Environmental implications

This was posted for James at NB Gov. Could you please review the Environmental Implications document that is published on this website and check into the following possible error:

The 2007 greenhouse gases emmisions levels that NB has to reduce in the future is based on 18.7 MT per year. This has to be reduced to 16.1 MT by 2012. The document states that closing Grand Lake power plant (officially anounced before the MOU) and Dalhousie power plant would reduce the in province emmisions by 2.1 MT. This would put the level at 16.6 MT. (18.7 - 2.1 = 16.6)

Then the document goes on to say : "Eliminating NB Power’s GHG emissions from the Grand Lake and Dalhousie facilities will have the following
effects:
• the province’s annual GHG emissions would be reduced by 11 per cent;
• by 2012, GHG emissions would be six per cent below 1990 levels"

The 11% percent reduction I can figure out. The second statement rational eludes me. 1990 levels are 16.1 MT, yet the math clearly shows that 16.6 MT would be the greenhouse gases emmitted after the reductions by NB Power. If the reductions only reduce GHG emmisions to 16.6 MT, where is the other 0.5 MT of GHG reductions coming from?

Are you assuming that Coleson Cove and /or Belledune will run so few hours between now and 2012 that NB will meet these targets? Has contruction already started on the intertie connections between Quebec and NB to upgrade the HVDC stations to allow Belledune and Coleson Cove to shutdown?

Was there not talk of a second oil refinery in Saint John? Where were the GHG credits for this coming from? If gas turbines are installed in the southern part of the province that could possibly be supplied from the new LNG plant or the incredibly vast natural gas resources in the province, where would the GHG credits for this come from?

As for the rest of he document, it's a good history lesson, but does not really have any bearing the MOU. And I'll say it again, most of the emmisions benefits are the result of the previously announced Grand Lake closure.

MOU

Posted today at that famous website promoting the greatest deal since Churchill Falls.

"I need some help understanding the big picture.

New Bruswick gets their power from NB Power, who gets it from these sources:

Energy generation and purchases
• Renewable energy: 3,445 GWh
• All types of energy: 16,559 GWh
• Proportion of renewable energy: 20.8%

To start, this number is misleading. Because NB only consumes 14,000 Gwh. Right? This is the heritge pool supply from the MOU. Yet here you quote 16,559 (which must include power sold or wheeled through the province.) So does that make renewables a higher source of in province generation?

3445 gwhrs / 14,000 gwhrs = 25% of all in province use from renewables today. In fact it was 26% in 2006/07. Look here : http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/operating/holding.html

NB Power Net capacity
• Total: 3,849 MW
• Hydro generating stations (7): 895 MW
• Nuclear generating station (1): 635 MW
• Thermal generating stations (7): 2,319 MW, including 500 MW gas turbines installed by HQ in early 1990's at St. Rose and Millbank that rarely run, and don't even get a mention in the MOU. Also includes Grand Lake (60 MW) that was scheduled to shutdown. Coleson cove is 1000MW and Belledune is 475MW

Other sources of electricity supply
• Wind farm (1): 96 MW
• Natural gas (2): 353 MW
• Other suppliers: 55 MW

There are two wind farms now right? Add another 99 MW for Caribou Mountain that just came on line. That will bump up renewables some. I heard Grand Falls was going to get a capacity increase that would double it's output. Another 66 MW. Again, more renewables added to the mix.

HQ CEO, Mr Vandal, extremely confident Pt. Lepreau will return to service within a month or two of projected date in Jan/Feb 2011. So lots of cheap nuclear for the province there, for 25 years or so.

Belledune fossil station required to stay online for forseeable future to fill gaps in capacity imports to NB from Quebec. Plus it's clean (first flue gas desulpherization unit in Canada - Dalhousie was number 3 by the way.) Belledune has been rated by many independent organizatons as a top plant in North America for reliabilty and costs. Mr Vandal speaks highly of it and plans to keep it running for a long time.

Coleson Cove is a peaker and will be for forseeable future. Again to fill gaps in capacity import restrictions from Quebec. This plant has had major overhauls recently in preparation for Orimulsion, so is ready for a long 25 year run. Especially if it designed to run several thousand hours a year, but only runs for several hundred as a peaker during the cold winter months using expensive bunker. Plus it has one unit converted to run partially on petcoke. These are the leftovers from the oil refinery process, and are available cheap. Fossil, but cheap. Currently also used in Belledune mixed with coal. Again cheap.

The other sources of electricity supply
• Wind farm (1): 96 MW + 99 MW + another 200 MW announced
• Natural gas (2): 353 MW - contracted out, fossil ,but cleaner and more efficient combined cycle units that will run for a long time into the future.
• Other suppliers: 55 MW - this would have to include the biomass unit owned and operated by Frasers.

I know this may be longwinded, but so far, I see no differnece between the stations that NB Power currently runs, and stations that HQ plans to runs in the future. Exception is Dalhousie. And yes, when it's cheap fuel runs out, it would have to be replaced with something, but that's what all this renewables and capacity increases at Grand Falls is for isn't it? Yet, NB Power runs with a "crippling debt", but yet Quebec Hydro can run all the same facilities with a 10% return on investment on a 4.75 billion dollar investment. Meanwhile, the NB goverment racks up a large annual loss from various dividends from NB Power.

Please help me to understand this."

Added this later :

"With renewables making 26% of in province supply now and growing, Pt. Lepreau to make 30% of in province supply soon, contracted others supplying another 20% that consist of clean or renewables, and Belledune (cheap and reliable) basically making up the difference for a long time, (whether under HQ or NB power) what’s the rush???"

Great little article by CBC explaining what most people have aleady figured out.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/11/27/nb-nbpower-savings.html#socialcomments


Also Found these today. I agree with them for the most part.


http://jvadserve.com/MOUtruth2.pdf

http://jvadserve.com/MOUbetweenthelines.pdf

Be...in dis-grace.wmv Song on youtube - Brilliant

If you have been following the nb power sale closely, you'll love this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1F3si9CXBg

Fortunes in Cap-and-Trade

I got this today from an industry newsletter that I receive via email. Basically explaining how a large nuclear power producer in the US will make a small fortune off of the future carbon credits cap and trade system. Hydro Quebec will be poised to be in the same situation with any surplus power that they sell into the open market. Including markets they obtain through US interconnections through New Brunswick. This underlying reason is that nuclear and hydro don't produce greenhouse gases as defined by the "clean energy" regulations and because most older hydro stations can get on the grid at a fairly low price, they get the going market rate as higher priced producers get on the grid to meet demand. And remember, many beg to differ on whether hydro is clean, and that can be found on an earlier post. The flipside of the article, is that the current going rate is only $3/tonne. So maybe those dirty old fosil plants won't have much to worry about after all. Happy Reading folks.



