Locke admits assessment was “probably not” fair #nlpoli #cdnpoli

In an interview with the Telegram that appeared in Thursday’s edition, Memorial University economist Wade Locke admitted that his assessment of Muskrat Falls probably offered an unfair comparison with alternatives.

When asked by The Telegram, “If that doesn’t include transmission, is that a fair comparison?”
Locke answered, “Probably not. You’d want to include transmission as well.”

The impact of Locke’s omission was to hide almost 50% of the estimated cost per kilowatt hour for the project. As SRBP noted on Wednesday, that rendered his comparisons useless.

It also meant his conclusion – that Muskrat Falls was the cheapest solution – had nothing to support it.  “Unfounded” would be the polite word for it.

No word on whether Locke will get a do-over.

No word either on whether or not the Western Star editorial team will retract their Thursday editorial in light of Locke’s admission.

Under a headline “A trusted opinion”, the crowd on the west coast called Locke’s voice “independent and dependable”.  The editorial said that Locke’s opinion “will almost certainly carry more weight than many other opinions.”

D’oh!

- srbp -

Rumpole and the New Math

The voice rasped down the phone line even before the receiver hit my ear.

“On the Upper Path these days,” the familiar voice solemnly declared, “four plus four is five and a half.”

“What?” your humble e-scribbler asked, figuring this must be the latest bit of gossip on the illegal drug trade or prostitution in Sin Jawns.

“On Duckworth Street, stunned arse. You know where that is, do you?”

He repeated himself slowly and carefully as if his audience were deaf or feeble minded or both.

“Four and four is five and a half.”

“What in the name of God are you talking about?”

“I’ll make it easier for you.  Test your numeracy skills, then.  You’re always going on about that.”

A sip of coffee and a pause was enough of a reply in whatever game he was at today.

“What is two times four?” he said, sounding for all the world like a school boy who had discovered his first play on words.

Another slurp and more silence.  Experience teaches that it is best just to let him ramble when he is in one of these moods. He knows you are listening and just needs to act out the little drama.

“What is four plus four?”

“Eight” went the reply, with only a hint of boredom.

“See,” says the familiar voice, “that’s why you will never be a justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.  No matter how hard you try, no matter what political arse you kiss, no matter how proper you are or how many times you stand up for truth, justice and fair play, you cannot ever get to sit with those learned men and women of the highest court in this land.”

“You,” he said, pausing on each word, “do not know the New Math.”

The voice then summarised a recent decision from the Supreme Court’s Appeals Division of an appeal of the sentences in an armed robbery trial. 

A young fellow turned up last year appealing the sentence in a robbery case.  He’d pleaded guilty to two sets of offenses committed six days apart.

In the first robbery, the young fellow and another man went into a convenience store in town with handkerchiefs on their faces and knives in hand. They tried to rob a customer and when that didn’t work they made off with cigarettes and lottery tickets.

The young fellow who showed up in appeals court “pleaded guilty to robbery with respect to the theft of the cash, cigarettes and tickets (s. 343(d) of the Criminal Code), attempted robbery of the customer with intent to steal her purse (s. 463(a) of the Code), wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence (s. 351(2) of the Code) and breach of an existing probation order (s. 733.1(1)(a) of the Code). He was sentenced as follows for these offences:

Robbery (Count No. 7) 4 years

Attempted robbery (Count No. 9) 3 years, concurrent

Wearing face mask (Count No. 8) 1 year, concurrent

Breach of probation (Count No. 10) 1 day, consecutive”

In the second incident, the same young fellow “demanded and received $115 in cash, as well as some cigarettes. He then fled the store. He pleaded guilty to one count each of robbery, wearing a face mask and breach of probation. For these offences he was sentenced as follows:

Robbery (Count No. 1) 3 years (less 141 days pre-trial custody), consecutive to the robbery sentence for the Hamilton robbery

Wearing Face mask (Count No. 2) 1 year, concurrent

Breach of Probation (Count No. 3) 1 day, consecutive”

The quotes are from the appeals court decision issued on January 12.  As the decision puts it, the “net effect of the sentencing was that the appellant was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of seven years (less 141 days) plus two additional days (for the breaches of probation).”  There was a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order but those two didn’t factor into the appeal.

The young man and his lawyer thought that the judge didn’t get the totals right when he sorted out consecutive and concurrent sentences for all the offences.

After a lengthy explanation, the appeals court noted that the trial judge had followed the law in pretty well everything except the notion of “totality”.  That is, he not only looked at the individual sentences for the individual crimes, he also had to look at the amount of time it all added up to.

At this point, it is just as well to let the Chief Justice’s words speak for themselves:

(vi)  A Fit Sentence

[95] No issue was taken with the one year sentences for wearing a face mask or the three years for the attempted robbery. I do not propose to say anything further about them.

[96] Counsel for the appellant did not dispute the proposition that sentences of four years and three years for the Hamilton and Blackmarsh Robberies, respectively, were fit. Counsel for the Crown, although stating that he had “no issue” with those sentences, submitted that four years for each would be more appropriate.

[97] I agree that, in the circumstances of this case, parity requires a four year sentence to be imposed for the Hamilton Robbery because that was the sentence meted out to Mr. Hutchings’ co-robber. The sentence for that robbery can also be considered as a benchmark for the other. There is little to differentiate between them except that a customer was also involved in the Hamilton Robbery and there were two robbers. Both were convenience stores, the modus operandi was the same, only a small amount of money or merchandise was taken and the events took place at night. Mr. Hutchings must bear more responsibility for the Blackmarsh Robbery because he acted alone. It was also his second robbery in a very short time. These factors countervail to some extent for the fact that the Hamilton Robbery involved both a customer and a store employee. Given the sentencing judge’s identification of the prevalence of armed robberies in the community and that there is a need to protect people working in or using convenience stores late at night, a fit sentence for the second robbery should be four years.

