evaluation.
02 May 2013
The data used as the basis for the info-graphic (below) is from Nalcor, as published in the Telegram in 2011 (and supplemented by subsequent Nalcor emails). It should also be noted that Nalcor subsequently reduced its Holyrood forecast (shown below, yellow) by 5%.
The Comment below is from Winston Adams (electrical engineer/businessman).
"A picture is worth a thousand words. Your new chart is a critical piece of information showing the declining use of Holyrood production. It must make Nalcor officials cringe. Their, and the government's story, continues to be that Holyrood provides as much as 25 percent of our total needs (which was the case a decade ago in 2003) and will grow further. Then there is the reality: the diverging lines of what they forecast and what is happening. Instead of 25 percent of our needs, Holyrood is now producing only about 10 percent. This divergence can continue with a good Efficiency Conservation Plan, and the isolated option reassessed. There can be a "compelling" argument for this reassessment. This chart will continue to be a reminder to re-examine the forecast, without the blinders on. The Telegram, and Ed Hollett should publish this chart. And it is noteworthy that it shows a decline of oil (thermal) generation at a time when housing size and number of new units have been at an all time high."
Info-graphic prepared by M.E. Adams from Nalcor source data.
It should also be noted that early on, Nalcor argued that at peak capacity Vale's Long Harbour nickel processing plant would place an additional 730 GWh of demand annually on the island system, and that Vale's increased demand would be met by increased thermal production at Holyrood.
However, when questioned by the Public Utilities Board about Nalcor spilling the energy equivalent of 694 GWh of water from the island's existing hydro sites in 2011 alone, Nalcor admitted that it expected to keep spilling water over the island's hydro dams until Vale comes on stream to increase energy demand on the island (thereby confirming not only that the island had excess capacity, but that Holyrood would only be used for a portion of Vale's energy needs).
Furthermore, it has recently been stated (in a Telegram article) that the expected closure of the Duck Pond mining operations will also free up power for Vale.
So, which is it?
Where is the demand --- a demand that justifies an 8 (perhaps even a 10-15) billion dollar expenditure?
However, when questioned by the Public Utilities Board about Nalcor spilling the energy equivalent of 694 GWh of water from the island's existing hydro sites in 2011 alone, Nalcor admitted that it expected to keep spilling water over the island's hydro dams until Vale comes on stream to increase energy demand on the island (thereby confirming not only that the island had excess capacity, but that Holyrood would only be used for a portion of Vale's energy needs).
Furthermore, it has recently been stated (in a Telegram article) that the expected closure of the Duck Pond mining operations will also free up power for Vale.
So, which is it?
Where is the demand --- a demand that justifies an 8 (perhaps even a 10-15) billion dollar expenditure?
27 April 2013
Nalcor advises that for year 2012 Holyrood needed to provide only 10.8% (856 GWh) of the island's energy. The previous low was 10.5%, recorded in 2006.
And 856 GWh is only 28.5% of Holyrood's NET capacity of 2,995 GWh.
That leaves Holyrood with MORE THAN 2 full terawatts of energy not used --- 2 TERAWATTS EQUALS THE 40% OF MUSKRAT FALLS POWER THAT NALCOR SAYS WE URGENTLY NEED.
Over the next 50 years ratepayers will provide Nalcor with a cash flow of approximately $700 million per year (every year) for that so-called 2 terawatts of urgently needed Muskrat Falls power.
The power that we actually needed from Holyrood last year cost approximately $140 million.
However, Muskrat Falls will cost you, your children and grand children 5 times more each and every year for the next 50 years (to replace largely UNUSED Holyrood power).
Where will rates have to go to give Nalcor and government the $14.5 billion (debt servicing and operating costs) and the $20 billion additional "revenue" (TAX GRAB) from Muskrat Falls? --- on average, $700 million per year for 50 years?
Ratepayers do not need (and cannot afford) to pay 5 times more for UNNEEDED electricity (see DEMAND page).
20 April 2013
Government, aboriginal leadership, corporate structures --- interlinked?........... . Nalcor's DG2 forecast rate of increase in peak demand for 2012 was more than 5 times the island's actual increase, and the forecast rate of increase for year 2013 was 1.5 times more......... Millions (billions) up for grabs. All made available by way of an electricity tax grab that is being sold/marketed as a needed Muskrat Falls energy project..... Do we have corruption writ large?