Fortunes in Cap-and-Trade November 25, 2009 Written by : Richard Schlesinger

"Although the electric industry has endorsed the concept of cap-and-trade as the least onerous approach to carbon regulation, at least one major company endorses it with unalloyed enthusiasm. Exelon not only supports the idea, it stated in a second-quarter conference call to analysts, which it posted to its Web site, that it expects to see a "$1.1 billion and growing annual upside to Exelon revenues from implementation of Waxman-Markey." Is that number real or simply wishful thinking? Does Exelon know something that's escaped the rest of us?

Actually, if one makes a couple of assumptions, the potential earnings boost is very real. Here's how it works. Exelon's 17 nuclear plants, the largest nuclear fleet in the country, generated just over a record 132 million megawatts-hours of power in 2007. That's fact. Assumption number one: The Senate follows the House and passes an unchanged version of the Waxman-Markey bill.

At the start of the program, about 85 percent of the permits would be given away. Over time, the percentage of free permits would decline. About 15 percent of the permits would be auctioned off to begin with, and that percentage would increase over time. What concerns us is the value of these permits, because that value translates into increased costs for generation. Which brings us to assumption number two: The EPA estimates that during the early years of the program, a permit to emit one ton of CO2 would cost approximately $15.

In the unregulated markets where Exelon operates, the price of power is set by the last power plant dispatched to meet demand. In the Philadelphia area, for instance, one of Exelon's markets, the last power plants to be dispatched tend to be gas-fired plants, according to Hugh Wynne, senior research analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. On average, Wynne said, gas-fired plants emit one-half ton of CO2 per megawatt-hour generated. Assuming the EPA's estimate of $15 per ton, that means an incremental cost for gas-fired plants of $7.50 per megawatt-hour.

Coal plants emit twice the carbon as gas-fired plants, or one ton per megawatt-hour generated. In order to level the playing field, Waxman-Markey grants coal-fired plants a half-ton of CO2 for free for every megawatt-hour produced. In other words, coal- and gas-fired plants would each incur an additional cost of $7.50 per megawatt-hour. All things being equal, that means the price of power sold into unregulated markets would rise by $7.50 per megawatt-hour.

Multiply Exelon's nuclear generation of 132 million megawatt-hours by the price increase of $7.50 per megawatt-hour and -- voila! -- you get a revenue increase of $990 million. Call it a billion dollars. As time goes on and the carbon cap gets smaller, the price per ton should rise accordingly.

Tim Winter, utility analyst at Gabelli Funds, noted another possible boon to companies with nuclear fleets. Certain coal-fired plants, particularly those older plants that operate inefficiently, could find that once the price of carbon allowances goes beyond a certain point, the price of power might fall below their cost of producing it. In that case, the plant would shut down, tilting the supply/demand equilibrium, creating a shortage of power, and pushing the price of power even higher. Again, Exelon, as the lowest-cost producer in the Northeast, would benefit.

Many Variables

So Exelon, as the low-cost producer, would benefit from the increased price of power under a cap-and-trade scheme, which helps to explain the company's enthusiasm for cap-and-trade. One would expect that companies such as Florida Power and Light and Entergy, with nuclear capacity and markets that are, at least in part, unregulated, would share Exelon's enthusiasm.

And so they do. Brent Dorsey, director of corporate environmental programs for Entergy, endorses cap-and-trade as a "good first step" in regulating greenhouse gas emissions, although from a strictly environmental perspective, he would rather see a shorter timeline than Waxman-Markey proposes. FPL Group's chairman and CEO, Lewis Hay, endorses cap-and-trade, adding, "The sooner we can establish a price on carbon dioxide, the sooner we can tackle climate change and begin the transition to the clean-energy economy of the 21st century." And the sooner FPL can enjoy the benefits of an increase in the cost of power cap-and-trade would deliver.

But even non-nuclear facilities could benefit under this scenario. Assuming the relative prices of gas and coal remain as they are, the extra cost incurred by coal should encourage companies that can to shift more of their production toward gas, thus increasing margins.

While utilities may be motivated to switch to cleaner burning fuels, some doubt they will be inspired to actually trade the credits. Edward Tirello, managing director and senior power strategist for Berenson & Co., is one such person. "The big money will be made by those that put up the capital, trading folks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley."

But any kind of trading assumes a price that makes any risk involved worthwhile. And although the EPA assumes a price of $15 per ton during the early years of the program, the market doesn't support that price, at least not today. The limited experience gleaned from the small volume of trading that's taken place so far, such as what the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has sponsored, certainly doesn't come even close -- $3 a ton last spring.

The political odds are also at play here, meaning no bill has yet to pass. So the forecast by Exelon remains, at this point, wishful thinking. Whatever profit actually materializes will depend on the price the market sets for carbon, and on whether cap-and-trade ever becomes more than a theoretical scheme to address the issue of global warming."

More information is available from Energy Central:

Cap and Trade Is Not Enough: Adopt Carbon Emissions Portfolio Standards, EnergyBiz, Jul/Aug 2009

Flaws in Carbon Principles - We Don't Need Financial Engineering, EnergyBiz, March/April 2009

Carbon on the Block - Industry Watches RGGI, EnergyBiz, Jan/Feb 2009

Subscribe to EnergyBiz magazine today.
EnergyBiz magazine is the thought-leading, award-winning publication of the emerging power industry. This article originally appeared in the November/December 2009 issue.

No time for research - just venting

posted on lower your pants and bend over:

to raymond. I like your comments. I come here for basically the reasons you give. And I pick up some great info here and there.

Yes, Lepreau and Mactaquac should produce the same billions in profits over the next 25 years. replacement costs for Lepreau are 16 million a month. Page 68 here: http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/EngCombined.pdf

Ultimately, I would think that would turn into about the same profit after Lepreau is back up and running.
16m/month x 12 months x 25 yrs = 4.8B without inflation tacked on.