[98] While this sentence is somewhat higher than the levels of sentence imposed in other comparable cases in this jurisdiction (See R. v. Sheppard (1997) 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304 (Nfld.C.A.) (no criminal record; one robbery with mask; severe gambling problem; four years reduced to three on appeal); R. v. Butt (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89 (Nfld.C.A.) (armed robbery of gas bar; four years reduced to two years less a day because of psychiatric illness); R. v. Pardy (1994), 126 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 218 (Nfld.SCTD) (one robbery of service station, masked; prior convictions; three years); R. v. Power (2006), 262 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 30 (NLSCTD) (robbery of restaurant; psychiatric disorders; joint submission of three years accepted), it is nevertheless justified given the present community problems with this type of offence, and the concern for the safety of vulnerable workers, as identified by the sentencing judge.

[99] As far as the sentences for breach of probation are concerned, a sentence of one day, as imposed by the sentencing judge is inappropriate. Sentences can range between one month and sometimes less to upwards of six months. See Murphy (six months); Oxford (three months). In Oxford, the Court accepted statements in prior cases that sentences for non-compliance with probation orders could be one month or less even where there are prior convictions.

[100] In the current case, Mr. Hutchings has several convictions for failure to comply with court orders. In light of the requirements of specific and general deterrence, I am satisfied in the circumstances that sentences of two months for each offence are necessary to achieve respect for the observance of court orders.

[101] I have already indicated that I agree that the two robberies should be considered separate criminal adventures and that the sentences, other things being equal, should be served consecutively. The robbery and attempted robbery at the Hamilton convenience store were part of the same criminal adventure and the sentences are appropriately made concurrent with each other. It is also appropriate to make the sentences for having the face masked concurrent with the respective robbery sentences, as they were part of and arose out of the robbery events. Sentences for breaches of court orders are generally an exception to the normal rules respecting consecutive and concurrent sentences. They should normally be made consecutive. I see no reason to depart from that approach here.

[102] Accordingly, before considering totality, the overall sentence would be eight years for the two robberies plus four months for the two breaches of probation orders for a total of eight years, four months.

[103] It is now necessary to consider totality, the application of which is engaged because some sentences are consecutive to each other.

[104] The most serious offences here are the robberies. The normal level of sentence for armed robberies of convenience stores-gas bars by a young person, masked, late at night where the money or merchandise taken is relatively small could range from three to five years. When compared with the total sentence of eight years four months that would otherwise be indicated, this would be a factor calling for a reduction in the overall sentence.

[105] There were two offence events. While not a rash of robberies, neither was it a single isolated incident. The two events occurred within a short period of time. Although the gravity of these offences can be regarded as not as serious as, say, large scale robberies where violence is actually perpetrated, they are nevertheless of great concern. Weapons were involved, Mr. Hutchings was masked and the offences were carried out at night when the victims were more vulnerable. The total sentence must reflect these factors.

[106] Mr. Hutchings has a lengthy prior criminal record spanning from late 2006 to mid-2009, involving a total of 26 offences, eleven of which were convictions for failure to comply with a previous undertaking, recognizance or probation order. Of the remaining 15 offences, nine were committed as a young offender and two as an adult. The sentencing for these offences occurred in four clusters as a youth and once as an adult. The sentence for the adult offences was 30 days intermittent plus 2 years probation for 2 counts of theft under $5,000 and 2 counts of failure to comply with a prior court order. The most concerning sentence as a young offender involved a conviction for armed robbery in 2006, where Mr. Hutchings was sentenced to 9 ½ months involving a combination of secure and open custody plus an additional 159 days supervision order and 12 months probation. This is a significant sentence in the context of a young offender where the emphasis is on rehabilitation. With that exception, none of the other youth sentences involved any significant amount of custodial time. The sentence for the current offences will be Mr. Hutchings’ first substantial period of imprisonment as an adult. The committing of the current offences does indicate, however, as the sentencing judge noted, that Mr. Hutchings “has not gotten the message” from the sentences imposed for his prior offences. That said, even though the sheer number of prior offences is a matter of considerable concern, a sentence of eight years, four months is a substantial movement from a thirty day intermittent sentence which was the longest period of jail time he had previously received as an adult, or even from 9 ½ months, which was the longest period of custody he had previously received as a young offender.

[107] Mr. Hutchings’ young age has to be considered in relation to his prospects for rehabilitation. Notwithstanding the absence of a pre-sentence report, the fact of his age should be taken into account insofar as his behaviour may be at least partially attributable to immaturity. While eight years, four months might not be considered a “crushing” sentence, it certainly will take away from him a substantial portion of his twenties which are important to a young man who is still maturing and developing those things, like job prospects and relationships, that provide the base for a productive life. This factor also points toward modifying the total sentence.

[108] Mr. Hutchings suffers, as noted by the sentencing judge, from a drug problem, a circumstance that often fuels the type of behavior for which he was sentenced. Some of the cases cited previously (e.g. Sheppard, Butt, Power) recognize addictions, such as gambling and alcohol dependency, or emotional or psychiatric illness as factors that may mitigate the severity of a sentencing disposition.

[109] Other appellate decisions recognize that it may be appropriate to reduce an overall sentence when an offender is being sentenced for multiple robberies committed in close succession. (See Wozny).

[110] Taking all these factors into consideration, and noting that a number of them point toward a reduction in overall sentence, I am satisfied that a sentence of eight years, four months is unduly long or harsh when measured against the gravity of the offences and the offender’s degree of responsibility. While recognizing the serious nature of this type of offence and that a considerable term of imprisonment is nevertheless warranted, a more appropriate overall sentence that will still recognize the inherent gravity of the offences would be five years, six months.

