tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post409735417729023264..comments2023-10-25T07:29:40.789-02:30Comments on UNCLE GNARLEY: EXPERT PANEL NEEDED NOW TO EXAMINE NL'S FINANCIAL MESSDes Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02566013585647491614noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-12699424708223019922018-08-03T17:13:08.998-02:302018-08-03T17:13:08.998-02:30Unfortunately the Former Finance Minister's fi...Unfortunately the Former Finance Minister's first instinct to pay down the debt was changed. This should be a civil servant of a responsible government should do -- to reduce the debt burden of the tax payers and future generations. But it is not difficult to imagine that politicians, bureaucrats, and economic consultants prefer not to do this because they themselves immediately gain directly or indirectly from higher current government expenditures; and simply leave the fiscal mess and fiasco to the taxpayers and future generations. What a conflict between private self interest and public interest!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-91553609709128899762018-08-03T16:18:16.884-02:302018-08-03T16:18:16.884-02:30Don't worry, I just copied and pasted what I w...Don't worry, I just copied and pasted what I wrote here, in 2016.Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-26133429603624451592018-08-03T15:48:00.581-02:302018-08-03T15:48:00.581-02:30I see you guys monitor this blog pretty closely. D...I see you guys monitor this blog pretty closely. Did you say you have a job and work also?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-37835387587363311052018-08-03T15:02:28.478-02:302018-08-03T15:02:28.478-02:30FWIW:
"An economic analysis (commissioned by...FWIW: <br />"An economic analysis (commissioned by the Graham government) to Washington's NERA Economic Consulting estimated that the tentative deal would save New Brunswick ratepayers $5.6 billion over a 30-year period compared to the status quo. The study also showed that residential, commercial and wholesale customers would reap 60% of the savings, but the savings would happen later than the discounts granted upfront to large industrial customers."<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />In Quebec, that deal was more and more perceived as giving away 100% of the cost savings to NB Hydro clients (well, "subsidizing" was the term used), while taking over crumbling assets that would need huge repair investments.<br /><br />But hey! Luckily NB avoided that some of its power generating capacity fell into "foreign hands"!!!Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-1868565937077194982018-08-03T14:57:54.214-02:302018-08-03T14:57:54.214-02:30Anon 13:48
Why are you spreading fake news again?...Anon 13:48<br /><br />Why are you spreading fake news again?<br /><br />"Under the deal (NB Hydro sale), Hydro-Québec would have acquired most of the province's power-generation assets, but New Brunswick WOULD MAINTAIN CONTROL of transmission and distribution."<br /><br />http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/power-deal-deadline-flexible-keir-1.866768<br /><br />Again, NB missed a fantastic opportunity to wipe out NBH debt, obtain much lower power rates and modernise its assets at no costs.<br /><br />But hey, HQ is evil anyways! So those facts must not be real, right? <br />Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-85780303155903543052018-08-03T13:48:00.372-02:302018-08-03T13:48:00.372-02:30HQ failed to secure the deal with NB, when NB deci...HQ failed to secure the deal with NB, when NB decided to maintain control of their transmission lines at NL's request. This did not satisfy HQ's requirement. I wonder why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-57347961375225698862018-07-30T12:52:08.073-02:302018-07-30T12:52:08.073-02:30Hi Tor,
Indeed, operating costs are expected to i...Hi Tor,<br /><br />Indeed, operating costs are expected to increase yearly and they are not part of the 12.7 billions. They are also expected to be so high that they will not be covered by revenue, so will add to the 12.7 billions.<br /><br />The 12.7 figure is about 6 billions FLG, 4 billions equity from Newfoundland and 2.7 billions expected interest. You have a nice overview of that in the article about "Will Muskrat Falls float after a bailout" posted some time ago on UG. The article review the number after striking one amount after the other, ending with only the operating costs that are enough and force the project in a permanent deficit.<br /><br />As for what about once paid, again that article shows you the picture. Basically, the article presents the situation should MF exists without any debt. Even once every debt is removed, the expected rate of below 20 cents is not enough to keep the business runing. So No, once the debt is paid, rate will not drop or return to what they were before MF.