- Jon Smith
- February 05, 2014 - 12:27
Where will the power come from for the third line? Muskrat power is booked for Holyrood replacement and sold to Emera and NS consumers at subsidized rates. The recall power at Upper Churchill is being wheeled through Quebec (making history) under a contract with Emera. So the power will have to be bought back from Emera or bought from Hydro Quebec at the bus in Churchill. Will the newfoundland consumer have to subsidize the transmission line to wheel Quebec power bought back at exorbitant rates? Stay tuned.-the worst may not have come to light yet with respect to the Labrador power mess.
- February 05, 2014 - 16:25
So let's debate where it will come from: (1) 40% of Muskrat is slated for the island (Holyrood replacement and load growth) and another 20% to Emera - these are the only firm contracts for Muskrat power - there is another 40% remaining. (2) The Energy Access Agreement signed with Emera last fall for surplus, non-firm energy clearly states that NL customers come first, so that's not an issue. (3) The current arrangement with Emera has them selling what Nalcor doesn't use here at home (about 80 MW in the winter - more in the summer)- so if it is used in Labrador then Emera does not take it to market on Nalcor's behalf - there is no selling and buying back that you illude to. Seems to me there is more than enough to meet the expected 60MW demand that Alderon is talking about. By-the-way, I happen to agree with Mr. Adams that the PUB is the right venue to debate the merits of a new line to Lab West
- Just sayin
- February 02, 2014 - 20:30
And to think, our power blackout would have been much lees severe if they had build the third line to the Avalon, for about 220 million. The said in was needed in 2011, then pulled back the application once Muskrat got the green light. Can be sure Johnson will give them hell over that!
- Just sayin
- February 02, 2014 - 20:25
Seems there is no one watching out for the average ratepayer. Tom Johnson? I bet not one in 5000 knows he is our appointed advocate. Industry get the red carpet and homeowners get screwed on electricity rate protection. We need a Consumer Group association to intervene at the PUB for better protection. Johnson was pro Muskrat and pro business ( reduced rates for them while residential rates went up). Should Johnson even represent us at the blackout inquiry? I suggest not.
- Fred Penner
- February 01, 2014 - 07:33
You are quite right in that the line should not be built unless it is economically feasible to do so. However, I note that you require an evidence based review. Your ability to obfuscate and select only the "evidence" which suits your premise has been well documented.... especially as relates to Muskrat Falls. Your conclusions therefore are based on a superficial understanding but they do make for good press!
- Maurice E. Adams
- February 04, 2014 - 11:05
Fred, the forum through which the general public (taxpayer/ratepayer) is able to have access to all sides of the issue and thereby have fair and transparent access to relevant information (not just the few slanted tidbits that Nalcor chooses to release) is our Public Utilities Board. Muskrat Falls is deemed "economically feasible" only because ratepayers are forced , by law, to pay for it ---- lock, stock and barrel, no matter what the cost, no matter if it is needed or not, no matter if it is affordable or not, no matter if it is reliable or not. So there is more to such major taxpayer/ratepayer paid-for projects than 'economic feasibility'. But of course, you know that, but nevertheless, it is you who chooses to misrepresent and obfuscate.