Link to The Telegram article and read how SNC-Lavalin paper trail leads to Mount Pearl:- http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Columns/2013-04-20/article-3223628/Riadh-Ben-Aissa-paper-trail-leads-to-Mount-Pearl/1
19 April 2013
Headline from today's Globe and Mail ---- "N.Y. okays power line from Quebec"
The brief article goes on to say that the NY Public Service Commission has approved a plan to build a $2.2 billion, 1,000 MW transmission line from Quebec to NY City (539 kilometers).
If a 1,000 MW, 539 kilometer line costs $2.2 billion, how can Nalcor build a 1,100 kilometer (900 MW) line under the Strait of Belle Isle and down the Northern Peninsula for $2.1 billion)?
What will be the real cost (paid for lock, stock and barrel by ratepayers/taxpayers)?
--------------
Information (received this weeK) from Nalcor shows that the actual rate of increase in peak demand in 2012 was more than 5 times less than Nalcor's 2010 (DG2) forecast (0.4% vs. 2.1%). For 2013, the actual rate of increase in peak demand was 1.3% vs. a forecast 1.9% increase (more than 30% less).
On average over the 2 years, actual average rate of increase was almost 60% less than Nalcor's DG2 forecast.
18 April 2013
Originally, Nalcor claimed that Vale's Long Harbour plant's high power needs would have to be supplied by increased use (and cost) of operating the Holyrood oil-fired plant. However, when questioned about the high amount of water spilled from the island's hydro plants, Nalcor claimed that it would continue spilling until Vale came on stream to take up the slack (hydro would supply Vale instead of Holyrood). Now a CBC report http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2013/04/18/nl-corner-brook-mill-money-418.html is saying that Vale's needs will be met when the Duck Pond mining operations closes. SO where is the increase in demand coming from?
News Headline, CBC TV News ---------- "SNC-Lavelin banned from World Bank projects for 10 years"
12 April 2013
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro files for decrease in electricity rates through the Rate Stabilization Plan (however, with Muskrat Falls, consumers are locked into a 2% compound increase EVERY YEAR, or about a 10% increase every 4 years).
April 12, 2013 - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) filed an updated fuel price projection for the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP) with the Newfoundland and Labrador Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (PUB) today. This will result in a decrease in electricity rates to Newfoundland Power, and therefore most electricity consumers.
"We adjust rates every year based on the annual amount of water we have for hydroelectric generation and the price of oil used to generate electricity at the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station. This adjustment ensures that rates reflect the actual cost of electricity generation," said Rob Henderson, Vice President, Hydro. “This July, consumers will receive a decrease in electricity rates, which is due to lower than forecast cost of oil for the Holyrood plant and higher production from our hydroelectric generating plants over the past year due to the annual water availability.”
Excluding any rate changes approved by the PUB for Newfoundland Power, the RSP adjustment for most electricity consumers will result in an overall average decrease of about eight per cent, effective July 1, 2013. The actual amount of the rate change will vary, depending on customer category and the amount of electricity used. The amount of water available for hydroelectric generation increased over forecast last year. Thermal production from the Holyrood plant was also down over the last 12 months compared to the previous year. In addition, the fuel price projection used for setting electricity rates dropped from $119 per barrel for the 12 months ending in June this year to $106 per barrel for the next 12 months, beginning in July 2013. Combined, these factors will result in a decrease in rates to consumers.
“While actual fuel prices were lower than projected over the past year, which was beneficial to consumers, the longer-term outlook is continued increases in prices and growing consumption of fuel at Holyrood due to the increasing electricity demand,” said Henderson. “The development of Muskrat Falls will avoid future exposure of growing dependence on fuel and the related increasing and volatile costs for electricity consumers, while at the same time significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." The purpose of the RSP is to adjust consumer rates annually to reflect the price of fuel used in the Holyrood plant and also takes into account the effect on fuel usage due to the annual amount of water available in Hydro's system for hydroelectric generation.
Through the use of the annual RSP, electricity rates for most consumers are adjusted each July to reflect these items. The application is a routine, annual filing with the PUB by Hydro. The cost of oil is a direct pass-through to consumers and neither utility receives any profits or benefits financially from changes in oil prices. “Although electricity prices are not increasing this July through the RSP, we encourage consumers to continue exploring ways to conserve energy and manage their usage and energy costs,” noted Henderson. “One way to do this is through takeCHARGE, our energy efficiency initiative with Newfoundland Power, which provides Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with information, tools and rebate programs to assist them in using energy wisely."