<br /><br />Smallwood was right and took the proper steps for his project to materialize. The project was too big for him and Newfoundland, so he founded Brinco for that. Unfortunately, the project was also too big for Brinco, so they had to transfer all the risks to HQ. At the end, Newfoundland would have received a fully built and operational power plant, at no risk and no cost, coupled with the transmission infrastructure required to sell the plant's product.<br /><br />Brinco invested about 60 millions and in the power plant alone, HQ put about twice (115).<br />HQ also put about 10 times more to build the transmission lines (over 500 millions then).<br />HQ also took all the risks.<br /><br />For HQ to collect twice as much as Brinco / CFLCo would reflect just the equity invested in the plant without considering the entire project nor the risks.<br />For HQ to collect about 10 times as much as Brinco / CFLCo would reflect only the project costs without considerations for the risks.<br />For HQ to collect about 20 times as much as Brinco / CFLCo reflects the entire reality.<br /><br />Still, during the 1980s, when Newfoundland was running both the Reversion Act and the recall for 800 MW, they said that they would never accept anything less than a 50-50 split.<br /><br />As long as people consider the UC as a failure for Newfoundland, they will have a hard time doing proper business because UC --was-- done properly.<br /><br />Another example is what Ex-mil referred to when DW pressured NB to reject HQ's offer. Yes HQ gave him price tags too high for him to plan his Muskrat Madness, but these prices were not amplified or designed to block / abuse him or Newfoundland. They were just the righ business numbers. DW refused to see that as proper business, just like the UC, and so kept running after bad business because he could not realize what good business is.Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-87302294763350586982018-07-29T21:58:56.872-02:302018-07-29T21:58:56.872-02:30EME, I'd gladly pay HQ 10¢ per kilowatt-hour t...EME, I'd gladly pay HQ 10¢ per kilowatt-hour than pay that crowd of "world-class experts" (what a joke) of the Nalcor monstrosity 20¢ per kilowatt-hour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-9421216132416173592018-07-29T21:35:52.806-02:302018-07-29T21:35:52.806-02:30FWIW, HQ offered NB a fantastic deal a few years a...FWIW, HQ offered NB a fantastic deal a few years ago. It did not happen - with the help of DW...<br /><br />I suspect HQ will never approach NB again, except for wholesale power.<br /><br />NB missed a golden opportunity to have affordable rates and have their grid modernized for free. (Thanks the Lords, HQ did not buy it!!!).<br /><br />For MF, the stakeholders are NL, NS and the Feds.<br /><br />HQ is a possible solution for all of them, if a win-win agreement can be found. If one party (NL) feels it's not beneficial, it just won't happen, as simple as that. Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-56312406971339344922018-07-29T21:31:10.684-02:302018-07-29T21:31:10.684-02:30Hi again Winston,
Again, the difference must be m...Hi again Winston,<br /><br />Again, the difference must be made between personnal initiative and collective strategy. Of course there is no way to prevent an individual to go after a heat pump or any other efficiency solution. The point is that such choices can not be pushed or encouraged at collective level, by some kind of official program, because as true they are at individual level, as wrong they are at collective level.<br /><br />Also, if the bailout includes that from now on, HQ will provide power to Newfoundland, I doubt the end user price in Newfoundland will be the same as in Quebec. The reason is that HQ will certainly sell at a first price to the government of Newfoundland and the government will re-sell it at a higher price, so they keep collect revenues from electricity.<br /><br />Should we use the deal with Massachussetts as en example, that could mean HQ selling to Newfoundland between 6 and 8 cents and Newfoundland re-selling somewhere between 12 and 15. This would be way better than anything expected from MF, with the benefit of being a stable price. It would be sound business for HQ and Newfoundland would maintain its revenue from electricity.<br /><br />As for AJ, no clue where he can be :-)Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-52970270748104539842018-07-29T19:22:29.898-02:302018-07-29T19:22:29.898-02:30If faced with rates of 18 to 24 cents, and an arra...If faced with rates of 18 to 24 cents, and an arrangement with Quebec, NS NB PEI and NL for rates similar to Quebec, (likely to need feds paying transmission capability from Que into NS), then I think there would be few Quebec haters and many lovers if rates were at 8 or 9 cents for the whole region, and Quebec to use up its surplus.