Power plans call for Royal commission
Published Wednesday November 25th, 2009
Two new messages have been rolled out this week in the Liberals' effort to sell the NB Power deal. After all, that's what we pay big bucks to the hired communications firms to deliver.
The first is that low-income single mothers support the deal because it will freeze their power rates for five years. I'm sure everyone in low-income brackets would welcome some rate relief, not just single moms. One has to ask the question, however, what options have been examined to provide this help? Surely you don't have to sell the farm to fix this problem.
The government could look to its own poverty reduction strategy announced last week. It will immediately increase social assistance payments and eliminate the punitive policy that forbade anyone on social assistance from sharing a residence to stretch a limited budget further. This is a huge step forward and should offset the three-per-cent rate hike due in April.
Bolstering the budget of Efficiency New Brunswick and NB Housing to retrofit homes, replace electric heating systems, and get landlords moving on energy upgrades of rental units would have a similar effect and deliver all kinds of other benefits. Such investments are the cornerstone of a green economic transformation that would serve to increase employment while reducing our vast ecological footprint.
The second message (and contrary to earlier messages) is that NB Power's current debt is not the problem. This must be in response to the auditor-general's point that NB Power is earning revenue to service the debt and therefore it is not an issue for the provincial accounts. At the Green Party's public forum on the deal held in Fredericton last Friday, wind energy expert Yves Gagnon at the Université de Moncton noted that NB Power's per capita debt is pretty standard for most electrical utilities.
The real debt problem, according to Energy Minister Jack Keir, is the future debt, which he projects as a minimum of $10 billion. This will come, he claims, between 2025 and 2035 as our current generating stations are rebuilt to continue to supply our power needs.
This is nothing more than an attempt to scare people with big numbers. No government or utility in its right mind (Bernard Lord and Shawn Graham excepted) would rebuild thermal generating stations in the 21st century. To even suggest this reveals a government completely disconnected from the coming climate change tsunami.
More to the point, does Minister Keir believe that Hydro-Québec won't also be faced with rebuilding power stations and dams as the stations providing the so-called heritage pool of power age? And does he not think the cost of doing so will be passed on to customers?
New Brunswickers will pay for replacing Mactaquac whether Hydro-Québec does the work or NB Power. There is no free lunch where energy is concerned. Estimates of the cost of power from any new dams Hydro-Québec might build in the future are in the 11 cent to 12 cent/KWH range, a far cry from the current cost of producing power in Quebec of less than three cents. Low power rates are not forever with this deal.
New Brunswickers need to understand that despite what the government says, this isn't an either-or situation - either sell the farm or be strangled with high power rates. As we heard from Yves Gagnon and the Conservation Council's David Coon at the public forum, a government with an eye on global energy and environmental trends would invest strategically in maximizing energy efficiency, building a smart grid to allow for distributed power generation, and facilitating the development of community-based renewable energy generation. This would ensure that economic benefits flow to communities (not to offshore corporate investors), while reducing dependency on the vagaries of distant energy markets.
There are options. Yet New Brunswickers are not being given an opportunity to examine them and make an informed choice.
In previous columns I have called for a public inquiry into our energy dilemma. Another public forum speaker, Andrew Secord, chair of the St. Thomas University economics department, proposed a slightly different approach. He recommended a Royal commission on energy, which would examine our future energy options and map out a strategy for getting where we want and need to be.
This, I believe, is something everyone could get behind. Suspend this deal (and the public relations campaign behind it) and give New Brunswickers the opportunity to participate in determining our energy future. Such an approach is long overdue, and the government that chooses it would build a positive and respectful relationship with citizens of this province.
Janice Harvey is a freelance columnist, university lecturer and president of the NB Green Party. She is also a long-time director of the Conservation Council and the spouse of David Coon. She can be reached by email at waweig@xplornet.ca
Disabled
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (9)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
Also, retrofitting homes doesn't really address the environmental problem here. That would allow for LESS use of a dirty energy source. Why not transition to a cleaner and more renewable source altogether.
She also suggests that 3% is a reasonable yearly rate increase. That's only because the government imposed a cap recently. For how long will that be viable? The debt and future upgrade costs should see to it that rates keep climbing upwards.
In one breath she slams Belledune then in the other she's like but don't take it away. WAJ
"Change the subject to distract from the white elephant in the room"
Why talk about the sale of NB Power which is the real issue when you can distract by talking about dirty energy sources.
Trying to weasel a little free advertising to boost her party's standing in the polls. The latest opinion poll has Janice Harvey's Green Party at 3%.
Before he became PM, Harper called the Kyoto Protocol a socialist money-sucking scheme to transfer money from rich countries to poor. He has now been proven 100% correct. Just look at the Copenhagen agenda.
So Janet, you've been a shill for this scheme from the beginning. How about a Royal Commission on the Green Party promoting bogus "science" that would cost us many times more than any Hydro-Quebec deal?
smalldeadanimals.com
This is not the time for deal making much less striking up panels of select interests with personal gain for rubberstamping crap. I do not buy the rational that attempts to instill fear of some "dreaded" 3% rate increase as a impetus to fast and foolhardy action. I would rather swallow any 3% increase due if by doing so I may enable far more insightfull and thoughtful consideration of options. This deal is fashioned in the absence of any inspiring strategy. It represents a uninspired, ill informed and blind stab into the dark. Note the confusion created by its own proponents as they make attempt to decifer it and interpret its value and implications! What else to expect from those who attempt deals within vacumes believing ignorance is cheaper than an education?