Rate payers will be payng the same costs under the terms of the MOU with HQ as they are now. HQ is definitely not going to buy NB Power and then pass infrastructure costs onto quebec customers while nb ratepayers get a rate freeze. That would be just silly, wouldn't it James from NB gov. So if Mactaquac needs rebuilding, then the costs will be rolled into the rates. No different than any other business. HQ does it now. NB Power does it now. Just that HQ will have the option to say the don't want or need the dam, give some reason ludicrous reason why they don't, replace it with power from northern quebec and stick NB taxpayers with the bill to decommision it while they dump 2 billion into a project in Quebec. At least if NB Power was to rebuild it, it would create construction jobs in the province, and employ many people for another 100 years after.

And To Linda Keirstead : Go girl, you always have great posts.


Anyway, back to reality. If anyone want some heavy reading, try out the New Brunswick system operator website media section.

http://www.nbso.ca/public/en/pm/news/news.aspx

They have agreat colection of reports commisioned to determine the future direction of power supply and demand in the province. These are long comprehensive reports, unlike what you'll find on your government one sided websites. Seems demand will start to creep up again as soon as the five year rate freeze is over. Apparently NB has 5000 MW of wind power potential. Greater than all capacity in the province now. Another 340 MW of small hydro potential. About 1/2 of the Mactaquac capacity. The say wind potential is apparently good for 1 to 2 billion annually to the province.

Conspiracy theory

OK. Here is the way I see it now. Hydro Quebec has a huge surplus of power. This, the result of the great economic downturn that has plagued the whole of North America. Even little old Dalhousie. Apparently they have about 7 terawatts of surplus this year alone. That's about 1/2 of what New Brunswick consumes. Check out the full article here : http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Hydro+Qu%C3%A9bec+seeks+rate+hikes/1845406/story.html.

Now why is that a problem? Well hydro stations are immensly capital intensive. It takes massive amounts of money to build a hydro station in the upper reaches of Quebec where not too many people live. Of course the fuel is free, but at the end of the month, the big bad banker from Montreal still wants his mortgage payment, and of course the Government of Quebec wants their 150 million (per month that is) to keep up their social programs. All is fine and dandy as long there is some rain in the summer and some snow in the winter and some large industrial customers to smelter some aluminum. But take away an aluminum smelter here, and a pulp mill there, and now you have a surplus. And when you have a surplus, that means you are not generating electricity. And when you are not generating electricity with a hydro station, you are not making money. In fact, your probably hemoraging a few million a week. So, how will Hydro Quebec ever make a mortgage payment without raising in province residential rates. They take a chapter from NB Power, or maybe NB Power took a chapter from them, but either way HQ sells it to the states. Our freinds south of the border need lots of cheap, renewable power. But in the ever changing economic world, I think a conversation similiar this happened:

"But wait, what's that you say, our transmision lines are full". "Well build some more."

We are Mr CEO, but we can't build them fast enough.

"Well charge our American freinds more".

We can't Sir, the North American Free Trade agreement, Article 605, states that we can't charge our American Freinds more for Power than what we charge our domestic customers. Sir, the phones for you, it's Premier Charest.

"Bonjour Premier, How are you today? (in French of course)"

Very good Terry, hope business is well, we're looking forward to a great dividend check on our investment this month.

"Well Sir, business is down, and so are profits.

Unacceptable Terry, we have fireworks displays to put on. I want a plan on my desk by the end of the day.

"Yes Sir. Well people, you heard the Premier, how can we raise profits in these tough economic times?"

Well sir, all our surrounding provinces have higher rates than us. Why don't we just sell more to them.

"You know we can't. We're already maxed out on what we can sell to our neighbours. Wait !! If our neighbours have higher rates than we do, then how can we make them our domestic customer? Then we can charge more to our American Freinds."

Sir, we'd have to own them. Hydro One in Ontario is too big to buy, plus they have too much debt, and NFLD hates us now, they'll never sell. There is just NB Power left. They're too smart to sell. They'd see right through our plan. But their rates are 40% higher than ours. Then we could charge our American freinds 40% more.

"Well, we'll just have to buy them without them knowing, then won't we. Get their Premier on the phone, what's his name. Now!!. Hello , Jean, oh sorry Shawn, have I got a deal for you"

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Of course all this is hypothetical.

BTW Article 605 is here : http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/texte/chap06.aspx?lang=en

Where are the facts ?

Posted today on other places on the world wide web.

11.24.2009 at 6:29 pm | Immediate costs to taxpayers :

Upon taking a look at the MOU, and the 2009 NB Power financial statement published last week on their website, I have the following observations.

It’s easy to see the short term costs that the Government of NB will have to assume.

1. $20 million to decommission Dalhousie (NB Power annual report shows all 5 fossil stations at $124M)
2. March 31, 2009 NB Power liabilities $5.19 Billion difference from selling price (5.19-4.75) = $ 440 million
3. Annual revenue paid by NB Power to NB Government = Average of $100 million – verified by Auditor General
4. Costs of Pt Lepreau from April 1, 2010 to Feb 1, 2011 = $110 Million. This is shown as $10 million a month from page 68 of 2009 NB Power financial statement.
5. Loss of taxes collected from no 3% rate increase during first 5 years Residential portion only = $24 million dollars
6. Estimated tax loss from Industrial customers = 8% part of GST of $ 79 million in first year = 6 million. Lets say about 1 million less per year to year 5. = 6+5+4+3+2 = 20 million total over first five years

Total cost to TAXPAYERS from day 1 and over first five years of rate freeze = $1.11 Billion dollars.

It will be more, because NB Power will accrue more debt refurbishing Lepreau during 2009/2010 fiscal year, that could add another $400 million to the debt before anything is signed.
Lepreau replacement power cost is $16 million per month (Again shown on page 68 of financial statement) that is accruing now (16 x 12 = 192 million for 2009/2010 before agreement signed? This could be added to the $1.11 billion.

To Shawn and Jack and James at GNB – Where are these tax dollars being made up? Where is your business plan? Where is the written commitment from industry players who say they are coming to invest in the province to make up for this loss of revenue?

Where are the facts?

Posted this today on give away your freedoms.com , I mean "lowerratesnb.com:



To James at Gov NB

"Concerning this question – Are there assurances of job creation?"