<br /> Likely Nfld Power haters here soon as they send out the bills .<br /> These is a case, I think could be made , that high rates here would not be that bad, and why so few protest, assuming MF can actually deliver any power worthwhile. If not, then EE will be urgently needed, and another failed opportunity to ramp up. Of course some EE will proceed, whether Heracles or the government likes it or not, as it is human nature to reduce costs. To say EE cannot proceed until a bailout is poppycock, as how to you prevent a person from that? Studies show that off the Avalon baseboard heat as the main heat started to decline in 2010 or 2011 , before sanction, but no one took notice.<br /> Like to discuss further, and propose the case for higher rates, as probably least damaging if compared to bankruptcy and loss of assets, but other matter have priority for a while. So hash it out guys. where's average Joe?<br /> Cheers. <br />WA <br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-20728013549589085682018-07-29T17:45:26.213-02:302018-07-29T17:45:26.213-02:30Heracles, along the lines you wrote, I must agree ...Heracles, along the lines you wrote, I must agree that HQ is by far the best "tooled" utility to acquire 100% of UC, possibly operates MF (if operable) and provide wholesale power to both NL and NS.<br /><br />HQ should however not acquire NL/NS distribution tought; I suspect many Quebec haters would refuse to pay their bills...;-)Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-32937942738163883832018-07-29T17:25:17.268-02:302018-07-29T17:25:17.268-02:30Hi Heracles,
Totally agree with you there are bas...Hi Heracles,<br /><br />Totally agree with you there are basically no revenue potential before 2041.<br /><br />However, Nalcor's 66% CFLCo ownership still have a "present value " (calculating the present value of the future profits - past 2041).<br /><br />If I remember well, you (or Bernard) assessed UV present value at what, between 10 and 20B?<br /><br />I however agree that the term "renting" value is not really applicable. (I was alluding to extend the 1969 contract)Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-31341769547782821882018-07-29T16:54:29.390-02:302018-07-29T16:54:29.390-02:30Hi Ex-mil,
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you...Hi Ex-mil,<br /><br />Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on one point : "UC can not be sold or rented to the highest bidder which could be Emera, the Feds, Massachussetts or HQ".<br /><br />Because of the Power Contract, about 96% of the value produced by UC is already HQ's and that, up to 2041. As such, there is basically no value that can be sold or rented to someone else. UC's value has been sold already up to 2041. Only value generated after 2041 can be sold or rented. As such, as of now, only HQ can have a serious interest for it. Anyone else would engage his own responsability with no potential for benefit before 23 years.<br /><br />For that reason, I do not see how one can be ready to offset MF multi-billion catastrophic impact in exchange for a share of UC that he will not have for so long. In my view, only HQ can do that.<br /><br />Nice to discuss with you, Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-13908487562706804092018-07-29T16:50:20.772-02:302018-07-29T16:50:20.772-02:30Also if it forces Nalcor to continously run its fo...Also if it forces Nalcor to continously run its fossil generating stations. Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-41437065140191556742018-07-29T16:44:27.557-02:302018-07-29T16:44:27.557-02:30"use CF as a offset to the benefit of Quebec ..."use CF as a offset to the benefit of Quebec and Heracles, so the Ox can laugh at the frog"<br /><br />Well, UC is just an asset that can be sold (or "rented") to the highest bidder - which could be Emera, the Feds, Massachusetts, HQ or what not.<br /><br />We must just ensure NL gets the maximum value from its assets so it can payoff some of its debt. <br /><br />HQ is just a potential bidder for one of those assets. The more bidders, the better.<br /><br />Or you can just do nothing, expecting a free federal bailout, and be extremely disappointed of the actual outcome.<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Rates must be strictly set in order to ensure maximum total revenues, while minimize damage to NL industrial base/job creation. As Winston agrees, past a certain point, we have diminishing returns (EE kicking in) and we might also hamper business competitiveness.<br /><br />Now, about implementing an EE program (paid by "taxing" the rate payers, or taxing the taxpayers, whatever); any EE savings will strictly get shifted into a similar revenue shortfall for Nalcor. Then, as you admitted Winston, this shortfall will strictly be transferred to the taxpayers, no less, no more.<br /><br />Strictly no financial gains for NL as a whole (actually, the "program costs" are wasted).<br /><br />Disclaimer: EE becomes relevant if demand approaches Nalcor capacity and forces Nalcor to buy additional power. (From HQ, or facing penalties by not providing the Emera block) Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-8342601003152277232018-07-29T16:04:31.557-02:302018-07-29T16:04:31.557-02:30Hi again Winston,