[111] To achieve this result, I would impose sentences as follows:

For the Hamilton Robbery:

Robbery 4 years

Attempted robbery 3 years, concurrent

Wearing a mask 1 year, concurrent

Breach of probation 2 months, concurrent [changed, for totality, from consecutive to concurrent]

For the Blackmarsh Robbery:

Robbery 1 year, 6 months consecutive [reduced, for totality, from an otherwise appropriate sentence of 4 years] (less 141 days pre-trial custody),

Wearing a mask 1 year, concurrent

Breach of probation 2 months, concurrent [changed, for totality, from consecutive to concurrent]

Summary and Disposition

[112]I would vary the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge as follows: for Count No. 1 on the Information to one year, six months (less 141 days pre-trial custody); Count No. 2 to one year concurrent; Count No. 3 to two months concurrent; Count No. 7 to four years consecutive; Count No. 8 to one year concurrent; Count No. 9 to three years concurrent; and Count No. 10 to two months concurrent.

“And that,” the voice chuckled down the phone line, “is how four and four gets you five and a half.

Next time, I’ll tell you how seven times 13 is 28.”

- srbp -

Locke and Muskrat Falls: some quick points #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Memorial University economist Wade Locke delivered a presentation on Tuesday night about Muskrat Falls, a project he had already endorsed publicly.

The Harris Centre at Memorial University, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the MUN economics department’s Applied Economics Research Initiative sponsored the talk.

The pdf of Locke’s slides should be available from the Harris Centre website along with the video of the presentation plus the question and answer session that followed.

You can tell the topic is hot for two reasons.

First, they packed the main hall plus a couple of fair-sized rooms in which people could watch via the Internet.

Second, Locke started out his talk with a pre-emptive declaration that he was doing the talk on his own, that he wasn’t sponsored by anybody, under contract to anybody and that he valued his professional reputation above all else.  Locke insisted he believed everything he was saying, which should be pretty much a given.

Here are some quick observations:

You will pay for it all, plus profit.  Right up front, Locke pointed out the most obvious thing of all, namely that taxpayers in this province will pay for the entire project, plus a rate of return of as much as 12%.  Now Locke never said it straight out.  In fact, Locke never made it plain at any point during his talk who actually was paying the bill.

But it was there, just as your humble e-scribbler noted in October 2010.  That’s not clairvoyance.  That’s just what comes from research.

Toward the end of his presentation, Locke blew off any concern about the debt since that would all be recovered from the rates, no matter what.

Wade just never noted that the people in the room would be covering the entire shot.

Plus profit.

When an online question asked about Nova Scotians getting the electricity cheaper than the people who own the dam, Locke blew it off as an irrelevant consideration from an economic standpoint.

Situating the Estimate.  That’s what they call it in staff college.  You present the information that fits your pre-conceived solution.

And having already endorsed Muskrat Falls, presumably before he really knew anything about it, Locke basically recited the reasons why his initial conclusion was right and everyone else is wrong.

Locke started by torquing his description of the cost of the project.  A mere 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour.  As Jim Feehan pointed out in the Q and A, Locke had lowballed the number.  The cost of delivered Muskrat electricity would be 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour based on current estimates.

At least.

And that of course made all Locke’s subsequent comparisons useless.

They were useless because they effectively compared a misleading – bordering on the false – Muskrat cost to a cost for some alternatives.

Once you realise that Locke torqued the cost, you’d have to be suspicious of the basis on which he presented the costs of other projects.

Did he highball them?

Maybe. 

Problem is we don’t know.  People would have a right to be suspicious because Locke didn’t make it clear how he got either his Muskrat figures or his other cost figures for projects he contended were more costly.
Locke blew his own credibility, at least among people who actually knew what he had done.  Expect to hear more about that in the days ahead as word spreads.

Burn, Straw Man, Burn.  Early on the presentation, Locke savaged colleague Jim Feehan with a caricatured presentation of Feehan’s paper for the C.D. Howe Institute.  Locke presented Feehan’s argument [as] though Feehan believed government could use pricing to wipe out demand such that Muskrat wouldn’t be necessary.*

Feehan didn’t say anything close to that. 

Locke even trotted out the melodramatic – and ultimately childish -  line Ed Martin tried on about old people in the winter.

Feehan sorted Locke out at the end but Locke’s comments about Feehan were insulting to Feehan professionally and to the audience’s intelligence.  For a guy who defensively moaned about his own professional reputation at the front end of the talk, Locke had no trouble tearing into a colleague based on what was utter crap.

Controlling the Escalation.  As much as Locke got weepy over old people and high electricity prices and for all his teary comments about the impact of policy ideas on real people, Wade didn’t give a toss about Muskrat Falls and the impact its high prices would have on the same people he supposedly wanted to defend.

Locke referred to Muskrat Falls as giving government the ability to control price escalation.  The alternative – a completely false one – was to be at the mercy of fluctuating oil prices. 

Muskrat Falls will take care of the potential hike in electricity because of oil prices by guaranteeing the prices will shoot up regardless of what oil does.  And if oil goes down in price, local consumers will be stuck paying for Muskrat.

Former PUB consumer advocate Dennis Browne noted during the Q and A that Locke’s assumption of escalating electricity prices due to oil was false.  Electricity prices don’t jump up every year, like clockwork, and they sure don’t jump every time oil prices go up. 

Locke didn’t really answer Browne’s point.