The Government of New Brunswick has been told by a number of businesses, on a number of different occasions, that this proposed deal between Hydro-Quebec and NB Power will have a positive effect on jobs here in the province.

Another way to look it :

I, Shawn Graham, duly elected to represent the people of NB , promise NOT to sell NB Power.

Later on ........ I Shawn Graham, announce today that NB has entered into a historic agreement to sell NB Power.

See Shawn - business don't have to keep there promises either. They'll gladly take your government handout and RUN.

ANOTHER ONE


TO James at GNB

Seeing as you're on here quite a bit today, maybe you can answer this:

Concerning these questions : What will be the total provincial debt on April 1, 2010 after this deal goes through, and what percentage of the provincial debt will be wiped out? And, what will be the provincial debt on April 1, 2011 after the taxpayers pay for the completion of the Pt. Lepreau overhaul? The government is quite willing to shows calculations out to the year 2040 and beyond, so this exercise in only looking 1-1/2 years out shouldn't be a big problem.

As for the costs of decommisioning the thermal stations, under the status quo, would not these costs would be paid by all Ratepayers. Like how current ratepayers paid for taking down the Chatham plant. Instead the government is moving these costs over to all Taxpayers. Kinda like deciding to keep paying the registration and PLPD insurance on an old truck you keep behind the barn, but decide not to drive. Doesn't make much sense.

"Put that in your assumptions and smoke it"

I just stuck this up on the lower rates site. Update : it got deleted so I posted it again. But removed the smoke it part. Interested to see if it stays.

Has anyone read the new NB Power combined financial statement for 2009? It's available here : http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/EngCombined.pdf
Second page shows March 31 2009 liabilities at $5.19 billion. I assume thats because of the investment in Lepreau. What will it be on March 31, 2010 when Graham sign on the bottom lne. Add another 1/2 billion?? That would put the debt at about 1 BILLION more than the selling price. I assume that debt goes on the bottom line for the province. Then it takes another 10 months to finish Lepreau with NB taxpayers footing the bill. From the same NB Power financial statement, delay costs for Lepreau are $10 million per month. This is just capital costs, not even the replacement power costs. A total of $100 million soon to be paid by government, not a self sustaining NB Power. On top of this the NB government loses $100 million per year from special payment by NB Power. So total increase in provincial debt over fist 5 years while residential rates are frozen is around $1.6 BILLION. Way to go Shawn, we can wait until year 30 to infinity to get that back. Put that in you assumptions and smoke it."


There is also a great article here: http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/journal/article/864699 that explains how the new generation coming online in Quebec will be quite expensive compared to rates paid today by HQ customers and even cost more than rates paid by current NB Power customers. The days of cheap hydro are over.

Found this too, but don't know how to watch it " Monday night at 6pm on the Quebec run french news channel LCN there is a special about NB Power/Hydro Quebec. It will be interesting to see Quebec media's point of view!"

Great Post from Lower Rates NB

This post was taked from the Lower rates NB website. It has some good arguments. Because of all the posts that get removed from the lower rates site, I copied it here.


11.21.2009 at 10:06 am | Expert panel :
Interesting info off of face book

Background: To fully understand the gravity of this MOU, there are a few things we need to know. I called Marketing to get some ideas on the cost of replacement power and learned this. Power is bought and sold, on an open market. If there is an excess of power, you may get rates cheap, but if demand is high, and power becomes short in supply, prices rise, and sometimes to unbelievable levels.

Prices depend on many factors, Like when its bought, and demand. Prices on Power usually range from $40/MW and up, even as high as $1000/MW or higher. Keep in mind, how long you want the power for, also affects cost. Example, if you buy power 1 day in advance, for the day, you can get a cheaper rate than if you want that amount for a month. The increase in cost over longer purchasing times, is due to the risk that the supplying power company has to assume, to guarantee that they will have this power available a month down the road.

Power also has a charge added to it called tolling charges, which is the cost to send the power down utilities lines. These charges are affected by when the power is sent, called on and off peak. In New Brunswick, off peak, or when demand is usually lower is @$2.88/MW and on Peak, Like Breakfast and Suppertime is @$6.07/MW.

So, now let’s look at the facts, and where they relate to our rates:

FACT: MOU PG5, HQ has placed a 14TWh Limit for residential and industrial use/yr to NB Customers.
FACT: New Brunswick’s use last year 07/08 was 14.25TWH. NB Power Financial report on NB Powers web site.
FACT: Residential Rates Frozen for 5 years at rates MOU was signed then increased at the rate of the NB CPI.
FACT: NB CPI as per statistics Canada web site for last 5 yrs was, 1.5, 2.4, 1.7, 1.9, and for 2008 1.7.
FACT: As per MOU Section 2, HQ will be allowed to recoup extra power charges plus interest above the 14TWH, for this 5 yr term and EVERY year after. This will be recovered after the 5 year freeze.
FACT: MOU page 8 section 3 (Vi) NB Government can recoup decommissioning costs of all 5 thermal plants, through regulatory charges to electricity customers.
FACT: NB Power Financial report PG52 , Decommissioning costs were to be a liability until 2035. So the money is obviously not there and will need to be recouped.

New Solar Panel production plant In Miramichi has been rumored to need 1.2TWH/yr. Also any increased load, NEW plants, new houses etc will be more.

So from all this info. It is a fact, that the rates will be where they are for 5 yrs . but on the 6th year WATCHOUT.

(It will go from the 9.8 cent/KWH) + (increase based on CPI NB @1.8% avg last 5yrs) + (the deferral costs we will have to pay back for extra power above 14TWh + the interest on this extra amount) + (any costs to repair and upgrade infrastructure) + (decommissioning costs for 5 thermal plants, recouped by NB Gov, estimate from Liberals to be over $110million).

NOTE: This will be like this FOREVER after year 5!!!
Still think 3%, or ¼ of 1 cent /KWh increase NB Power was to add was bad?

So Lets estimate cost:

Approximate Cost of Heritage Pool Excess:
Power in Jan and Feb, Runs Approx: $75-85/MW when booked a day in advance. $100+/MW when book for a month in advance.
Tolling Cost To run a MW of power on the lines: During Off Peak Times $2.88/MW. During on Peak Times $6.07/MW

Now During the Past 5 years we have exceeded the 14TWh cap 4 Times by @0.25TWh.