You said that you would like to...Hi again Winston,<br /><br />You said that you would like to see the Feds or NS to absorb part of that cost. That is a bailout. These costs, as of now, are squarely on Newfoudland's shoulders and nowhere else. To move them from your shoulders to someone else shoulders is a bailout or a bankruptcy.<br /><br />Once such a bailout is enacted, then Yes efficiency comes back to the table and can offers a lot of benefits. But that can not be before the bailout. MF and Peckford Pickle Palace were both plants built before finding appropriate customers to sell their product to. To do things in the proper order is definitely a lesson Newfoundland should learn. Here, the bailout is required first and only after it efficiency can be talked about; not before.<br /><br />What is the magical price that will offer maximum revenue ? The bailout will define it and will work from that point because without it, there is no maximum.<br /><br />About the idea of the richest to pay more, that concept is included in every fiscal system. The problem is, when you go too hard against the highest class, they can and will fly to a better sky. It happened at Detroit, it is in progress as of now in Newfoundland and the longer it takes for a bailout, the more of these rich people will be gone.<br /><br />Go read this excellent articles. Numbers are based on Qc's system, but the idea is valid for every systems, including Newfoundland. I reviewed the automated translation performed and I confirmed it is good.<br /><br />https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.lapresse.ca/debats/200901/09/01-692500-petit-cours-de-fiscalite.php<br /><br />Going after efficiency before the bailout is shooting yourself in the foot. If you did not hurt yourself bad enough already want more of it, sure do it : shoot yourself another round in your foot and tell us when you are done. Just know that you would be better to do things in order : bailout / bankruptcy first. Once defined, see how efficiency can be of use.<br /><br />Have fun reading that excellent article about the tax system,Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-26818500323699826352018-07-29T15:32:08.816-02:302018-07-29T15:32:08.816-02:30Heracles, That I say that revenue loss from energy...Heracles, That I say that revenue loss from energy efficiency must be obtained elsewhere, is not a great leap forward, and no leap at all, as I have never indicated otherwise, and believe I have have so stated this before. Where else would the revenue come from? I would like to see the Feds absorb some and maybe NS, or if that not possible then through our tax system and it may require reduced services elsewhere. My feeling is that the higher income population, including me, pay more through tax if necessary rather then the real low income suffer heat poverty.<br /> You say power bills is government money. Bills are paid to Nfld Power a private company based on approved rates, who then pay to Nfld Hydro. Only about 5 % is Nfld Power generation . Ball has stated and can opt for rates at 12 or up to 24 cents, but must mitigate the shortfall, 60 or 70 million for every 1 cent difference, but not necessarily from the Average Joe. Some he says from Nalcor, over 200 million, from hoped from oil revenue, or deferred profits by Nalcor, maybe higher personal or corp tax etc, continued borrowing, none are easy solutions,and some counterproductive, and I begin to think that high power rates, though unwelcome , may be one of the better ways, but not that alone. <br /> Your arithmetic, Heracles is juvenvile, as any 10 year old should understand that reduction in sales makes for higher rates, unless rates are mitigated, maybe even by magic, unless we see the Plan. <br /> For older than 10, Economics 101, and elasticity! Vardy asks the question, I think , if we need to invest in HPs and so pay twice? I suggest yes. MF at 12.7 billion, HPs at about 1 billion, and mostly household , not govn money. <br /> Now, at what rate of such investment, as Ex-military knows, for the Goldilocks just right effect and what is the max power rate to avoid too rapid decline in power use; That , dear Heracles, IS the question. Too rapid a decline in power use makes for harder mitigation. <br /> Your belief is that of John Smith, 1. open the windows in winter