Humour High Point:  Moderating the Q and A, Harris Centre director Dr. Rob Greenwood said that the Harris Centre was a spin free zone.  Evidently, Locke’s presentation  - after the price bullshit alone – wasn’t covered by the anti-spin rule or Rob didn’t pick up on the heavily torqued comments by the presenter.  Either way it was about the funniest thing that happened during the evening.

What debt problem?  There isn’t one according to Locke.  He flashed a slide that showed annual costs Nalcor would pay for given amounts based on certain interest rates. 

Worst case scenario, as your humble e-scribbler would put it: the gross public debt would show up as close to $20 billion (the current $12 billion-ish plus an additional eight billion in borrowing from Locke’s slide).

That would add annual debt servicing costs of $800 million for Nalcor.

That would show up on the annual public accounts, incidentally.

The debt would be funded, of course, because local ratepayers would be forced to pay the full amount need to pay the loans plus deliver a guaranteed profit.   But…

Locke didn’t do any calculation of the wider implication of any of that.  He just said any added debt would be no problem since there’d be revenue to cover it.

Yep.

All those old people on fixed incomes would be paying the guaranteed high prices Locke ranted against at one point and ignored at another.

What the Harris Centre should do next:  Locke’s presentation was weak.  All his pre-emptive apologies at the front end couldn’t cover over the flaws.

Locke’s analysis was far from complete and he torqued too many details for it to meet the standards people should be getting on such an important subject from the Harris Centre.

Aside from apologising to Jim Feehan for Locke’s remarks, the Harris Centre should organize a series of talks on Muskrat Falls.  The public would definitely profit from a better presentation on behalf of the project proponents as well as a fair presentation of arguments by Feehan and David Vardy.

40 slides too many:  Opponents of Muskrat Falls can explain in a few minutes why they have doubts about the project.

Simple.

Clean.

Factual.

Give a  knowledgeable supporter of the current administration and Nalcor, one hour of uninterrupted time, 48 slides densely packed with verbiage, and an attentive audience and he still can’t  explain why Muskrat Falls makes sense.

That should tell you all you need to know.

- srbp -

*  [word in square brackets added to earlier version for clarity]

If this is bad… #nlpoli

Bloc NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary thinks that Marine Atlantic’s 4.5% fare increase will put the province at a disadvantage when it comes to tourism and economic development. 

Cleary is also concerned about the impact on ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians:

“Living in Newfoundland and Labrador is not cheap. This fare increase will eventually further increase the cost of goods in our province — including food, which is already far more expensive than in other parts of the country,” Cleary said.

So if Marine Atlantic’s rate increase is so bad, according to Cleary, why is he so enthusiastic about driving up electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador by 45% or more and selling discount electricity to people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in North America.

- srbp -

Sucking eggs, debating Muskrat Falls and other wastes of time #nlpoli

Former natural resources minister Shawn Skinner thinks there House of Assembly should debate the Muskrat Falls deal.

Ditto his replacement, Jerome! Kennedy who likes to quote a supposed 1980 endorsement of the project by former Hydro boss Vic Young as proof there’s been enough talk about the whole thing.

Ditto the province’s New Democrats, who thing there should be a “special” debate.

The Liberals will likely go along with the idea, as well so that puts them all in agreement.

Debate implies a disagreement, though.  To have a debate, you would have to find people in the House of Assembly who are fundamentally opposed to Muskrat Falls.

Otherwise it would be like the Abitibi expropriation debate where everybody spoke in favour of the seizure bill and never voiced any concern for it, at all.

Find one member of the House of Assembly who is actually, unquestionably, unequivocally opposed to the Muskrat Falls project.

Find one.

Until you can, there’s no point in talking about a “debate” in the provincial legislature.

It’s just a waste of time.

- srbp -

Epic Fail Snail Mail

If you wanted to promote something that was better than ever, especially high definition television, you certainly wouldn’t like to use a piece of snail mail that wound up in your humble e-scribbler’s snail mailbox looking like this:

The ultimate HD experience does not mean heavy water damage and tattered edges all the way around.

Amazing.

- srbp -

Rebirth for one, and for the other? #nlpoli #cdnpoli

The federal Liberal convention this weekend shows just exactly how out to lunch the overwrought media commentary about the devastated Liberal party has been. 

Around 3,000 delegates.  Some said there were more than that;  others said there were fewer.

Lots of interested and interesting discussion.

And a new president.

Keeping party membership is a good thing.  One of the reasons political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador are in an abysmal state is the absence of a working membership system in any of them. Basically a party without membership becomes easy prey for the backroom types who thrive on secrecy.  They can manipulate the whole thing, one way or another and they do.

Memberless parties also create a world in which voters have no particular attachment to the party and its principles.  Again, the parties in Newfoundland and Labrador are classic examples of this sort of thing.  Voters shift back and forth among the parties with ease largely because there is nothing to distinguish one from the other.

The elected types are no different.  They all – basically – support exactly the same sorts of things.  If it is popular, they will back it.  That’s one of the big reasons why the NDP and Liberals have been basically just red and orange chapters of the Danny Fan Club since 2006 or so.

They haven’t opposed anything, except for show.

They still don’t.

So while the federal Liberals are already well on the way to change, the provincial Liberals are, well, not.

Talk of their demise is anything but exaggerated.

- srbp -

Dan-O-Matic Translator still works #nlpoli

If David Vardy was wrong about Muskrat Falls or about the concern some people have about publicly criticising Tory pet projects, Danny Williams wouldn’t be attacking Vardy personally.

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls, the kamikaze venture #nlpoli

Not surprisingly Nalcor’s Ed Martin latched onto a pretty  superficial argument to dismiss economist Jim Feehan’s critique of Muskrat Falls.

