More numbers on the Value of Point Lepreau

My previous post on the value of Pt. Lepreau contained data taken from Hydro Quebec Strategic Plan. Keir seems to be saying that Pt. Lepreau is not worth $10 Billion Dollars.

Maybe not, but it is worth something to HQ.

Lets assume the refurbishment stays on budget. Actually I guess it doesn't matter how much the refurb costs. HQ is only paying $1.4 billion.

The projected run time is 28 years. $1.4 billion dollars amortized over 28 years at an interest rate of 6% is an annual payment of $104,000,000 dollars.

Working backwards from the HQ information presented for Lepreau's sister station Gentilly 2, the capacity factor seems to work out to about 86%.

A 635 MW net output multiplied by 365 days per years x 24 hours per day x an 86% capacity factor is 4,810,000 MW hours per year. This compares with the historical number printed in the NB Power annual reports.

4,810,000 MW hours per years multiplied by the rate that HQ will receive ($73.50 MW hr)
gives an annual revenue of $ 353,600,000 dollars.

Multipled by 28 years give a value of $9,902,000,000 dollars. (that's 9.9 billion) Similair number to what HQ presents in their strategic report for Gentilly 2. All in current dollars.

Nuclear fuel costs seem to be less than $20 milion per year. see page 28 . http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/annual/Annual_Report07-08-.pdf

Total cost of Lepreau decommisioning and used fuel liabilites is shown as $1.5 billion dollars. page 52 of same document. Assuming I'm reading it correctly.

Lets say property taxes are $1.1 per hundred like your house??, valued on the $1.4 billion purchase price. This is $15.4 million per year.

Operation and maintainence expenses. Thought I seen this somewhere at about 66 million per years, but location eludes me now. Lets use the 800 employess getting paid on average about $80 K per years. That is $64,000,000 in salaries. Lets add half that again for other regulatory stuff, toilet paper, pens, nuclear reactors parts, etc. So lets make O&M a $100 million per year.

So on a yearly basis, we have $353 million revenue - $104 interest charges - $100 million O&M - $20 million fuel - $54 million per year put away for decommisioning and waste fuel storage costs - $16 property taxes.

Total yearly profit projected at $59 million. Total over 28 years is $1.65 billion.

Does the risk of Lepreau not running, or of having technical issues after it is running (HQ risk), versus the risk of the station never completing the refurbishment (NB Gov risk) equal 1.65 billion dollars? Maybe if anyone thought selling was a good idea, maybe the purchase price should have been the refurbishment cost. Then the risk would truly be taken off of NB Power and New Brunswickers.

As a side note, based on the above analysis, the breakeven point for Pt. Lepreau to generate electricity if the refurbishment cost is $1.4 Billion, is 6.1 cents per kw hour. Lower than NB Power's current industrial rate, and therefore seemingly profitable.

Of course, I'm not an economist, or own a large corporation, I'm just doing my own due diligence.
.
.
.
.

What questions should the "Blue Ribbon Panel" address??

Seen this on everyone's favorite social media website. I grabbed it to post here, because it is worth posting and it will fade away soon on that site. Credits go to Betty.


"I heard that the ‘blue ribbon panel’ report on the proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro-Quebec will be released Feb1.

I will be very disappointed unless this report addresses as a minimum the following issues:

-lists the experts consulted in the preparation of the report... See More

-explains why the public was not given the opportunity to make submissions

-an honest comparison of the proposed sale and NB Power’s strategic plan (not the ‘status quo’ the government keeps referring to as no intelligent executive would plan to indefinitely refurbish and rebuild existing generation assets)

-calculations showing the expected revenue and costs of the retained transmission system proving it will be sustainable

-fair valuation of generation assets and transmission rights being sold

-rationale for the cost per kilowatts hour in the ‘energy agreement’ (power is currently purchased from Hydro-Quebec for less than half that, and is also currently available on the open market for about 2/3 of that)

-rationale for the limit of the heritage pool

-all costs, fees, payments in lieu of taxes, etc currently paid by NB Power to the provincial government and how that revenue will be replaced when it is lost through this agreement

-total cost of this deal including foregone revenue currently received from NB Power, pension costs, subsidy to local utilities (Saint John Energy, etc), costs of expected lost positions and spin offs, etc

-estimate of power rate increases after five years

-valuation of carbon credits which Minister Keir says aren’t worth much but also says to retain them would have to give up, for example, five year rate freeze (his words)

-the effect on ratepayers of the decommissioning of Belledune and Coleson Cove (which will be operated under the direction and control of Hydro-Quebec who has the option to request their shut down)

-whether Hydro-Quebec has any residual interest (as in the original MOU) in Belledune and Coleson Cove after they are directed to shut-down (the fluctuating price of oil is a concern but these plants could without excess effort be converted to natural gas and they do have state of the art scrubbers which seems to be ignored)

-explains why a long term power purchase agreement with Hydro-Quebec was not considered as an option

Citizens have very serious concerns about the ability of the members of this advisory panel to be truly objective and free of bias. Unless this report truly addresses the broad spectrum of concerns raised concerning this proposed sale it will have accomplished little."