Here is a quick calculation, AT THE LOWEST NUMBERS, for the cost associated with going over the Cap by 0.25TWh:
Replacement power Cost
0.25TWh = 250 000MW
250 000MW X $75/MW = $18 750 000.

Tolling Charges
$2.88/MW X 250 000MW = $720 000.

Penalty/yr during first 5 years
$18 750 000 + $720 000 = $19 470 000.

So as NB’ers we will have to pay $19 470 000./year + Interest for 0.25TWh excess power

That’s right!! Just under $100 Million to be paid by the power consumers of the province over 5yrs.

On top of our current rate ($0.098/KWh) + increase to CPI (@1.8% on average) + increase for repairs to infrastructure + NB Gov add on to Decommission the 5 Thermal Plants Left, estimated at @ $110million by liberals.

Remember Also, we will have this $19.5 Million Penalty + Interest, every year after also, forever. Assuming NO In province electrical growth or increases in purchasing costs for the power.

So $97.35Million divided by 370 000 NB Customers = $263.11 Each, for the first 5 yrs
And $19.47Million Divided by 370 000 NB Customers = $52.62/yr Each, Forever, Pay Up.

One More Consideration, New Plant in Miramichi, which is to make solar panels, has supposedly made a request to NB Power for 1.2TWh/year. This Combined with the 0.2 we are already over would make prices even more absurd. 1.4TWh at $75/MW would equal $105Million, Tolling charges at $2.88 would be just over $4 Million. So this would cost NB’ers Over $109 Million/yr + Interest. So after 5yr Freeze we would have to pay back over $500Million + Interest. Costing Every Customer $1351 each. So Much for any $1400 savings. Plus the extra $110million every year thereafter, costing $297/yr each.

All This because NB Power may Raise the power rates another 3% or to put it in Dollars, From $0.098/KW to $0.100/KW. That’s right from 9.8 cents to 10cents/KW.

Keep in Mind this is only ONE part of the MOU. But it will cripple New Brunswick. Doing exactly the opposite of what the Liberals are saying it will do. I see rates rising uncontrollably after the 5 year freeze, and because of the heritage pool 14TWH amount we will be penalized for ANY in province growth, industrial or residential. It is just not worth the short term gain to be crippled over the not so long term. Vote NO to the sale, and sign a petition, PLEASE!!

What Other thing are bad in the MOU?:

-HQ sub. Keep in Mind that HQ sub, in the MOU is actually NB Power, but owned by HQ. Any mention of charges or costs associated with HQ sub, will be charged to NB’ers, AS I SEE IT. So read the MOU and decide for yourself. This is bad as upgrades, repairs and decommissioning costs, will actually still be on Tax payers of NB, NOT HQ, as we are the customers of HQ sub.
-Loss of carbon tax credits for thermal plants NB Power still owns. Ridiculous. They don’t want the plants, but take our tax credits so we can’t run them. Plus these credits can be bought or sold across North America. The liberals think HQ will use the credits for new industry in NB. Common, where does it say that in the MOU? HQ will surly use the credits for growth in their own province, to create jobs and income from taxes, not in NB as the Liberals have suggested. More lost revenue to NB.

-Pensions, another touchy one. It is a great thing to keep the pensions and it is only fair to the employees who have been paying into it. Unfortunately over the next 10 years they expect 1500 more employees to retire. With no new employees paying into the fund, this will become a large burden on NB’ers to pay for this.

-Revenue. According to the NB auditor general, NB Gov has been paid over $100million/yr by NB Power in taxes and fees, which NB Gov has used to pay for other programs and their debt. Selling NB Power, will actually lose this revenue, making NB’s debt worse. He also stated this doesn’t actually pay down ANY of NB Net debt, at all. As suggested by liberals, listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVMvcp-iI8M

-NB Power debt is getting worse, False. NB Power has paid down over 250million/yr the last 5 years and $1.3billion total over the last 5yrs. Credit rating has gone from a 4ish number down to the 3’s. All this even with NB government taking money, good job David Hay.
-Rates. The Liberals have assumed a savings on rates, based on NB Power raising rates 3%/yr forever. Who said this? NB Power said there would be a 3% increase in the next 2 yrs, NOT EVERY YEAR FOREVER.

-Taxes. Quebec has been given a pass on any taxes paid on revenues in NB. NB Power paid over $100million/yr to NB. Where are we going to recoup this cost? Maybe if NB Power had been given such a break, the 3% increases they are imposing would not have been required. MOU section 7.1 .
- Book value – NB Power was sold for basically what is owing $4.7Billion, ridiculous. Here is an example of book value: NB Power pays off a truck in 3 yrs but may keep it for 10.
Example: Truck new$50000 Paid Down $0 Book Value $60000
Year 1 Paid Down $20000 Book value $40000
Year 2 Paid Down $20000 Book Value $20000
Year 3 Paid Down $20000 Book Value $0
This Depreciation is done because you pay less taxes on the assets. So after year 3, truck on the books, has a book value of $0.00. But in reality it does have a value. The sale of NB Power is based on the book value, not the actual value. BAD DEAL!!

-Pointe Lepreau. We are giving it away. It has been estimated that Lepreau can earn over $6 billion in profits over the next 25yrs, assuming no increase in rates.

-Increases will be controlled by EUB. Please read the MOU section 3.1B “The regulatory framework governing the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in NB will be altered to conform to the framework currently in effect in Quebec. So all the rate increases agreed to in the MOU will be uncontrollable as listed above. The only increase I see them controlling is the increases to upgrades and repairs, everything else was agreed to in MOU and they can them have uncontrollably.

-Extra $5 Billion. This is assumed with predictions over 50yrs. Comon, Even with a mistake of 1% raise on fuel costs this can make a difference of $2 Billion dollars lost on rates. So actually this $5 billion is nothing but a farce. Base it on existing rates or something, just give us facts.
-Fear mongering? Don’t just accuse us of something, PROVE US WRONG. We are presenting the facts, Debate them.

-Platform of Liberals. They said they would not sell NB Power, a change of mind is fine, but it is only democratic to do a re-election. We are not a communist society yet Shawn Graham. If its such a good deal, let it stand on its merits and give NB’ers a vote. PLEASE!!!!