"I go over to see my Dad, an 80-year-old gentleman living on his own, and I say to Dad, 'I have a solution for you — why don't we raise your electricity rates so high that you won't use electricity?' ... He's going to say to me, 'I think you're going to have to find another solution here.' "

Premier Kathy Dunderdale wasn’t far behind.  As VOCM put it:

Dunderdale says Feehan's argument that electricity rates are artificially low and that people will use less electricity if the prices were increased, is something government simply does not agree with. She says their primary focus is to keep electricity rates low. 

Dunderdale never explained why she thought prices weren’t artificially low.  Odds are she doesn’t know whether they are or they aren’t low or what impact changing the way energy is priced might have.

Like most politicians, she is probably contented with the rather simplistic view that created the current system.  Low prices are politically good.  “[T]ry selling that,” writes the Telegram editorialist on Friday, “to a pensioner on a fixed income.”

Such a discussion on the doorstep is a scary prospect, to be sure, even if you understand all the nuances of the issue.  In Dunderdale’s case, though, it isn’t a question of understanding anything except that this deal is done.

Period.

When Danny announced it, nothing could stop it.

There are no more decision gates.

There are no off-ramps and no climb down spots.

Once Danny announced this project and cabinet backed it in November 2010, they put us all on a non-stop march to debt.

The Tories are impervious to logic.

None can penetrate.

They cannot be dissuaded.

CBC cornered Danny Williams somewhere on Friday and asked him about the critics.  Williams said that when he put this deal together, Williams got the top minds to work it out.  This deal must be perfect one can take from that.  And since Williams had only the best, all others must be inferior creatures.  The decision is already perfect.

Such is the delusional world, the blind world, the supremely arrogant world in which he and his heirs live.

So far removed are Williams, Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Shawn Skinner and the rest of the Muskrat mafia from reality that they cannot see the pure insanity of the claim that their primary focus, as Dunderdale put it, is keeping energy prices low.

Feehan’s paper, as the Telegram editorial quoted, uses figures that translate out to an increase in electricity prices from 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 13.5 cents per kwh, all without Muskrat. he was talking about the price consumers pay.

Even if we accept the wildly unrealistic assumptions Dunderdale and company are using for Muskrat Falls, their own numbers show that the cost of making electricity at Muskrat Falls will be at least 14.3 cents per kwh and as much as 16.5 cents. 

That isn’t the price consumers will pay.  They will have to pay for Muskrat Falls, plus all of Nalcor’s other operations, plus newfoundland Power’s costs of distribution and a healthy profit to both.

If those Nalcor assumptions about project costs – a mere 15% over-run, for example – turn out to be as ludicrous as experience suggests they are, then you can be damn certain that consumers will be paying way more than 16.5 cents per kwh just for Muskrat Falls.

If Ed Martin explained his Muskrat Falls plan to his father and then laid Jim Feehan’s idea in front of him, you can bet which one Martin Senior would jump at. 

The logic isn’t hard to follow. 

The math is actually pretty easy.

If Ed were to add that the Williams/Dunderdale/Martin idea was to trade away possible high electricity prices for guaranteed high ones, then Ed’s Dad would probably keel over.

Williams, Dunderdale and Company want to make sure that domestic electricity prices in Newfoundland and Labrador are the highest, not the lowest. That’s what their own information says.

It’s like Tom Marshall’s claim that he wants to fight the public debt. And his way of doing that is  - in effect – to double the debt by building Muskrat Falls.  That’s the only conclusion you can reach from their own information.

Its proponents would have you believe that Muskrat Falls is the divine wind that will save us all.  The reality is that the project looks like a kamikaze of a different sort altogether.

- srbp -

Related:

Hold off on the Lower Churchill, James Feehan, National Post, (January 2012):

“Apparently, the province is unconcerned that pushing ahead, as opposed to waiting for a more comprehensive report, might hurt the credibility of the PUB assessment itself. Now, doubts about the project have company: doubts about the process.

The way forward is clear: At the very least, Newfoundland and Labrador should hold off on the Lower Churchill until a better set of facts is in front of the public, and the legislature. And the province would do well to take the time to ponder a broader set of options, including setting better energy policy. Muskrat Falls will wait, and a wider set of long-run options, including a transmission corridor that better serves provincial and pan-Canadian needs, will present themselves in due course.”

Williams announces political exit plan  (October 2010):

“It gets better. Weak electricity prices coupled with the front-end loading of capital on Muskrat Falls would likely mean power sent to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the United States could only sell at heavily discounted prices. Even Muskrat Falls power at a break even price would likely be too expensive for the markets to bear.   That’s an old and fundamental problem with trying to sell Labrador power so far away from Labrador.

No problem for NALCOR, these days. Thanks to changes made to the Electrical Power Control Act in 2006, the Hydro Corporation Act, the Public Utilities Act,  and government policy, NALCOR wouldn’t suffer any losses. The company can export all the discounted power it wants  knowing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will wind up paying for it.”

Debt, electricity rates and Muskrat Falls  (August 2011)

Muskrat falls deal will succeed:  Nalcor boss (December 2011)

Beleaguered utility blows raspberry at regulator #nlpoli

Nalcor should be able to supply information to any regulatory or review process for the Muskrat Falls project because the company should have already reviewed exactly the sorts of information those regulators or reviewers in order to approve its project for development.

The fact that Nalcor hasn’t been able to meet a single deadline, especially for the public utilities board process speaks volumes about Nalcor’s fundamental  problems.

The public utilities board process, don’t forget, is one in which Nalcor and the provincial government have constrained the PUB scope of inquiry and time scales/

Still Nalcor is frigging it up.

So what does a company do with a project more and more people are questioning across the board?

They send a letter to the public utilities board chairman that, in effect, blows a raspberry at the regulator.