.Possibly she is the same person who wrote this as well.
http://savenbpower.blogspot.com/2010/01/analysing-unanalysible-inside-power.html


.
.
.

Sometimes you just have too......

I'm not much for political jokes, or the type of joke I'm posting, so my apologies up front, but sometimes you just have to bend the rules a little................



During a recent password audit at our company, it was found that a blonde receptionist was using the following password:

"MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofyOttawa"

When asked why she had such a long password, she said she was told that it had to be at least eight characters long and include at least one capital.

One Auditor then commented to the other, " I'm surprised that the receptionist knew that Ottawa was a capital."

Huh, " That 's nothing, " said the other Auditor in return.

"I'm surprised she knew the names of Graham's cabinet ministers"
.
.
.
.

These are emotional times we live in

These are emotional times we live in.

If anyone has been following the Mark Gallagher story, it has to touch you somehow. Unless maybe you’re a cold hearted politician. I was quite moved this morning listening to the CBC and the words spoken by his widow and fellow workers who pulled him from the rubble in Haiti. When they spoke of presenting his Stetson to his son, I was quite choked up thinking of my sons and the limited time I spend with them because of the way society has become today. Some things for the better, some things for the worse.

The reports of emotional breakouts, or maybe breakdowns, by politicians when they are confronted with citizens voicing their opinion on the sale of NB Power is another subject that has touched the hearts of many. It is no longer a topic of technical details and how much one province will gain or another will lose. It has become a topic if integrity, democracy, and emotion. If the merits of the deal could be sold on their technical or financial ramifications then I imagine the government would. But the fact that the public at large is no longer privy to the details, changes the focus from the why, to the why not. From how come we need to sell NB Power, to how come we can’t see the details.

Is the truth that gory that we can’t handle it? Will the whole of the NB economy collapse with the status quo, or some semblance of it, kept at NB Power? Have all of the largest employers in the province given their two weeks notice that they are moving on, and this is a last ditch effort to keep them here? The citizens want to know why you are changing their status quo. The information presented for public viewing is short on depth and foresight. Long on smoke and mirrors. All of the technical details go against the platform that the current government campaigned on, they go against the economic strategy espoused by even the minister of energy one short year ago, and they go against the environmental plan published since this government came into power. And the government can’t claim that they didn’t know the financial situation at NB Power and only found out the details recently. They apparently never consulted with anyone at NB Power during this whole process anyway. So the whole deal was seemingly done by reading publicly available financial statements, consulting former elected officials, and consulting with an “expert”. They never gave the board of directors the directions to change NB Power. Even worse, the negotiation team for NB Brunswick went to Quebec with a political mandate that does not match the direction given to NB Power, and negotiated against the full force of one of the biggest utilities in the world, and thought they came home with “the best deal for New Brunswickers”. Obviously the best deal for HQ, but how would we ever know if it’s the best deal for NB. We don’t truly know why it was done. The technical details given are so full of holes, it’s hard to know where to start in the analysis. Using poor little 50 year old soon to close Grand Lake plant as the basis for the environmental benefits, is about as accurate as using a modern day politician as a poster boy for integrity. Go T.J.! A year ago the Eider Rock refinery was going to save the province and put NB on the map as a force to reckon with. The greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be nearly equal to the GHG of NB Power, but were considered “not of significance”.

We are a have not province. We will remain a have not province because of weak political leadership, and the single minded direction of big business in this province. Maybe the status quo is not an option. Maybe we should let all big business go bankrupt. Let them all close down, and make them all turn their facilities into green fields. Then we can take back all the rights and ownership to all the forestry sector, all the mineral rights, and all the energy rights. Then we can start all over retaining ownership, or at least a decent royalty rate for any of these things. Tell Fraser’s when they close their doors that they will give up all their lease holdings that covers a large part of the northern part of the province. They will be here for awhile.