My Telegram website Comment :
A report by the Hatch consulting firm concluded that because Holyrood is used only sparingly (and at a low output level), it is functionally/operationally only about 20 years old. Also, the actual rate of increase in peak demand for 2012 was about 50% less than Nalcor's forecast, Nalcor forecast NO increase in demand from industrial customers past 2015, NL government studies (Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Reports) show that residential energy usage has gone DOWN (not up) 17% over the last 19 years (and targets a further 20% reduction by 2020)...... Muskrat Falls is not needed. Muskrat Falls locks in an annual, compound 2% increase in rates EVERY YEAR. Muskrat Falls' North Spur naturally occurring dam is on marine "quick clay", which is prone to rapid liquefaction and massive land slides (last occurring in 1978). Its mitigation is a potential SINK HOLE for BILLIONS of the provinces oil revenues (and windfall profits for SNC-Lavelin) -- see www.vision2041.com. ---- The Supreme Court has recently handed down a major decision in favour of the Metis aboriginal people and which puts the title to Muskrat Falls (which is within the NunatuKavut land claims area) at risk, ---- and on and on it goes......It is time for government to replace wishful thinking, hubrus, and legacy projects with rational thought and to replace this boondoggle with budgetary measures based on objective evidence and real consultation........... It is time to walk the talk.
Nalcor advises that for year 2012 Holyrood needed to provide only 10.8% (856 GWh) of the island's energy. The previous low was 10.5%, recorded in 2006.
And 856 GWh is only 28.5% of Holyrood's NET capacity of 2,995 GWh.
That leaves Holyrood with MORE THAN 2 full terawatts of energy not used --- 2 TERAWATTS EQUALS THE 40% OF MUSKRAT FALLS POWER THAT NALCOR SAYS WE URGENTLY NEED.
Over the next 50 years ratepayers will provide Nalcor with a cash flow of approximately $700 million per year (every year) for that so-called 2 terawatts of urgently needed Muskrat Falls power.
The power that we actually needed from Holyrood last year cost approximately $140 million.
However, Muskrat Falls will cost you, your children and grand children 5 times more each and every year for the next 50 years (to replace largely UNUSED Holyrood power).
Where will rates have to go to give Nalcor and government the $14.5 billion (debt servicing and operating costs) and the $20 billion additional "revenue" (TAX GRAB) from Muskrat Falls? --- on average, $700 million per year for 50 years?
Ratepayers do not need (and cannot afford) to pay 5 times more for UNNEEDED electricity (see DEMAND page).
20 April 2013
Government, aboriginal leadership, corporate structures --- interlinked?........... . Nalcor's DG2 forecast rate of increase in peak demand for 2012 was more than 5 times the island's actual increase, and the forecast rate of increase for year 2013 was 1.5 times more......... Millions (billions) up for grabs. All made available by way of an electricity tax grab that is being sold/marketed as a needed Muskrat Falls energy project..... Do we have corruption writ large?
Link to The Telegram article and read how SNC-Lavalin paper trail leads to Mount Pearl:- http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Columns/2013-04-20/article-3223628/Riadh-Ben-Aissa-paper-trail-leads-to-Mount-Pearl/1
19 April 2013
Headline from today's Globe and Mail ---- "N.Y. okays power line from Quebec"
The brief article goes on to say that the NY Public Service Commission has approved a plan to build a $2.2 billion, 1,000 MW transmission line from Quebec to NY City (539 kilometers).
If a 1,000 MW, 539 kilometer line costs $2.2 billion, how can Nalcor build a 1,100 kilometer (900 MW) line under the Strait of Belle Isle and down the Northern Peninsula for $2.1 billion)?
What will be the real cost (paid for lock, stock and barrel by ratepayers/taxpayers)?
--------------
Information (received this weeK) from Nalcor shows that the actual rate of increase in peak demand in 2012 was more than 5 times less than Nalcor's 2010 (DG2) forecast (0.4% vs. 2.1%). For 2013, the actual rate of increase in peak demand was 1.3% vs. a forecast 1.9% increase (more than 30% less).
On average over the 2 years, actual average rate of increase was almost 60% less than Nalcor's DG2 forecast.
