- Maurice E. Adams
- August 20, 2012 - 13:09
So MHI (who has already previously said it supports Muskrat Falls) is already half way through its review of Nalcor's final numbers. ..... How is it then that MHI will have many weeks MORE to review and prepare its report than our own MHAs will have? Where the is the objectivity, and where is the respect for island ratepayers, the people who will bear the multi-billion dollar cost of this project?
- Winston Adams
- August 20, 2012 - 13:05
Given we now have 85 percent hydro on the island, I think our rates should continue to be below the national average. We are now 50 percent more than Man., BC, and Que. and with MF will be double them. Given our existing high percentage of hydro , we should not have to go much more than 50 percent more than Man,BC. and Que If lowest cost is properly assessed we should be able to achieve that. We should have costs lower than the Maritime provinces and Ont.For many products are costs are more than elsewhere. But for electricity this should not be the case. strange that we want to give/sell our electricity at low prices for export while substancially increasing our domestic prices. I think you are right- MF would be good at 3 billion, but not at 6 billion, and a disaster at 9 billion, maybe too at 8 billion. Even wade Locke questions the local demand and therefore the cost at 8 billion. And low local demand makes for bad economics even at 6 billion
- Cold Future
- August 20, 2012 - 09:06
As long as the project can be built while keeping the domestic rates for consumers at the canadian average with canadian average escalation rates, it should proceed. If not it should be stopped and ecomomically viable projects developed when the power is needed. It is not accepatble to build it and have Consumers in this province pay extra high rates to subsidize rates to mainland consumers. It should be viable at $ 3 billion but not at $6 billion. $9 billion would be a disaster for Newfoundland.