This will be a short post:
The Premier on VOCM this morning said "this is not a crisis" over and over.
However - when the Premier was talking about being accountable - open - and transparent about the goings on with our Electrical system the Premier says not now we are in a "critical situation".
Yes Premier - critical political situation while the rest of us are in a crisis.
We need the resignations of two of our employees immediately - the first Premier Kathy Dunderdale and the second CEO Nalcor Ed Martin. Gilbert Bennett should follow close behind them. Then and only then can we really deal with this crisis.
The poles are very much more stable than the polls for the Premier - so her crisis is the poll.
Showing posts with label pub. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pub. Show all posts
Monday, January 06, 2014
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Muskrat Falls - Roger Grimes - Kathy Dunderdale - PUB
Roger Grimes made a public statement yesterday in a Letter to the Editor; the Telegram's Weekend Edition.
With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.
The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.
The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.
Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.
So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.
Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?
Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.
When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.
The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.
Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.
Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.
The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:
1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.
The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.
There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.
If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.
The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.
With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.
The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.
The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.
Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.
So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.
Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?
Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.
When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.
The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.
Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.
Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.
The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:
1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.
The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.
There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.
If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.
The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Will we be buying OUR Power from Emera next?
While PUB hearings continue on the "proposed" Muskrat Falls deal - Emera is humming along creeping further and further into Newfoundland and Labrador.
This "proposed" deal must just be words for show - similar to the "consumer (us)" PUB hearings that are underway - albeit controlled, manipulated, and interfered with.
Slowly but surely - the establishment that wanted to rid you of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - are coming back to try again. We are going to be hammered and privatized.
Please read the story below from the Chronicle Herald:
Emera Utility Services Inc. announced Monday that it has acquired a Newfoundland company, establishing its first presence in that province.
Emera Utility Services has purchased Green’s Service Station Ltd., a utility line and communications construction, installation and maintenance business in Goobies, N.L.
A purchase price was not disclosed by the Nova Scotia company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Emera Inc.
“We’re not going to disclose the purchase price, other than it is not material to Emera,” said Emera Utility Services president and chief operating officer Dan Muldoon in a phone interview.
While Emera Newfoundland & Labrador, a company developing a Maritime link associated with the Lower Churchill project, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Emera Inc., Monday’s announced acquisition represents the first foray for Emera Utility Services into the Newfoundland market.
The company has facilities in Dartmouth, Truro, Sydney, Saint John, Moncton, Fredericton and Charlottetown.
The acquisition represented an opportunity for the company to find a new market to grow its business, Muldoon said.
“Part of our growth strategy over the last number of years has been to both diversify our lines of businesses as well as on a geographic basis,” he said.
“And Newfoundland is a logical step for us given the amount of future activity in transmission line construction that could happen in that province.”
What made Green’s attractive was that it focused on transmission line maintenance and construction, an area of growth targeted by Emera Utility Services.
“We were looking over there for a while and Green’s has been around for almost 30 years, has a very good, solid reputation for performing quality work and has good relationships with customers,” Muldoon said. “And we felt, of the companies over there, Green’s was the best one for us to acquire.”
As part of the transaction, the entire existing staff of 80 full- and part-time employees from Green’s, including founder and former president Vernon Smith, will join the Emera Utility Services team. Smith has been retained as the new managing director.
“It is a construction company so its staffing levels go up and down based on the amount of projects that they actually have currently underway,” Muldoon said.
While future growth in Newfoundland is planned, Muldoon said the company will focus on moving forward with Green’s.
“I think at this time we’re going to use the next number of weeks to actually integrate Green’s into our operations and get a position for the amount of current work that we have over there with the customers.
“We hope to grow the company based on what we think potentially could be a fair amount of work over there.”
_________________________________________________________________
So what's next? Will they be seeking all the maintenance from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's system? Will they be seeking to buy Newfoundland Power?
This Nova Scotia Company and a few wealthy investors want it all - right?
One thing for certain - the tone of the comments confirms that they think the deal on Muskrat is done and they are getting corporately bored - while our Premier puts on a show for the people.
Flip those utilities say the amigos. How long after Emera takes all what's here in power before HQ buys these assets out?
What a legacy for our children!
This "proposed" deal must just be words for show - similar to the "consumer (us)" PUB hearings that are underway - albeit controlled, manipulated, and interfered with.
Slowly but surely - the establishment that wanted to rid you of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - are coming back to try again. We are going to be hammered and privatized.
Please read the story below from the Chronicle Herald:
Emera Utility Services Inc. announced Monday that it has acquired a Newfoundland company, establishing its first presence in that province.
Emera Utility Services has purchased Green’s Service Station Ltd., a utility line and communications construction, installation and maintenance business in Goobies, N.L.
A purchase price was not disclosed by the Nova Scotia company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Emera Inc.
“We’re not going to disclose the purchase price, other than it is not material to Emera,” said Emera Utility Services president and chief operating officer Dan Muldoon in a phone interview.
While Emera Newfoundland & Labrador, a company developing a Maritime link associated with the Lower Churchill project, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Emera Inc., Monday’s announced acquisition represents the first foray for Emera Utility Services into the Newfoundland market.
