Remember this? “Muskrat Falls is the least-cost option,” or, the other one, “We need the power.”
One of my favourites is, the cost of electricity is going to go up anyway. In fact, in the long term, it will be $2 billion cheaper with Muskrat Falls.
To prove the point, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro raised its rates by 13 per cent for 2012 and 2013 using the pretext that oil prices would be as high as $124 a barrel. After the government sanctioned the project, there was no need to fudge the numbers, so we should all rejoice that on July 1 we will see a decrease in our electricity bill.
Because of the way that Nalcor has structured the financing of the project (the only reference I could find was on page 79 of the Public Utilities Board report), we, the ratepayers, will never see another decrease in our rates for the next 50 years.
So much for least-cost. Do we need the power?
Since the introduction of the curly light bulbs, the LED and LCD televisions and vast improvements in electric heat, consumption has gone down.
Hydro knows by how much, so why hasn’t any of its data been used to prove Nalcor’s case for the need of Muskrat Falls?