18 April 2013
Originally, Nalcor claimed that Vale's Long Harbour plant's high power needs would have to be supplied by increased use (and cost) of operating the Holyrood oil-fired plant. However, when questioned about the high amount of water spilled from the island's hydro plants, Nalcor claimed that it would continue spilling until Vale came on stream to take up the slack (hydro would supply Vale instead of Holyrood). Now a CBC report http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2013/04/18/nl-corner-brook-mill-money-418.html is saying that Vale's needs will be met when the Duck Pond mining operations closes. SO where is the increase in demand coming from?
News Headline, CBC TV News ---------- "SNC-Lavelin banned from World Bank projects for 10 years"
12 April 2013
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro files for decrease in electricity rates through the Rate Stabilization Plan (however, with Muskrat Falls, consumers are locked into a 2% compound increase EVERY YEAR, or about a 10% increase every 4 years).
April 12, 2013 - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) filed an updated fuel price projection for the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP) with the Newfoundland and Labrador Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (PUB) today. This will result in a decrease in electricity rates to Newfoundland Power, and therefore most electricity consumers.
"We adjust rates every year based on the annual amount of water we have for hydroelectric generation and the price of oil used to generate electricity at the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station. This adjustment ensures that rates reflect the actual cost of electricity generation," said Rob Henderson, Vice President, Hydro. “This July, consumers will receive a decrease in electricity rates, which is due to lower than forecast cost of oil for the Holyrood plant and higher production from our hydroelectric generating plants over the past year due to the annual water availability.”
Excluding any rate changes approved by the PUB for Newfoundland Power, the RSP adjustment for most electricity consumers will result in an overall average decrease of about eight per cent, effective July 1, 2013. The actual amount of the rate change will vary, depending on customer category and the amount of electricity used. The amount of water available for hydroelectric generation increased over forecast last year. Thermal production from the Holyrood plant was also down over the last 12 months compared to the previous year. In addition, the fuel price projection used for setting electricity rates dropped from $119 per barrel for the 12 months ending in June this year to $106 per barrel for the next 12 months, beginning in July 2013. Combined, these factors will result in a decrease in rates to consumers.
“While actual fuel prices were lower than projected over the past year, which was beneficial to consumers, the longer-term outlook is continued increases in prices and growing consumption of fuel at Holyrood due to the increasing electricity demand,” said Henderson. “The development of Muskrat Falls will avoid future exposure of growing dependence on fuel and the related increasing and volatile costs for electricity consumers, while at the same time significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." The purpose of the RSP is to adjust consumer rates annually to reflect the price of fuel used in the Holyrood plant and also takes into account the effect on fuel usage due to the annual amount of water available in Hydro's system for hydroelectric generation.
Through the use of the annual RSP, electricity rates for most consumers are adjusted each July to reflect these items. The application is a routine, annual filing with the PUB by Hydro. The cost of oil is a direct pass-through to consumers and neither utility receives any profits or benefits financially from changes in oil prices. “Although electricity prices are not increasing this July through the RSP, we encourage consumers to continue exploring ways to conserve energy and manage their usage and energy costs,” noted Henderson. “One way to do this is through takeCHARGE, our energy efficiency initiative with Newfoundland Power, which provides Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with information, tools and rebate programs to assist them in using energy wisely."
My Telegram website Comment :
A report by the Hatch consulting firm concluded that because Holyrood is used only sparingly (and at a low output level), it is functionally/operationally only about 20 years old. Also, the actual rate of increase in peak demand for 2012 was about 50% less than Nalcor's forecast, Nalcor forecast NO increase in demand from industrial customers past 2015, NL government studies (Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Reports) show that residential energy usage has gone DOWN (not up) 17% over the last 19 years (and targets a further 20% reduction by 2020)...... Muskrat Falls is not needed. Muskrat Falls locks in an annual, compound 2% increase in rates EVERY YEAR. Muskrat Falls' North Spur naturally occurring dam is on marine "quick clay", which is prone to rapid liquefaction and massive land slides (last occurring in 1978). Its mitigation is a potential SINK HOLE for BILLIONS of the provinces oil revenues (and windfall profits for SNC-Lavelin) -- see www.vision2041.com. ---- The Supreme Court has recently handed down a major decision in favour of the Metis aboriginal people and which puts the title to Muskrat Falls (which is within the NunatuKavut land claims area) at risk, ---- and on and on it goes......It is time for government to replace wishful thinking, hubrus, and legacy projects with rational thought and to replace this boondoggle with budgetary measures based on objective evidence and real consultation........... It is time to walk the talk.