To infinity and beyond

Has everyone seen the new publications this week. Graham and company released "Assessment of the rate Impacts of the Memorandum of Understanding Between New Brunswick and Quebec Regarding NB Power".. Wow long title. Check the top of page two. "Terminal value" means from year 30 to infinity. So rate payers will see 70% of the benefit over the first 30 years, and the remainder from year 30 to infinity. Wow that's a loooong time. They do explain it page 8, see item 12.

Also in the news, NB Power published 2008/2009 Combined Financial Statements. On page two, NB Power shows the companies liabilities. For 2008 it was $4.674B. Close to the selling price. For 2009 it has $5.190B. Up a 1/2 billion or so. What will it be on March 31, 2010, up another 1/2 billion?? That would put the selling price about a billion shy of the liabilities. Where are these dollars coming from.??

This financial statement is a completely different format from previous annual reports. I wonder if there is a regular annual report to foollow soon.?

Save NB Power Rally at Legislature

I attended the save NB Power rally in Fredericton yesterday along with about 700 hundred other people. I have a few pictures and videos to show. You will have to forgive the picture quality. I was using a borrowed camera, but very compact, as mine has a busted screeen and I really don't know what it's doing. Several speakers were on hand, including a local high school student who gave a hell of a speech. Well written and well spoken. Unfortunately I did not record it. Gail Levesque spoke on behalf of the Dalhousie staff, Ross Galbraith spoke on behalf of union and people NB in general. Video is posted on IBEW website at http://www.youtube.com/ibew37 . Jeannot Volpe spoke. David Aylward and another Conservative MLA spoke. Bethany Dykstra gave a very powerful and emotional speech on behalf nbpoeplefirst. She has been in the news as critical to the sale. She claims we can get a plebiscite if we can convince the liberal mla's to hold one. The NDP leader and Green Party leaders both gave speeches. David Coon was there. His words "I'll probably be as popular as a skunk at a picnic for what I am going to say". True. He cut up NB Power, but no one threw anything at him. Other than that, I really don't remember what he said. Couldn't have been that important. There were two really popular chants yesterday. One was "Hey Hey, Ho Ho - Shawn Graham has got to go !!" Recreated here for your veiwing pleasure. (Technical difficulties are preventing the video from uploading)
The other was "what kind of power do we want - NB POWER!!" Someone felt that the NB Government had a fire sale and had to let everyone know.

Lots of signs were made up by some generous bunch. Not sure who, but I got handed one when I got close to the crowd. The NDP had one as well, but I don't have a picture of it to show.

This next item I have to post to youtube, but am posting it here for now. Apparently Jack Keir was asked how many people he thought was at the rally. His Answer was: " A cup a hund, ahh a cup a hund..." Apparently he was unable to estimate the crowd size and suggested someone else do a head count and let him know. The question I have been asked to post is " How many people do you beleive were at the rally, and what do you believe the media is doing to the public perception." Check out this video at http://www.savenbpower.org/ and you decide. Looks like more than a "cup a hund" to me. Thanks got to Art Mckay and whoever else over there who is volunterring to create such a great website.

More info on rally can be found here: http://www.newbrunswickbeacon.ca/2009/11/protest-transcript/3230

So much has been going on

I see it's been a few days and I have not posted. I have been commenting on the lower rates site and on some newspaper articles, but have not updated here in awhile. I'm glad to see the auditor general has made some comments, expousing the lost benefits to NB tax payers over the sale of NB Power. Numbers are even better that what I have been saying. Lets hope some more of the truths come out.

I have added a link to the IBEW 37 website. Lots of info and links there.

An update on the rally in Fredericton tomorrow at the opening of the legislature. It's from Noon til 2:00. I guess there will upwards of 15 speakers, including Ross Galbraith.

Hope to see you all here. Hopefully enough people show up to clog up the downtown of Fredericton. That should send some sort of message. Maybe not one that's gets interpreted by the right people, but a message just the same.

I'm quite sure Charlie the blogger will be there. Check out his site at
http://charlesotherpersonality.blogspot.com He seems pretty non supportive of the sale of NB Power. Even has some current pics of the legislature building..

Dress warm, it will be chilly and windy.

Lower Rates NB site

I just posted this on the lower rates site. As I have not said much else lately, I will post it here as well.

I continue to be thoroughly impressed by the questions and comments forwarded on this blog. Not so impressed by the answers, but I digress....

Jack Keir said "It's an open-access opportunity for anybody to get in the business of generating electricity and it would go to the low bidder,"

From my understanding of the partial deregulation of NB Power a few short years ago, this is the way it is now, is it not??? Does not HQ enjoy the fruits of all the NB Power labour in being able to wheel their power through NB and into the US through the new transmission line that was built not too long ago. Seems they own most of this new capacity. Seems that keeping the profit from that deal in NB is the wrong thing to do.

When the wholesale consumer municipalities of Saint John or Edmunston went out for bid for a power supplier, did HQ submit a bid? Are they still with NB Power? Seems large wholesale is allowed to arrange for their power from another supplier besides NB Power, but have they found someone with a cheaper rate in the past? How long will the HQ cheaper rate last?

As for rates in the future, of course the new generation will go to the lowest bidder. I beleive it does now too. But there is nothing that says that the lowest bidder will not be asking 10 times the current rate. Will the EUB be able to refuse someone because their bid is too high, if there is no other supplier. Even HQ could submit an artificailly high bid. I'm quite sure they know the pecking order of the forms of power generation. At the present, doesn't NB Power have the mandate to provide power to all customers in the province. Will HQ have that same mandate, or will, when the rates get too high, the EUB just say " no, we can't afford more power. The rates are too high. We'll just turn the power off to someone so we can stay under the heritage pool allotment."

"I'm glad I invited my mother"

I don't have a lot to say today. My heads still kinda spinning from trying to digest all the information out there. The more I read the MOU, the more I shake my head.

To BH, I guess Hydro quebec power was recently given a thumbs up by the FERC, so now Obama can use it as part of his "clean energy". So much for that.

I see the NB Power assets are about 4.7 Billion according to the annual report. So not much profit there for the NBGov. Just a bunch of unfunded decommisioning costs.


I was reading about the HQ layoffs today. 250 in a call center. Seen some more links where there was a walkout planned at another station. And there were two fatalities at another hydro station. So HQ's having an eventful week. Seems there was a couple of deaths a few years ago at another hydro station. Sounds like a great company to work for. Oh yeah, surplus employees may not have that luxury.