and use lots of baseboard heat, to justify MFs and make it a paying operation. And 2, your preferred one, use CF as a offset to the benefit of Quebec and Heracles, so the Ox can laugh at the frog. Maybe that must happen. Or as UG suggests some experts can propose the best way forward. Or politics being the art of the possible, some magic may happen: like Quebec take pity on us, and lend some expertise to help solve our problem, some expert better than Heracles , the IT engineer, who seems anxious to see us in poverty. Yes, we need to suffer some, for being so stupid, and electing incompetent leaders. We are like sheep, more so than frogs. But we get frog leaders, and no sign that will change, as long as most are content to be sheep. <br />WinstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-16237193564411485462018-07-29T15:21:12.466-02:302018-07-29T15:21:12.466-02:30Hey Anon 15:04,
Wayne considers efficiency only a...Hey Anon 15:04,<br /><br />Wayne considers efficiency only after the UC / Power Contract have been used to negociate with Qc / HQ for us to help you absorb MF. Once that is done, you can consider yourself free from that Take-Or-Pay contract, so energy saved means energy not paid, so more money for you and Newfoundland.<br /><br />Would Newfoundland be in better position under the complete control of an Overlord ? That is another question. But for Newfoundland to return to a sustainable state after negotiating with Qc / HQ offering UC / extension to Power Contract against support, that is also a clear possibility not to be discarded.<br /><br />Nice to talk with you,Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-47441417947285670332018-07-29T15:11:42.188-02:302018-07-29T15:11:42.188-02:30Maurice, I don't mean to suggest that Clyde We...Maurice, I don't mean to suggest that Clyde Wells should be re-elected in 2019, but he did show leadership and management skills and he seemed to at least attempt to do the right things for the citizens... vs... simply pilfering crown land or initiating, or willfully complying with corrupt schemes to mortgage the lives of babies for personal profits, as virtually all of our Premiers and/or MHA's have done since.Peter Austinhttp://smallbizhelpnl.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-66474814709536103202018-07-29T15:04:59.124-02:302018-07-29T15:04:59.124-02:30Wayne, what's the point in trying to save on e...Wayne, what's the point in trying to save on electricity costs when your savings will only be clawed back in the form of provincial tax gouges and vile "deficit levies" so this incompetent government can meet it's "Take Or Pay" obligations under the FLG? <br /><br />NLers would be better-served under another arms-length commission of government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-83348907955051422732018-07-29T14:45:31.029-02:302018-07-29T14:45:31.029-02:30With regards to a tariff on heat pumps, I was in N...With regards to a tariff on heat pumps, I was in New Brunswick a few weeks ago. Upon inquiring about it, the owner of the lodgings where I stayed told me he had two heat pumps installed in his dwelling the year before, at a total cost of $4200 for both units. He paid for the units and installation himself, without going thru NB Power's heat pump loan program.<br /><br />I was somewhat taken aback by that, as I had researched the cost of purchase/installation by local heat pump dealers here in NL, and the going rate for a HP and installation was around $5000 for only the one unit. Total cost for two units and the installation was in the neighborhood of $10K. <br /><br />So I asked him again to make sure, "$4200 for purchase and installation of TWO units"? <br /><br />"Yes" he said. <br /><br />So if there isn't already a hidden HP tariff already in effect in NL, then it would appear there is some kind of clandestine local HP cartel in operation engaged in price fixing so as to keep the cost of purchase/installation of these contraptions artificially inflated. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-89031397984278205812018-07-29T14:26:45.939-02:302018-07-29T14:26:45.939-02:30Hi Wayne,
