Okay this request for an increase by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro comes out of thin air.
The proposed increases are more severe for Labrador.
This amounts to manipulation of the people in order to justify exporting Lower Churchill Power - instead of developing industry in Labrador.
The thinking will be that we need to export this power to keep rates lower for consumers in Labrador and on the island.
It is the policy of the Williams' government to leave hydro profits in the company rather than take them for general revenue. Therefore Hydro has more money in its till.
It is good to know they are engaging in the debate - albeit in a very sly way. Let's see the meat on the bones of the application first and then we will know how bogus the request is.
Clyde used similar tactics in his attempt to turn hydro over to the good old boys. Danny is using the same thinking.
If none of this is the case, we should fire Ed Martin as the President and Dean MacDonald as chair of the board.
Your not fooling me Williams - you just making it more interesting.
12 comments:
You wrote: "This amounts to manipulation of the people in order to justify exporting Lower Churchill power..."
Your post does not make it clear at all how another Hydro rate increase application is manipulation nor have you demonstrated how it is in anyway linked to a project that does not yet exist.
Your comment immediately after that one, aside from being apparently little more than a paranoid delusion, also appears to make no sense.
If I follow your own Lower Churchill argument correctly, the province should double its debt by building the Lower Churchill to provide low-cost power for NL. Yet, the implication of your post statement is that using the power within NL would mean higher domestic rates. That's the only reason why the current Hydro application could be used to justify exporting Lower Churchill power and keeping domestic rates low.
The next sentence in your post suddenly leaps to the issue of Hydro profits. You make no connection between the rate increase, Hydro profits and the Lower Churchill.
You are correct that the Williams administration has left profits in the company. Let me add some information that you will almost inevitably claim you already knew but for some incomprehensible reason left out of your disjointed presentation.
Williams and company likely stopped taking dividends from Hydro for two reasons: First oil money is so great, they just didn't need it as governments did before. Direct oil revenues were almost a billion in 2005 and will be over $1.0 billion in 2006.
Second, increasing Hydro's retained earnings over time puts the company in better financial shape to try and do the Lower Churchill as a "go it alone" project and at the same time get into the capital-intensive oil and gas business on a go-it-alone basis.
Your next sentence appears to be incomprehensible, refering as it does to Hydro taking part in some form of debate but doing so sureptitiously.
What debate are you talking about? With whom is Hydro debating secretly? And how is filing a rate application through a public process part of some sort of clandestine debate, except in a paranoid delusion of some sort?
The last two sentences are equally odd. If none of your post is true, then we should not be firing Martin and MacDonald. Rather we should be wondering about the accuracy of what you say.
As for Danny trying to fool anyone, I doubt very much it is aimed directly at you. And it certainly isn't clear what the "it" is that the Premier is supposedly making more interesting.
Would you care to make a longer post and explain in a bit more detail bow you see all this fitting together?
ed have you opened your blog for comment yet?
I gather you have difficulty responding to simple questions. That's the only reason you keep raising irrelevent side issues.
Do you find it difficult to have someone comment on your own blog when you - yourself - opened comments? The last time people showed up and started asking you to back up your claims you deleted comments you didn't like and then finally shut down comments altogether.
ED, HAVE YOU OPENED YOUR BLOG YET TO COMMENT? SIMPLE QUESTION
Sue:
Are you able to show us the calculations to back your Upper Churchill claims?
Simpler questions.
Sue:
Why do you continuously say things which are incorrect and later claim you knew the difference all along?
Simpler simpler question.
What was this post all about?
Simpler, simpler, simpler question.
Simplest of all?
Why do you raise irrelevent side issues rather than deal directly with questions about your own views and opinions?
What are you afraid of?
ed, do do you allow comments on your blog yet?
There are no comments on the blog and haven't been since about this time last year.
There were never that many and of those that did show up, they were usually anonymous - the chickenshit brigade as I call them - and/or they raised irrelevent side issues like this question about comments on my blog. Eliminating that little option didn't eliminate anything at all.
Oddly enough, the people who raise this issue - the ONLY people - are people like you, Sue, who:
a. have a blog of their own on which to post; and,
b. want to avoid answering some simple questions about their own posts.
People who want to give me some feedback, good or bad, on the stuff I post do so through e-mail.
You know how it works. You've sent me some disjointed ones that mirror what you post here sometimes. You ent them when you were upset that I took issue with some of the stuff you were saying on Open Line.
That is, when you were calling Open Line and weren't in a snit because you couldn't call in every single day.
I should note for your readers that you offered nothing of substance, just the speculation about my state of mind or your own delusions about events of almost 15 years ago. In other words, as now, you ere simply avoiding dealing with core issues by going off on irrelevent tangents.
But now that I have answered your simple and irrelevent question, let's see you answer the simple but highly relevent questions that have been posed to you here.
Don't worry. I won't be holding my breath.
will you allow open and public comments on your blog?
What were you doing on Stephen Harper's advance bus?
will you allow open and public comments on your blog?
Why were you so strenuously shilling for Conservative candidates in the last election without revealing publicly that you had been on the Harper tour bus?
And given your support of Stephen Harper, why have you so suddenly changed your mind about Harper and his local MPs?
Why do you continually avoid questions about your own positions?
will you allow open and public comments on your blog?
Post a Comment