Little Coyote

Dominoes

Nova Scotia Power Inc recently announced a new agreement to purchase renewable energy from the Amherst Wind Energy Project. The project is expected to produce about 100 gigawatt hours of energy annually by 2007. That's enough to supply 10,000 homes. The turbines will be situated alongside the Trans-Canada Highway on the Tantramar Marshes.

Including this latest project, NSPI has awarded contracts for 100 megawatts of wind energy from independent power producers in the last 16 months.

I applaud NSPI for their green energy efforts and recognizing wind as a cost-effective energy source, that is also a clean, domestic, renewable resource. Green energy also has the potential to help wean North America from its dependence on foreign fuel sources.
(Who needs to drill in the ANWR for independance? :p)

However, this won’t amount to any real dollar savings for consumers.
Especially considering that big increases in the price of oil, coal and natural gas (which have the shit taxed out of them) have prompted NSPI to request an average 15% increase in electricity prices for 2006.

"Everyone - from our customers in Nova Scotia to electrical utilities throughout North America - is feeling the effect of rising global energy prices," said Chris Huskilson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nova Scotia Power.
"With fuel our single biggest expense as a utility, it's impossible to avoid making this rate request, no matter how much we would prefer not to."

I suppose I can understand that Chris. But Nova Scotians on low and fixed incomes will have an especially difficult time dealing with the impact of the recent increase in residential electricity rates, let alone an additional 15%. I would expect a very cold winter for many families and individuals.

Darrell Dexter and the Nova Scotia NDP recently launched a petition that calls for no more power rate increases until NSPI and the government help families save at least 15% on their electricity bills.

"We know the best way to reduce energy costs is to reduce the amount of energy Nova Scotians use. Energy conservation isn’t a new idea, but it is one that has been gaining momentum across Canada as the price of fossil fuels spiral out of control." Says Dexter.

And he makes an excellent point. Initiatives are already underway in other provinces and territories to conserve energy, including government agencies committed to energy conservation, sales tax rebates on the purchase of energy efficient appliances, and monitoring devices that provide real-time usage data and actual dollar cost for appliance use.

I’m trying desperately to understand the burden fuel costs might have on a corporation like NSPI. And yet I fail to figure why the burden of such costs must again fall to consumers. It’s like a bloody game of Dominoes and Nova Scotians are standing smack below the last one.

Last December, the Nova Scotia Government and its universities signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), capping tuition increases at 3.9 per cent each year.
The agreement states that the province will not levy new taxes or charges. The council of Nova Scotia University Presidents and the Association of Atlantic Universities views the increase in power rates as an additional charge in part by the province and are consequently preparing to increase tuition rates above the 3.9 percent cap.

I suppose I am in no position to complain, The MOU tuition cap excluded fees for students in medicine, dentistry and law, which are to increase 9.28 per cent in 2005-2006, as approved by the Dalhousie Board of Governors last April. (How else would a university componsate for any losses a new pay contract might create?) International student, differential fees, also excluded from the cap will increase $810.

And the trend continues. Recently the Dalhousie University Bookstore has been told by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency that it must now charge HST on all books that include a CD, CD-ROM or pin number that gives access to a website.

Anyway, all this leaves me trying to figure, why are the big guys like Nova Scotia Power Inc and the Association of Atlantic Universities so incapable of cutting a few losses like the rest of us? Do simple economics not ring clear to them? If we’re spending money we barely even have on fuel, or power, or school, (or all of the above) how do they suppose this will affect the economy and their rear ends (when it all comes back to kick em’ there)?


Memorandum of Understanding

NDP Petition

posted by Amanda @ 12:48 p.m. Comments: 3

Where There Is Oil There is a Way

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge conserves wildlife and wilderness in northeast Alaska. The refuge is home to thousands of migratory birds and to some 40,000 porcupine caribou calves who are born there each year. And yet despite the purpose of wildlife conservation in this area, on April 28th the American House and Senate passed a joint budget resolution that paves the way for oil drilling in the refuge. They are also expected sometime within the next month to O.k the project.

Perhaps this would be understandable, given the cost of fuel. One might assume this would result in lower prices at the pump and allow the United States to be less dependent on overseas energy. However..

The potential of oil in the ANWR depends on limited data and numerous assumptions about geology and economics. The most recent U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there is a 95% chance that 4.3 billion barrels of oil may be "technically" recoverable, although when taking cost into consideration this is reduced to 2.0 billion "economically" recoverable barrels. While this sounds like a considerable number it actually amounts to less than the United States uses in 6 months. At peak production, it would produce 0.75 million barrels of oil per day as compared to domestic consumption of 19 million barrels per day. Even this modest amount of oil wouldn't be available for years; it would take 15-20 years before production was fully on line.


Of course the government is suggesting (www.anwr.org) the yield could be over a million barrels a day. And it could be.. If you're the type who likes to gamble. The USGS reports that the likeliness of more than .75 million barrels per day is less than 6%.
Still the government presses on for "responsible development" of the ANWR, using this slight possibility in its list of ten reasons to support the plan. Along with increased revenue, jobs, technology, and the promise of little intrusion and damage.. It sounds all too sickly familiar coming from those mouths.

When you consider that 95% of Alaska's Northern Slope is already open for drilling and oil exploration, the remaining 5% (the coastal plain of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge) is the only wild stretch of Alaska's North Slope coast left untouched. It is expected that drilling will have a devastating effect on this delicate refuge . Decimating nesting grounds for thousands of migratory birds and the porcupine caribou, as well as impacting the livelihood of the Gwich'in people of the northernYukon who rely heavily on the migrating caribou.

For more information on the Gwich'in and their culture, please visit here:
www.gwichin.org/gwichin.html

If you're interested in additional information, particularly related U.S. policy, please visit here:
www.policyalmanac.org
/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml

For the USGS report on the affects drilling would have on the caribou, please visit here:
www.usgs.gov/anwr/report.html

And lastly, WWF Canada has launched a campaign to bring awareness to the situation in ANWR here:
www.donotdrill.ca

The government does give a good ten reasons to allow this project to occur. But there are 40,000 + great and beautiful reasons to simply leave the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve alone.

posted by Amanda @ 6:45 p.m. Comments: 5

Yip, Yip, Howl.
Look out blog world, here I come.

posted by Amanda @ 1:29 a.m.