Showing posts with label Jim Feehan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Feehan. Show all posts

30 July 2012

Those friggers from [insert name of province] #nlpoli

Anyone steeped in the whole Quebec-Newfoundland fight over hydro-electricity exports will look at the whole Alberta-British Columbia fight over oil exports and see the connections.

Sure, they are there.

The most obvious:  one province wants to get somewhere to export its energy product and there’s another province standing in the way.

What else could there be?

Well, lots actually.

26 July 2012

Managing Electricity Demand #nlpoli

Nalcor’s forecast for electricity demand on the island of Newfoundland doesn’t really show a massive increase over the next couple of decades.

Earlier this year, Memorial University economist Jim Feehan suggested that one alternative to Muskrat Falls was demand management.  That is, he suggested that Nalcor try some ways of getting people to use less electricity.

Wade Locke, Feehan’s colleague, and staunch supporter of Muskrat Falls, laced into Feehan. He dismissed Feehan at the time and, by extension, the role conservation might have as part of a comprehensive energy policy in the province.  Locke did change his mind.

Equally dismissive of demand management, Nalcor boss Ed Martin tried on some pretty vicious rhetoric about old people and freezing in response to Feehan.

13 December 2009

Energy audio and video roundup

1.  From CBC New Brunswick, a panel discussion involving the leader of the New Brunswick Conservative, Green and New Democratic parties and energy minister Greg Byrne.

2. From CBC Newfoundland and Labrador on 01 Dec 09, an interview with former premier Roger Grimes on the latest developments in the Churchill Falls saga.

3.  CBC Radio Crosstalk with guest Jim Feehan discussing Churchill Falls.

4.  Premier Danny Williams scrums with reporters after a speech in Calgary. At no point does Williams point out for the Alberta reporters that he spent five years trying to get Hydro-Quebec to take an equity stake in the Lower Churchill without any discussion of redress for the 1969 contract but couldn’t get them interested.  That was at the same time that he insisted that he wouldn’t cut a deal with HQ without redress.

-srbp-