Indeed, should UC / the Power Contract ...Hi Wayne,<br /><br />Indeed, should UC / the Power Contract be used for a bailout, then efficiency will return to a very good thing for Newfoundland. Once freed from the Take-Or-Pay contract for MF, not to take, so not to pay, makes all sense.<br /><br />Lets hope the government will tell people sooner than later how they will handle the situation because the longer they keep them in the dark, the more will take the matter in their own hands. For many of them, it is down to Stay-N-Pay or Leave-N-Live. As much Leave-N-Live is a proper solution for individual, as bad it is for the global population. Unfortunately, once they left, they will probably not come back after the bailout is annouced.<br /><br />Transparency is of benefit in almost every situation, here maybe more than average...Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-21793047554861906812018-07-29T14:07:33.601-02:302018-07-29T14:07:33.601-02:30Anon@23.01: Surely to God you can't be serious...Anon@23.01: Surely to God you can't be serious in advocating the public not to cut back on electricity consumption. Human nature alone dictates it. Your comments are akin to saying keep the baseboard heaters on all year round so we can give the money to incompetant governments to pay for a collossal catastrophy which is about to unfold.<br />Agreed! Danny's mess has to be paid for but the first thing for anyone to do is to try and save household money. Also agreed is the fact that the Govt will raise taxes wherever they can.<br />I said it before and I'll say it again--- The UC contract is on the table and we will lose our 2041 right to full ownership in exchange for financial relief on the MF mess. It's the one and only thing we have going for us. Danny, Kathy and Tom---have you any comprehension at all as to what you have done to the people of this province??? Tom you were the Finance Minister at the time all this was unfolding. Did DW bully you too? You had to know the real figures if you were worth your salt yet you failed to reveal the stupidity of DW and KD. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!Waynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-44108017184212529282018-07-29T12:38:48.982-02:302018-07-29T12:38:48.982-02:30Hi Winston,
Rate payers pay their money to the go...Hi Winston,<br /><br />Rate payers pay their money to the government. So money paid by rate payers is actually government's money,<br /><br />When you said that "because I now save on my heat 70%, I pay a small surcharge to help another", you are back to your wrong logic. Let's try with numbers this time, it may be easier for you to understand.<br /><br />To illustrate it with % may not be as clear, so let say you were paying 100$ per month instead of 100% per month, before your heat pump, which clearly was before MF. Also, let consider there are 100 001 rate payers in Newfoundland, yourself and 100 000 others. Lastly, let consider they were all paying the same rate as you did at the begining.<br /><br />So here you are, paying 100$ per month. The 100 000 others also pay 100$ per month, so the government receives 10 000 100$ per month.<br />You do your efficiency thing and a drop of 70$ put you at 30$ per month. So now the government receives 10 000 030$ per month. They will not even notice the difference.<br />Thanks to MF, the government now needs 20 000 000 per month. For that, they double the rate and only you is using efficiency. Others pay 200 per months and you, 60.<br />The government receives 20 000 060$, so achieved what they needed.<br />Now, 30% of rate payers choose to go with the same efficiency as you. Now, government revenue drops to 30 001 * 60 + 70 000 * 200, so 180 600 + 14 000 000, so 14 180 600. The government is short by a long shot now.<br /><br />FLG terms require to collect these 20 000 000, so the government is legally forced to increase the rate by 35%. You and other heat pump users now pay 81$ and others, 270. Government is back with 30 001 * 81 + 70 000 * 270 = 2 430 081 + 18 900 = 21 330 081.<br />That increase will push more people to efficiency and will keep pushing the price up.<br /><br />It is not because it is SMART to increase the rate like this. It is actually very stupid.<br />It is because it is the LAW to increase the rate like this. The FLG terms require this.<br /><br />So no matter what makes one more efficient, it does not matter. The Take-Or-Pay contract is what makes efficiency pointless, no matter from heat pump or anything else.<br /><br />You said that "it does reduce revenu for Nalcor and Nfld Hydro and such loss must be recovered elsewhere". Great! To admit that is a gigantic step forward.<br /><br />So now, people have to pay for their power, they have to pay for their efficiency and they have to pay for that lost revenue at Nalcor caused by their efficiency.<br /><br />The amount to pay for original power is P.<br />The amount to pay for going efficient is E.<br />The saving is S.<br />So the lost revenu for Nalcor is also S.<br />So the amount to pay for covering that lost due to saving is also S.<br /><br />If you don't do efficiency, you pay P.<br />If you do efficiency, you pay P - S + E + S, so you pay P + E and no more S in the equation.<br /><br />That is why efficiency is pointless as of now : you pay extra with no benefit. Only when you will have the opportunity to save S without paying it back (no more Take-Or-Pay contract), then efficiency will return as a very good thing.Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.com