Just think of all the jobs that would be created by decommissioning all those facilities. Think of all the jobs created by rebuilding all the infrastructure required to process all the natural resources of the province. Just a ridiculous idea isn’t it. About as ridiculous as refurbishing a nuclear station, and then giving it away for the refurbishment price, while someone else makes $10 Billion from it during the next 25 or so years.

Being is seeing in the human dimension. And what we see is highly interrelated to what we are. We can’t go very far to change our seeing without simultaneously changing our being, and vice versa.

If this deal is ever legislated and passed as written, democracy will be dead in this province, and serfdom reborn.
.
.
.

How much is Pt. Lepreau worth to HQ

We know Pt. Lepreau is only worth $1.4 billion to the current government that is going to sell it. Sorry, I guess I should say - sold. But how much do you think Hydro Quebec thinks it worth?

The Candu nuclear station at Pt Lepreau is a sister station to the Gentilly 2 near Montreal, Quebec. Check out the information form the CANDU website.

Pt. Lepreau is a Candu - 6 with a net capacity of 635 MW. http://www.candu.org/nbpower.html
Gentily 2 is a Candu - 6 with a net capacity of 635 MW. http://www.candu.org/hydroquebec.html

Hydro Quebec plans to overhaul it's nuclear station after AECL is done with Pt. Lepreau. Obviously a good move, given the AECL hiccups at Pt. Lepreau. But Lepreau was the first Candu6 commissioned, so only stands to reason that it is the first to be overhauled. HQ has a team at Lepreau learning the ins and outs of a nuclear station retrofit. Good idea, eh?

HQ has budgeted $1.9 Billion for their retrofit. Not sure why it's more, but could be they factored in more risk, or seen what was happening at Lepreau and updated their projections, or maybe they have more contamination and need to spend more money to complete the work safely??

Anyway, if you take a took at HQ's strategic plan on page 35, you will see some financial numbers published there. It's quite a large document. http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/strategic_plan/index.html

I have copied the text pertaining to the monetary value that HQ places on Gentilly 2 here:

"A competitive cost:

During its second life cycle, which will extend from the end of 2012 until
2040, Gentilly-2 will generate nearly 135 billion kilowatthours of reliable,
non-intermittent, zero-emission power. This output represents nearly
$10 billion in constant 2012 dollars, based on a unit cost of 7.2¢/kWh (also
in constant 2012 dollars).
This competitive cost, which was a determining factor in the decision
to go ahead with the refurbishment, corresponds to the difference
between the discounted cash flows of the following two scenarios: the
scenario of a 2011 retirement, which called for operations and output to
end in March 2011, and the refurbishment scenario, which factored in
the $1.9-billion investment required, plus operating and maintenance
costs until 2040. In both cases, all costs of dismantling the generating
station and removing spent fuel were taken into account. The difference
between the scenarios is thus essentially attributable to the start
date of the decommissioning phase (2011 versus 2040)."

$ 10,000,000,000 Dollars. That's 10 Billion dollars.

That is an all inclusive value. I didn't make up the words. That's from the day the refurbishment starts, to the day it becomes a field with a plaque saying a nuclear station once lived here. ALL INCLUSIVE.

Yeah, But how much power is 135 billion kilowatt hours. It's 135 TW hours. So, with the assumption that Lepreau and Gentilly are sister stations overhauled by the same company, The AECL who design, sell, build, and refurbish nuclear reactors. Then, one could assume that the reactors will have the same (or very similair) life span and operating capacity after they are overhauled.

What does this mean. HQ plans to run Gentilly 2 for 28 years after overhaul. If Lepreau can produce the same power over the same years it will also produce 135 TW hours of electricity.
That 135 TW of electricity is worth almost $10 Billion dollars (9.7 actually) to HQ, but only worth $1.4 Billion to NB Government. And 135 TW is almost 10 years of NB heritage pool supply.

NB Power will be LEGISLATED to buy the same 135 TW of power from a station it already had paid $1.4 Billion to have overhauled.

135 TW at the fixed rate in the amended MOU, is worth $9.9 Billion dollars. This is before all rate increases get applied. And apparently an MLA in Bathurst today felt a little pressured as the result of a local protest, and spit out that the year 6 rate increase will be 8.5%.

Total loss to NB = $9.9 Billion dollars plus the other 1/2 billion less that NB Power plans to spend on it's refurb = $10.4 Billion . And that's only if HQ has it written in it's contract to pay to decommission it after they are done with it. Maybe it will be more.

I wouldn't want to be the politician that has to carry the legacy of this deal on my families name for as long as the deal lasts. Oh yeah, that's for ETERNITY.
.
.
.

