- July 04, 2013 - 08:51
Russell, was my question so embarrassing that they wouldn't even post it? I watched Ed Martin online for 2 or 3 hours and wished I was there to ask a question. I realized I could post a question on line that would get answered later ,so I did so. It went like this: The rationale for MF is that we need more energy for electric heat in the winter, as you claim that efficiency gains for houses is approaching saturation. Yet new housing codes passed in 2012 reduce energy needs by 27 percent and is very cost effective. Add cost effective heatpump heating and the winter reduction for new houses is another 27 percent. For older houses, the cost effective heatpump heating reduces winter time heat energy by 60 percent. Is not the suggestion of efficiency saturation for housing wrong, and therefore the rationale for MF wrong? Is it not a substancial risk to the forecast energy need of about 1 percent per year for the island? Is this question so embarrassing that it should not be asked, as Nalcor has not posted it? Is it important enough for some journalist at the Telegram to demand an answer from Nalcor? Or does the Telegram too find it embarrassing? Russell, you highlighted a number of questions in your article that are not being answered, but they filter mine so it is not even asked! Is it a silly unworthy question?
- Cyril Rogers
- June 29, 2013 - 21:21
Surely, the lack of information forthcoming from NALCOR and being denied due to "commercial sensitivity", is simply a smokescreen to deflect us away from the truth. The ugly truth is that this project is vastly over-priced for the value it will give to us, the ratepayers. Yet, this NALCOR monolith is doing a complete snow job when it comes to getting at the truth. Let me warn Mr. Martin....you can only hide the truth so long, sir, and you will eventually be called to account for your decision to proceed with this uneconomic and unneeded project. You will have to cough up the truth some day and neither you nor the current PC administration will be able to hide behind secrecy laws.
- June 29, 2013 - 19:46
during the 2013 agm ed martin spoke at length about the future of nalcor. There was no powerpoint to go with the discussion, and no written script of the speech. Ed martin talked about using revenue from the regulated business ti fuel growth, especially GULL island. there was no talk of the 400 million which will be returned to the government from muskrat alone. Ed Martin said alot in this speech and it was not covered by the media. but it was clear to me that it will be a long time before the taxpayer ever see a dividend from nalcor. In a OECD country there should be a much higher standard for transparency. where is the public discussion? what are we getting for the billions of taxpayer money which is being invested? how did this happen?
- Corporate Psycho
- June 29, 2013 - 12:57
The truth? We are being taken advantage of big time and the government is getting away with it.
- June 29, 2013 - 11:01
Reading your article interesting article like to know who you are talking about when you spoke of when you said the truth?and when you said you can't handle the truths????-referring to the title of you article????
- June 29, 2013 - 11:46
Well Crista, that's clear as mud. But brief, so kudos for that. And you really should get that keyboard checked out....if you're worried about electricity costs, those excess ???s eventually add up.
- June 29, 2013 - 19:10
Sticky keyboards must be contagious. Whether it's Christa's "????" or David's with the "....".
- June 29, 2013 - 20:48
- June 29, 2013 - 08:06
During the pub process Nalcor's line was that equity was the most expensive form of financing. It is why in their weighted discount rate they assigned 10% to equity and 6% to borrowed money. Why then is the province putting more equity for any overruns not covered by the loan garuntee? The debt to equity ratio will fall below the 65 to 35 ratio they have been maintaining to date. Why would more equity be used, if this could be financed outside of the loan garuntee and built into the rates. The reason is very likely due that without the loan garuntee this project can not be financed. Putting more equity into the project will only increase our rates even further as nalcor are looking for a ROE which exceeds the borrow rate. Another piece of info that nalcor are not fully explaining. Excellent column russel.