The company has facilities in Dartmouth, Truro, Sydney, Saint John, Moncton, Fredericton and Charlottetown.
The acquisition represented an opportunity for the company to find a new market to grow its business, Muldoon said.
“Part of our growth strategy over the last number of years has been to both diversify our lines of businesses as well as on a geographic basis,” he said.
“And Newfoundland is a logical step for us given the amount of future activity in transmission line construction that could happen in that province.”
What made Green’s attractive was that it focused on transmission line maintenance and construction, an area of growth targeted by Emera Utility Services.
“We were looking over there for a while and Green’s has been around for almost 30 years, has a very good, solid reputation for performing quality work and has good relationships with customers,” Muldoon said. “And we felt, of the companies over there, Green’s was the best one for us to acquire.”
As part of the transaction, the entire existing staff of 80 full- and part-time employees from Green’s, including founder and former president Vernon Smith, will join the Emera Utility Services team. Smith has been retained as the new managing director.
“It is a construction company so its staffing levels go up and down based on the amount of projects that they actually have currently underway,” Muldoon said.
While future growth in Newfoundland is planned, Muldoon said the company will focus on moving forward with Green’s.
“I think at this time we’re going to use the next number of weeks to actually integrate Green’s into our operations and get a position for the amount of current work that we have over there with the customers.
“We hope to grow the company based on what we think potentially could be a fair amount of work over there.”
_________________________________________________________________
So what's next? Will they be seeking all the maintenance from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's system? Will they be seeking to buy Newfoundland Power?
This Nova Scotia Company and a few wealthy investors want it all - right?
One thing for certain - the tone of the comments confirms that they think the deal on Muskrat is done and they are getting corporately bored - while our Premier puts on a show for the people.
Flip those utilities say the amigos. How long after Emera takes all what's here in power before HQ buys these assets out?
What a legacy for our children!
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Former AG John Noseworthy - Special Assignment?
My vote to lead an independent review of the proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls is John Noseworthy.
First - he has spent a portion of his professional career being "independent", second his audit abilities are fine tuned, and third he has proven his worth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a watchdog.
Now the deal would be that Mr. Noseworthy has unfettered access to ALL the information - including the ability to test ALL assumptions and look at ALL alternatives.
As people who are being asked to spend 6 billion dollars of our money - our children's and our grandchildren's money - we want to do our due diligence.
Noseworthy may not be an energy expert - but he can employ that expertise.
Let Mr. Noseworthy hold public meetings and conduct individual interviews to establish what the outstanding issues and concerns are. Let Mr. Noseworthy review the processes used by Nalcor and Government to achieve this proposed deal with Emera. Let Mr. Noseworthy employ the experts he feels necessary to review energy potentials and the costs and benefits of each.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine costs and benefits or pitfalls of a deal with Emera and let him examine whether other potential partnerships or contracts for supply of power could bring the people who own the resource - us - a better rate of return.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine the Island's "real" need for power - not based on Hydro's assumptions but based on thorough research of the situation and the installed assets we currently own.
Let him do an audit of our installed capacity and look at efficiency potentials and review whether all capacity is being used.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine industrial potentials for the power in Labrador and compare the price of power delivered to a customer in Labrador versus doubling the cost from lengthy and complicated transmission routes.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine tenders already awarded and determine whether the process used was fair and provided the best value for our money.
Let. Mr. Noseworthy determine if it is necessary for Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers to subsidize costs for power delivery to other provinces.
Let Mr. Noseworthy determine what the costs of the Muskrat development would be - as part of a complete development of the Lower Churchill - including Gull Island and then compare that to the current proposal.
Let. him determine if developing Gull Island first would bring a better return.
Let Mr. Noseworthy review the proposed deal under Premier Grimes and compare it to the proposed deal of Premier Williams - to determine which of the two provided the best return to us - the owners - and best deal to us - the ratepayers.
Then as the kicker let Mr. Noseworthy and his team review the past 5 years of Nalcor operations - all books - all contracts - and all assumptions.
Let him determine what the cost-overruns might be.
Then he can provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the information we need to ensure we never repeat past mistakes and to ensure we are using our natural resources for the maximum benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For Premier Dunderdale's peace of mind - he just ran as a PC candidate - so she can be assured he would not be a Liberal or NDP naysayer.
I vote for John Noseworthy - on Special Assignment.
First - he has spent a portion of his professional career being "independent", second his audit abilities are fine tuned, and third he has proven his worth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a watchdog.
Now the deal would be that Mr. Noseworthy has unfettered access to ALL the information - including the ability to test ALL assumptions and look at ALL alternatives.
As people who are being asked to spend 6 billion dollars of our money - our children's and our grandchildren's money - we want to do our due diligence.
Noseworthy may not be an energy expert - but he can employ that expertise.
Let Mr. Noseworthy hold public meetings and conduct individual interviews to establish what the outstanding issues and concerns are. Let Mr. Noseworthy review the processes used by Nalcor and Government to achieve this proposed deal with Emera. Let Mr. Noseworthy employ the experts he feels necessary to review energy potentials and the costs and benefits of each.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine costs and benefits or pitfalls of a deal with Emera and let him examine whether other potential partnerships or contracts for supply of power could bring the people who own the resource - us - a better rate of return.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine the Island's "real" need for power - not based on Hydro's assumptions but based on thorough research of the situation and the installed assets we currently own.