One last note. I heard that Graham gave a speech at a Salmon Federation dinner last nite. You know, one of those $150 dollar a plate fundraisers. Apparently at the end of the speech, only one person applauded. Shawn was later overheard saying, "I'm glad I invited my mother"

Have a great weekend!!

Hydro Power's dirty little secret

Someone brought something to my attention today. Thanks BH. Seems hydro power has a dirty little secret. I know that's way off topic of the intention of this blog, but... Studies done in the past few years are revealing that hydro power may, in some cases, cause as much greenhouse gas as fossil fuel generators. I posted a link in the links section. The main cause is the decaying vegation causing the formation of methane. Methane creates 20 times as much greenhouse gas as the CO2 emitted from a fossil fuel power station.

I also seen some infomation on the Lowerratesnb site that I grabbed for some links. Seems within the last few months the government was doing a decent job of promoting the province as an energy hub. The links to Jack Keir are at the bottom. So kinda strange to see the about face. I read the paper written about the reasoning behind the Churchill Falls agreement. The paper can be found in the Free Newfoundland and Labradour website link. Possibly there was some "economic duress" at the time over the whole project. It may have been a case of leaked financial information, and basically sign or the whole thing wouldn't have been completed. Would have left newfoundland with a several hundred million dollar hole in the ground. Maybe there is some of that going on today. Maybe the premier signed this MOU under economic duress?? Who is to know.....??

Again, I’ll reference the lowerates site, as there are a lot of smart people posting on there. Credit for this goes to Crop circle. This person has it right. But here is a different twist. All numbers are from 2008 NB Power annual report.

$519,000,000 in revenue for 306,000 residential customers. = an average bill of $ 1696 per year.

If you look at some other utility websites, they show, if you heat with electricity, that your bill on an annual basis is roughly %50 for the electric heat. So lets double the annual total for people who heat with electricity. That puts the total at $3392. Fairly close to the figure used on the lower rates site as demonstrated by Crop Circle.

That means for the rest of the customers who do not heat with electricity, their bill is now about 2/3 of the $1696 or $1119 per year. A little less than $100 per month. In line with what some people in the commentary have quoted for heating with something besides electricity, and in line with people I have talked to who heat with wood, etc.

These people save 3% or 33.58 per year for 5 years. Yeah!!!

And For the average rate payer – savings are $50.88 for the first year. Or roughly $4 per month.

For someone heating with electricity, his or her savings is by this example, $101. Again fairly close to what is shown on the lowerrates site. This post has been edited here to correct a math error. I did a excel spreadsheet, and the rate freeze has to continue for 15 years to make up the $2 Billion in expected residential customer savings. If that’s the case, why didn’t they freeze rates for 15 years, not 5.

Even using Shawn Graham’s math of everyone saving $1400 over 5 years, with 306,000 customers, the savings is only $428,000,000.

A 60 watt light bulb that is on for 4 hours per day consumes 72 cents of electricity per month. So lets switch 5 bulbs in our house to fluorescent and save the same amount.

A lot of people have phone bills, cable, satellite, Tim’s, etc. higher than their power pills. Maybe NB Power should sell out to Tim’s and we can get a daily dose of electricity when we stop for our morning coffee.

WEll folks, Happy hunting............and that can have a lot of different meanings this time of year.

Inflation rate

Just for shits and giggles, I looked at the statitics Canada website for the past increases in the M3 money supply for Canada. This is the total of all monies in the system, and a future predictor of the real inflation rate. You can see the average increase in year over year for the four years shown is 7.5%. So you can see where future inflation and CPI will be. I'm quite sure we all want a 30% rate hike over a 4 year period. Maybe I'll be off grid by then.

.............2004.........2005.........2006...............2007..........2008

M3.....860,201...943,546......1,013,552......1,123,871......1,258,260 (millions $)


2004 to 2005 = 9% increase
2005 to 2006 = 6% increase
2006 to 2007 = 7% increase
2007 to 2008 = 8% increase

reference : http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/econ07-eng.htm
.
As an added kicker, the saving to residential customers from the recent press release, will probably take about 15 years. But after the first five years, the inflation rate, CPI, new transmission costs, excess over the heritage pool, power produced from burning oil when HQ tells NB Power to dispatch it, etc. should negate any savings from non existent rate increases during the first five years.
.

Ministers issue joint statement about proposed energy agreement with Hydro-Québec

I seen this joint release and had to comment. This is more of a rant than anything. I haven't researched any numbers, but then again, neither did the government

FREDERICTON (CNB) - The following joint statement was released today by Energy Minister Jack Keir and Business New Brunswick Minister Victor Boudreau about the proposed energy agreement between New Brunswick and Hydro-Québec:
Over the past few days there has been a great number of questions about what the proposed energy agreement between New Brunswick and Hydro-Québec would mean for New Brunswickers now and into the future.
Given the importance of this proposed partnership with Hydro-Québec, we feel it is important to set the record straight on a number of issues.
RESPONSE Ahh, Its’s not a partnership. Your SELLING the damn thing. They can do whatever the hell they want with it after.

Retaining control of energy policies
The suggestions that New Brunswick would give up control of its energy policies to Hydro-Québec are unfounded.
 Under this proposed agreement, the New Brunswick government would continue to be the body that makes decisions on matters such as new power developments.
RESPONSE New power developments will not happen. All the power will come from Quebec.

 The memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlines Hydro-Québec's commitment to work with the government and the private sector to strengthen New Brunswick's position as an energy hub through the construction of additional infrastructure to meet the energy demands of the northeast United States.
RESPONSE New infrastructure will be built just big enough to handle the load of NB plus what HQ wants to sell to the US. Not any bigger. There will be no room for anyone else to get on the grid. Effectively blocking competition, unless they want to pay the full cost of the transmission line plus some, then you have to do an EIA, gain right of ways, etc.

 New Brunswick would continue to have an open transmission network allowing for market competition.
 RESPONSE See above. Maybe for small amounts of power. Who says the tolling agreement won’t be so high that no one will be able to wheel through. The NB Power generators pay the same amount as everyone to get on NB Power transmission lines now. Under this MOU, a new Tolling Agreement will come into place. What was wrong with the current one. Not favourable enough for HQ.

 NB Power would still be regulated and overseen by the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board (EUB).
RESPONSE The government is overseen by the public now, but apparently that doesn’t do us any good.