To paraphrase:  we’ve given you pages of stuff and met your people lots of times despite the fact we are really, really busy doing other stuff.  So there.

What doesn’t sound good, though is this line in the last paragraph:

Nalcor wants to ensure that the process and final Board report is both balanced and a fair representation of the information presented.

So Nalcor chief executive Ed martin is now setting up a pre-emptive defense in case the utilities board review dumps on Nalcor.

Nalcor’s management of the Muskrat Falls project just keeps getting worse. 

And that only serves to further undermine confidence in the company.

- srbp -

Cheaper Muskrat Alternative: Part Whatever Gigantic Number we are at now #nlpoli

Hydro-Quebec just signed a deal to purchase 150 megawatts of electricity produced by biomass.

“The price for the power, in 2012 dollars, will be 10.6 cents per kilowatt hour, the average price for power awarded in 2009 to successful bidders on a biomass power program set to supply the hydro grid in 2012,” the [Montreal Gazette] paper reported.

- srbp -

The limits of myth busting #nlpoli

Coming to The Rooms in February:

Wednesday, February 22, 7 pm
The Limits of Myth Busting:
Popular and Professional Histories of Newfoundland and Labrador

What is the relationship between myth and history? And are myths rooted in history? Join Dr. Jerry Bannister as he shares his thoughts on the role of historians and popular mythologies in understanding our province’s past.

Mark your calendars.

This one should be as good as the last one.

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls: from worse to worser for Dunderdale and Company #nlpoli

Add Ron Penney to the list of former senior provincial public servants questioning Muskrat Falls and/or the way the provincial government is handling the project.

In a letter to the Telegram, the former Peckford-era [deputy] justice minister joins with David Vardy to call for a full, independent review of the MF proposal through the public utilities board.  Vardy, a former Clerk of the Executive Council, and Penney, one of the team that negotiated the 1985 Atlantic Accord, say that they have followed the discussion and that given the serious of the issue “fully expected” that the public utilities board would get the time needed to complete its review properly.

We were therefore not surprised by the recent request by the board to have the deadline extended for the completion of the reference until June 30 and fully expected Minister Jerome Kennedy to provide the extension. 

We were shocked by the immediate decision of the minister to deny the request. The stated reason is to allow a debate in the House of Assembly in March but there is no reason why the House cannot debate this in July, following the completion of the reference.

Penney and Vardy call Muskrat Falls the largest public works project ever undertaken in the province and “the most important public policy issue ever to have faced Newfoundland and Labrador”.

It requires careful and comprehensive independent analysis and a public debate, informed by that analysis. That is the purpose of the reference to the board and to restrict that review does a disservice to the people of the province.

They say that the project may “expose us [i.e. the people of the province] to significant risk”.  They are absolutely right and most of that risk, don’t forget is undisclosed.

Vardy and Penney draw attention to points that will be very familiar to SRBP readers:

Major infrastructure projects like this inevitably cost considerably more than originally estimated so we might well double the debt of the province at a time when it is likely that offshore revenues are in decline and our expenditures are increasing to meet the challenges posed by our changing demographics.

The solution, they argue, is to let the PUB assess all potential options.

The board should be allowed to consider the other issues that have been raised publicly over the past year such as the use of natural gas as feedstock for the Holyrood thermal plant, incentives to reduce demand during the winter peak, conservation measures, and estimates of future population and electrical load growth, among others. Furthermore, we maintain that these issues are legitimate questions within the review of the isolated island alternative to Muskrat Falls, even though we believe that the board should be unfettered in its mandate.

-srbp -

‘eavy ‘angs the ‘ead #nlpoli

Natural resources minister Jerome! Kennedy is wading deeper and deeper into the political morass called the Muskrat Falls project these days and finding that it is a sticky, stinky, mess.

For not one, but two days running, Jerome has been trying to explain to VOCM’s afternoon radio call-in host why Jerome and the Nalcor gang are right and everybody else is wrong. 

On Wednesday,  Jerome talked about a bunch of charts and tables he must have sent over to the host.  They both talked about what the tables showed:  how prices for electricity will be this if Muskrat goes ahead and will be that if it doesn’t.

“Will” as in “guaranteed to be.”

Only problem for Jerome! is that his numbers aren’t guaranteed anything at all.  They are speculation.  They are based on assumptions.  – at best – highly speculative. 

The price might be this. 

Or it might be something else entirely.

It all depends on what assumptions you make. 

Take, for example,  two of the key assumptions.

For Muskrat Falls to make any sense at all, crude oil must go to at least $200 a barrel and stay there.  Anything less than that and taxpayers are better off not building Muskrat. 

Second, Muskrat must also cost the projected price or less.  Odds of that happening are very small.  Jerome! insists that Nalcor has that one covered.  They have included in their estimates a possible cost over-run of 15%.

Unfortunately, the current provincial government (Nalcor and government are indistinguishable) couldn’t deliver pizza and guarantee a mere 15% cost over-run.  Government capital works projects these days are usually at least 50% more than they predict. On some projects they’ve gone 100% over budget. 

You get the point. 

There is only one combination of circumstances where the Danny/Jerome/Kathy idea for Muskrat Falls  works out for taxpayers and a bunch of combinations in which it doesn’t.  You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the odds of winning Lotto Jerome! are pretty small.

There are other aspects of the Muskrat Falls case that don’t make sense either, like the potential alternatives to Muskrat Falls, the export prospects and the forecasts for energy demand.  Critics of the project have systematically demolished all of them.  Not one survives to this day intact.

And yet Jerome! and Kathy Dunderdale and Nalcor keep pushing them.