Let him do an audit of our installed capacity and look at efficiency potentials and review whether all capacity is being used.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine industrial potentials for the power in Labrador and compare the price of power delivered to a customer in Labrador versus doubling the cost from lengthy and complicated transmission routes.
Let Mr. Noseworthy examine tenders already awarded and determine whether the process used was fair and provided the best value for our money.
Let. Mr. Noseworthy determine if it is necessary for Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers to subsidize costs for power delivery to other provinces.
Let Mr. Noseworthy determine what the costs of the Muskrat development would be - as part of a complete development of the Lower Churchill - including Gull Island and then compare that to the current proposal.
Let. him determine if developing Gull Island first would bring a better return.
Let Mr. Noseworthy review the proposed deal under Premier Grimes and compare it to the proposed deal of Premier Williams - to determine which of the two provided the best return to us - the owners - and best deal to us - the ratepayers.
Then as the kicker let Mr. Noseworthy and his team review the past 5 years of Nalcor operations - all books - all contracts - and all assumptions.
Let him determine what the cost-overruns might be.
Then he can provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the information we need to ensure we never repeat past mistakes and to ensure we are using our natural resources for the maximum benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For Premier Dunderdale's peace of mind - he just ran as a PC candidate - so she can be assured he would not be a Liberal or NDP naysayer.
I vote for John Noseworthy - on Special Assignment.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Is Emera deal based on a False diagnosis and Limited treatment options?
In today's Telegram - Russell Wangersky addresses an important point. "Covering all the bases" deals with assumptions and reviews.
Last week Sue's Blog asked the following question?
"Why are all independent reviews guided by Nalcor's numbers and projections?"
Be it Manitoba Hydro or Navigant - in completing an "independent" review - they were restricted by defined options and defined assumptions.
I have no doubt that I and many other interested individuals - if tasked with the same body of work - would come back with the same conclusions.
If you have inaccurate assumptions going in you may have an inaccurate finding coming out.
Then based on the possible inaccurate conclusions you then present two possible options for resolving what may be non-existent problem.
Wangersky's column starts to deal with this mess.
Let's compare this to a health issue. A patient presents to a physician with a distended stomach. The physician proceeds to measure the stomach - touch the affected area - and question the patient on how they are feeling.
From there the physician says you have a tumor and here are your two options. We can cut it out - or we can radiate. The physician then spends significant time explaining the potential risks and side-affects of each treatment. From there the patient is asked to make a decision.
The patient instead asks the doctor to get a second opinion. The physician sends to a second and third physician the conclusions and treatment options. The other doctors are advised that no other treatment options can be considered and the original findings of a tumor have to be accepted based on the tests of the original physician.
The following problems exist:
1. The diagnosis was based on a limited number of tests and therefore may not be sufficient to determine the real cause of the distended stomach.
2. The treatment may be inappropriate as the problem and causes were incorrectly diagnosed.
3. Even if the diagnosis of a tumor was accurate - limiting the choice of treatment options does not allow another doctor to recommend a treatment that may be superior to the other two and may in fact cause less distress and provide a better health outcome for the patient.
This is exactly the problem we have here.
Sue's Blog - does have a recommendation for an independent review - Stay tuned for next post.
Last week Sue's Blog asked the following question?
"Why are all independent reviews guided by Nalcor's numbers and projections?"
Be it Manitoba Hydro or Navigant - in completing an "independent" review - they were restricted by defined options and defined assumptions.
I have no doubt that I and many other interested individuals - if tasked with the same body of work - would come back with the same conclusions.
If you have inaccurate assumptions going in you may have an inaccurate finding coming out.
Then based on the possible inaccurate conclusions you then present two possible options for resolving what may be non-existent problem.
Wangersky's column starts to deal with this mess.
Let's compare this to a health issue. A patient presents to a physician with a distended stomach. The physician proceeds to measure the stomach - touch the affected area - and question the patient on how they are feeling.
From there the physician says you have a tumor and here are your two options. We can cut it out - or we can radiate. The physician then spends significant time explaining the potential risks and side-affects of each treatment. From there the patient is asked to make a decision.
The patient instead asks the doctor to get a second opinion. The physician sends to a second and third physician the conclusions and treatment options. The other doctors are advised that no other treatment options can be considered and the original findings of a tumor have to be accepted based on the tests of the original physician.
The following problems exist:
1. The diagnosis was based on a limited number of tests and therefore may not be sufficient to determine the real cause of the distended stomach.
2. The treatment may be inappropriate as the problem and causes were incorrectly diagnosed.
3. Even if the diagnosis of a tumor was accurate - limiting the choice of treatment options does not allow another doctor to recommend a treatment that may be superior to the other two and may in fact cause less distress and provide a better health outcome for the patient.
This is exactly the problem we have here.
Sue's Blog - does have a recommendation for an independent review - Stay tuned for next post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)