 New Brunswick is the only Atlantic province that owns its power utility. Fortis owns Maritime Electric and Newfoundland Power; Emera owns Nova Scotia Power.
 RESPONSE A true statement. Congratulations on a first. But you might want to check their rates. You’ll at least see where our rates are headed. If the rate increases proposed by NB Power in the past, but rejected by the EUB at the request of the government, had gone through, NB Power could pretend to be run like a private business as well.

Future rate increases
The proposed agreement would provide New Brunswickers with lower power rates well beyond the first five years in which rates would be frozen, by limiting future increases to inflation and new generation needs.
 Inflation has grown by less than two per cent during the past 15 years, and is projected to remain this low for the next 20 years. Under the proposed agreement, Hydro-Québec would supply New Brunswick with enough power to meet the current needs of all residences and businesses.
RESPONSE You might want to check the money supply currently being injected in the Canadian economy through the Bank of Canada. It’s increasing much quicker than 2% per year. And inflation always follows the money supply.

 If New Brunswick's power demands grow beyond the 14 terawatt-hours provided for in the agreement, new power generation would go to the lowest bidder in a competitive process also overseen by the EUB.
 RESPONSE Yes it will. The lowest bidder will either be HYDRO Quebec, who can bid at whatever price is extremely profitable to them, or some other entity who’s price will a magnitude greater than what we pay now. The rates in all surrounding provinces and states are very high compared to ours. So in either case, there will a be a large price difference, that will get rolled into all rates.
 Under the status quo, the costs of new generation would still have to factored into power rates over and above the expected three per cent increases. However, under the proposed agreement, the price of meeting New Brunswick's existing power needs is substantially lower.
RESPONSE Expected rate increases of 3%. Where is that published publicly. I don’t see it in any NB Power annual reports forecasting future rate increases.

Rate savings for residential customers
Through this proposed partnership, $5 billion in rate savings would benefit New Brunswickers in every region of our province.
RESPONSE Is there a time frame on the rate savings. Is it part of the five years deal. Or is this extended out over 15 or 25 years. Because, as you can see in my earlier post, NB Power in province revenue barely exceeds this $5 billion over the next 5 ears. SO we all get free power?? YEAH!!!!

 60 per cent of the rate benefits would be directed to residential and small business customers.
 $2 billion in savings would go directly to residents; $2 billion would benefit industries; and $1 billion would help small businesses.
 Although New Brunswick's industries would receive a one-time reduction in rates, they would be subject to rate increases beginning next year, while residential customers would not see their rates increase for the next five years.
 RESPONSE Remember rates that exceed the heritage pool, will be billed a prevailing market rates. It Coleson Cove is put back on expensive oil, then the rate will be extremely high. Right now, that rate is reserved for selling into the US market, or for peak winter demand, or emergencies.

Lower rates
NB Power's financial position has made it difficult to control rate increases, and, without this proposed agreement, keeping rates affordable for customers would continue to be a challenge.
 Under the status quo, rates are expected to increase by at least three per cent annually during the next five years.
 RESPONSE Expected rate increases of 3%. Where is that published publicly. I don’t see it in any NB Power annual reports forecasting future rate increases.
 Cancelling those increases means that each New Brunswick household would pay much lower rates - at least 15 per cent lower - in the future, and receive savings worth nearly $1,400 over the next five years. New Brunswick households would each continue to save at least $465 each year.
 REWSPONSE Why not just lower the $50 million co-sign that NB Power pays to the NBGov. NBGOv is losing the money anyway. Where are these new tax dollars coming from.??

Where did all the revenue go to ????

Ok, I'm at a complete loss for words now. On page 60 of the 2007/2008 NB Power annual report, the annual statement of sales is shown for the years 2003/2004 to 2007/2008. The total in province sales for these five years is $5.497 Billion dollars. I'm not sure what last years sales were, but lets say it is the average of the previous 5 years. And because the MOU fixes the heritage pool at slightly below the average for the same years, lets assume there will be no growth in any demand for the next five years. Now, this proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro Quebec will result in an estimated $5 Bilion in savings for all rate payers for the next five years. Well the total sales is estimted, based on past sales and no growth, at only $5.497 billion. So that means a %90 rate reduction across the board. But we all know residential is only frozen for the next five years. Residential represents about %35 of in province sales. So if we leave the residential customer out, then everyone else gets their power for free?? Could someone check this and please comment on my math. I obviously didn't learn the same math class as the premier. Oh, BTW, this kinda negates any math I did in my previous posts. So I opologize for that.

The annual report is available here: http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/annual/Annual_Report07-08-.pdf

Carbon credits

I was reading the comments on Shawn Grahams blogsite about the MOU. There is some math done to show that NB Power is giving Hydro Quebec about $240 million dollars a year in potential carbon credits. I copied the text here.

"All CO2 Allowances Go to Quebec under this deal !!!!

WOW – Can’t believe that no one has picked this up in the news yet. This could pay repay the entire deal for Hydro Quebec !!!!

So Hydro Quebec shuts down the thermal plants and takes all their emissions credits to Quebec. This means not just CO2, but also Sulphur Dioxide and NOx.

For CO2 this allowance is probably 6 million tons a year. At $20 to $40 a ton of CO2 per year – this would be between $120,000,000 and $240,000,000 per year. This would repay the entire cost of the deal for Hydro Quebec all by itself.

This is contained in many of the one liners in the MOU on this site. (You should read this document – but here is the line from the MOU)

(e) All emission allowances relating to Belledune and Coleson Cove will accrue to the benefit of HQ, including any revenue from any such allowances that
were sold rather than used.

So NB loses the CO2 allowances – and they go to Quebec. So any new industries wanting to set up in NB will not be able to get CO2 allowances to operate. However, the Quebec government could give them to the company if they set up in Quebec instead.

We need the media to ask for a detailed explaination of the value of these emission allowances, as right now it appears that they are being given away for free.

I’d like to meet the Quebec Hydro people that set up this deal – they are pretty sharp. When NB goes down the tubes, maybe they could sell my house for me !!!"

Lets see, my other post has about the NB goverment looking for $155 million per year in new tax revenue. This post is $240 million per year. That's a total of $395 million per year going in the wrong direction."

This news just in - I hear there is over 11,000 people who joined the fight on the facebook site.