Things didn’t get any better for the MF gang on Wednesday.  Economist Jim Feehan dissected an underlying problem in how the province sets electricity prices.  Tackling that one would encourage consumers to change some of their more wasteful ways they use energy. Lowering demand also lowers the need for expensive megaprojects.  Feehan’s approach could, if current trends continue, allow Nalcor to avoid the most expensive megaproject in the province’s history,  mothball the Holyrood plant and deliver consumers affordable electricity into the future.

If Feehan’s idea isn’t the only solution it’s one of the elements that a responsible provincial government would include in its energy policy for the province. 

Feehan’s commentary is a sign of how the opposition to Muskrat Falls is growing.  This time last year, Feehan thought Muskrat was a great – if pricy  - idea. Having taken a hard look at the project, Feehan has changed his mind.

Feehan’s comments also reflect the way the discussion is going.l  Critics of Muskrat Falls are looking not only at the weaknesses of the proposal itself, but also at the shortcomings of the current administration’s energy policy.

That’s good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

But for politicians like Jerome!, it means that two days of chatting up Paddy will turn into three and maybe more.

And the chances of winning more people to the cause just keep getting smaller and smaller.

Much like the chances that building Muskrat falls the way Jerome! and Kathy want to will deliver any benefit to the people who own the resource.

- srbp -

Great Minds Think Alike: “Jinkies!” edition #nlpoli

Ruh roh!

What do Danny Williams, Kathy Dunderdale and Sarah Palin have in common?

They  - and their bootlickers and wannabe bootlickers - all like to blame their own problems and shortcomings on people who write online. It’s all political bullshit, of course, but you can almost hear them saying “It would have worked too if it wasn’t for those pesky blogsters….and their dog! “

Scooby-doobie-doo!

- srbp -

Local economist questions Muskrat plans #nlpoli

From the CD Howe Institute:

NEWFOUNDLAND’S ELECTRICITY OPTIONS: MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICE REQUIRES AN EFFICIENT PRICING REGIME

Jan. 11, 2012 – James P. Feehan

Newfoundland [and Labrador] should hold off on plans to develop a power project on the Lower Churchill River in Labrador, according to a report released today by the C.D. Howe Institute. In “Newfoundland’s Electricity Options: Making the Right Choice Requires an Efficient Pricing Regime,” Memorial University economist James P. Feehan says the province should first reform electricity prices to better reflect costs and reduce consumption, then assess its options.

For the study go to: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_129.pdf

- srbp -

The real story of the Ottawa office #nlpoli

Nobody’s been in the job since since January 2010.

There’s no evidence that the two people who held the job actually did anything substantive during the time from 2004 to 2010 that someone held down the position known derisively as the Ambassador or – as your humble e-scribbler preferred – the Premier’s Personal Envoy to Hy’s.

And yet it still took Premier Kathy Dunderdale a full year and then some of her own term as Premier, plus the experience of interviewing a few potential replacements to realise what Premiers before Williams knew:  the whole thing was a foolish waste of time.

Lord sufferin’ dynamite, Old Man.

That is absolutely stunning.

And it tells you so much about how two successive Premiers and their administrations actually work.

They led with their strong suit:  the hyper-torqued official announcement that was long on the bullshit and short on the truth.  As a result, most of the conventional media reports were full of it, too.  Take the Ceeb’s account as an example of the type.

As some media accounts of the Premier’s scrum with reporters make it sound, Dunderdale has found a new way of doing things, what with ministers, deputy ministers and other officials talking to their federal counterparts.  And with communications better now that Kath and Steve are on the same wavelength, the Ottawa office is just not needed anymore.

No sir.  There’s a new energy in town and, by gosh, the release assures us all “it made sense to have our Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat assume responsibility, over the long term, for the functions that would have been carried out through the Ottawa office.”

Whatever functions the office did perform – there were no people in it, evidently – they were such that over a six year period, the big job in the office sat vacant for about half the time.  So whatever the crowd in Intergovernmental Affairs are taking on, odds are it wasn’t much.  They will just carry doing what they have done since the 1970s:  deal with their federal and provincial counterparts on a variety of issues.

So you caught that, right?

Since the 1970s, IGA has been doing all the things people claim this personal envoy job did. And they kept doing it all the way through the time this office existed, whether someone worked in it or not.

Now while your humble e-scribbler can say this based on his own knowledge of the provincial government and from seven years in the Premier’s Office, you really don’t have to go by that alone.

Consider the version of events by no less a person than Bill Rowe, the first personal envoy to Hy’s,  Rhodes Scholar, radio host, writer and secret police report leaker extraordinaire.  His insider’s account of things he was outside the room for made it plain Rowe did nothing while he was there.

There is no mention in the book’s of anything Rowe actually accomplished.  Well, aside from wait around for a cell phone and a laptop and arrange to have his used snow tires shipped up to him from Sin Jawns.  Like there was no place up there to buy new ones. 

Now Rowe sold a lot of those books.  Mainlanders are especially gullible, it turns out.  Hopefully, the guy made a few bucks of the book.  But if he only cleared a twonie, then his time in Ottawa at taxpayers’ expense was infinitely more productive for Rowe than it was for the people who footed the bill for his sojourn on the Rideau.

Our man in a Blue Line cab – Rowe’s eventual successor - did no better, although he stayed longer. Danny Williams acknowledged as much when Fitz packed it in at the end of his one and only contract.  Williams found him a nice new job back home.  Williams insisted the office in Ottawa would remain open, to be filled eventually with some other incumbent.

Kathy Dunderdale said the same thing after Danny handed over the Premier’s Office to her. Last June,

“The office serves a great purpose when it’s functioning the way that it should,” she told a Telegram editorial board [last] Wednesday. “And it’s important to me that we maintain that.”

Nothing changed in the intervening six months or so, except Dunderdale’s talking points. The bottom line remains now as it has since Danny Williams decided to give his old alum chum a nice perk;  the job was a total waste of public money.  Public servants in this province and cabinet ministers never stopped doing the work they and their predecessors have done.

The fact that it took the Tories two years to shut the office down and that it took Kathy Dunderdale a full year to arrive at an incredibly simple  - and glaringly obvious – conclusion tells you this is a government that consistently has a hard time getting things done.

In other words, not a thing has changed since the serial government took office.

- srbp -

A legislative first in Newfoundland and Labrador #nlpoli

If the province’s Liberals live up to the promise made in a news release issued Monday, they’ll make local legislative history.

Andrew Parsons, MHA for Burgeo-La Poile, announced today that he will be introducing a Bill to regulate the opening of the House of Assembly in the future.

Since Confederation, opposition political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador have contented themselves with taking one afternoon a week to debate a meaningless resolution.

While they’ve had the ability all along to introduce bills that could become law, no opposition party has ever tried before.  It’s so common elsewhere that no one really pays attention to it.

Of course now that Parsons has told everyone, you can expect the NDP will start drafting bills and the Tories will try to figure out some procedural reason to stop it. 

Good luck on the latter.

On the former that just means the Tories will have a much harder time in the House this spring than they expected.

And when the governing party has to work hard during a legislative session, that’s only a good thing.

- srbp -

OCI jams provincial fisheries minister #nlpoli

The CBC online account is on the Ceeb’s website (here). That’s pretty much what everyone has been reporting, namely the impact fisheries minister Darin King’s comments on Friday had on Ocean Choice International.

Check the company’s news release and you’ll see that is also what the company started out with:

Sullivan said remarks by fisheries minister Darin King have left global customers, employees and the people of  Newfoundland and Labrador questioning the credibility of the company, something he said should never have happened.

Attacks on a private sector company that adversely affect the company’s financial position is old hat for the provincial Conservatives.  It’s the same tactic Tom Rideout, right,  used on Fishery Products International when he was fisheries minister.

To be fair, King isn’t doing the same thing.  His comments on Friday came more out of a short-term political need to make it look like he was doing something besides looking impotent.

In the end, King made a statement everyone knew rang a little hollow:  no one believed the government would issue a permanent exemption on processing anyway.  Then he took a shot at OCI that led the company to come out in an even stronger position.  Except among the usual gang of myth mongers and ignorant windbag politicians, people in Newfoundland and Labrador looking at OCI’s position will appreciate the sensible, rational tone of it:

However, when these discussions veer off to public commentary that is damaging to our reputation, we must take exception.

…

I respect the right of the province to make decisions on matters before them. And, I respect government’s decision to disallow permanent exemptions on flatfish and redfish.

…

We understand now that government is in receipt of all information requested to date, apart from minor clarifications received today. (a direct refutation of King’s claim)

In reply, King can lash out again or let the comment from OCI go by. Either way, King loses.  If he lashes out, his eventual and inevitable capitulation by granting long-term exemptions will look like he collapsed under pressure from the company.  And if he let’s the comments slide by, King will look like he is afraid of OCI.  When he inevitably grants the company long term exemptions, he will look like he collapsed in fear.

How does Darin King win? 

At this point, King can’t win.  He can only hope to limit damage. Whoever advised him to issue the news release on Friday should get the boot for being a political moron.

Arguably, the only politician in a worse position is Liberal fisheries critic Jim Bennett.  As CBC quotes Bennett:

"You can't blame a company for taking as many liberties as the government will let them take."

Anyone who thinks the current fisheries crisis is caused by slack government regulation of the industry and greedy irresponsible fishing companies running roughshod over everything and everyone is either a fool on his own or a fool taking advice from an even bigger idiot.

There’s just no polite way to put it.

- srbp -

A familiar, fishy tale #nlpoli

Scientists told some American fishermen before Christmas that the cod the fishermen depend on for their livelihood are in danger of disappearing unless the fishermen change their ways.

Frig off, say the fishermen.

People from this province will recognise the drama.  Evidence says one thing.  A whole bunch of people deny it.

The drama continues to this day in Newfoundland and Labrador as the same people who have fought steadfastly against reforming the fishery continue their struggle.

You can spot the denial experts because they all got sucked in by a news release from the fisheries department last week. ‘Ocean Choice International Denied Permanent Redfish Exemption” screamed the headline.  Hooray, screamed the Deniers.  That’ll teach the Latest Evil Ones that they cannot pull a fast one.

Yes folks, there is no crisis.

It’s all just made up.

Now of course, the provincial government won’t grant a permanent exemption.  The fisheries minister and his colleagues are still in denial about the scope of the fisheries crisis and the need for dramatic change.

But in a few weeks time, Darin King will have to do something.  Odds are he will give OCI what it really wants, namely the end of restrictions on its processing licenses that force the company to process fish in this province even if it isn’t profitable to do so.

They won‘t be permanent exemptions.

But they company will get exemptions.

The reason is right there in the release:

“Yesterday we learned that OCI intends to proceed with plans to fish redfish from quotas purchased from license holders in Nova Scotia. The company has said if we provide an exemption, they will land the fish in Newfoundland and Labrador, otherwise it would be landed elsewhere.”

Then you put that with King’s guiding principles, as reported by the Telegram:

… no [provincial] government subsidies for the fishery, and making moves that maximize the benefit of the resource for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

King is just pretending because he is politically jammed up.  He gets praised today but in a few days or weeks, the same people will be attacking him.

Denying reality is a familiar, fishy tale whether you are in New England or Newfoundland.

The only difference is how long it takes for reality to take hold.

- srbp -