Survey says?

Someone I know just spent 10 minutes answering an extremely detailed telephone survey on the HQ\NB Power deal:

1) It covered each aspect of the new deal, asking were you were supportive or not supportive of each part of it - keeping T&D, selling Hydro and Nuclear, debt reduction, etc.

2) Do you consider NB Power debt as New Brunswick debt and does it worry you?

3) Do you like the new deal better than the first deal?

4) In general, do you like NB Power, do you like Hydro Quebec?

5) Is it important for NB to retain full control over power generation. Does it make you uneasy losing provincial control?

6) What is your overall feeling about the government (not just the deal, all aspects)? This was asked at the first of the survey. Then at the end of the survey they asked how the deal made you feel about the government. More or less supportive. So they were trying to separate out how the deal affected your thinking about the government.

7) How important is it to have low industrial rates to attract industry for new job?

8) How important was the residential 5 year freeze and the estimated $465 "savings" per customer that heats with electricity?

***Near the end was a question - would you support a deal that allowed HQ to move power thru NB? Are they were feeling out if the public would support a deal that only involved expanded transmission rights????

Unlike most telephone surverys - if the answer did not fit the standard answers, they actually asked for an answer and the person who told me about this could hear it being typed in. This is not the usual way these surveys were done.

This persons' view was that this was an extremely well designed survey, all the questions were correct for separating out someone's thoughts on each aspect of the deal, future possible changes and opinion on the government. This person would say it might be a Hill-Knowlton designed survey.

Seems a little strange that a government that has concluded negotiations and finalized a deal, would be out gathering public opinion????

Fitch Rates Hydro-Quebec

Got this today. Interesting. The new deal for the sale is seen as positive for Quebec.

Fitch Rates Hydro-Quebec's Expanded Medium Term Note Program 'AA-
'; Outlook Stable
NEW YORK, Jan 21, 2010 -- BUSINESS WIRE
Fitch Ratings assigns an 'AA-' to Hydro-Quebec's (HQ) expanded medium term note program. HQ received approval from the government of Quebec to increase the maximum size of its medium term note program from $16 billion to $20 billion. Fitch also affirms the following HQ ratings:
--Long-term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at 'AA-';
--Short-term IDR at 'F1+';
--$35.5 billion unsecured debentures and medium term notes at 'AA-';
--Commercial paper at 'F1+'.
The Rating Outlook is Stable.
SECURITY
Payment of HQ debt is supported by a pledge of the net revenues of the consolidated HQ system. HQ debt is further secured by an unconditional payment guarantee by the Province of Quebec (rated 'AA-', Stable Outlook by Fitch).
RATING RATIONALE
--HQ's ratings are heavily driven by support provided under the unconditional and irrevocable guarantee from HQ's sole owner - the government of Quebec.
--On a stand alone basis, HQ is a low cost integrated utility, with historically strong financial metrics and favorably 'green' hydroelectric generating resources.
--While the mainly hydropower resource base is subject to output variability due to hydrological conditions, HQ's substantial reservoirs help to mitigate this risk.
--HQ's regulated distribution and transmission divisions continue to receive fair treatment from the provincial regulatory authority, La Regie de L'Energie.
--HQ is in the midst of a very large capital program ($C25 billion through 2013) to add new hydroelectric and transmission projects. Through the construction period, financial measures will tighten but should remain adequate for
the rating category.
--The rating takes into account HQ recently proposed $C3.2 billion acquisition of a neighboring provincial utility, New
Brunswick Power (NBP). Favorably, HQ will acquire NBP's quality generation assets as well as firm transmission rights into New England.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
--The credit rating of the Province of Quebec - HQ's sole shareholder and guarantor of HQ debt.
--Construction risks associated with build out of several large hydroelectric and transmission projects and HQ generation division's ability to manage growing revenue volatility associated with planned increase in export power sales.
CREDIT SUMMARY
Since 2009, HQ has embarked on a major, roughly $C25 billion capital program through 2013. The capital plan includes the construction of several large hydropower projects, transmission additions and distribution system
upgrades. The projects are in varying stages of development and continue to meet important milestones and commissioning dates. By 2013, HQ is projecting to have another 1000 megawatts (MW) of new hydro-generating capacity online (compared to existing capacity of 36,429 MW for 2008). While a portion of the new generation is
needed to meet modest native load growth, an increasing proportion will be used for export (offsystem) sales.
Offsystem sales are typically subject to greater volume and price volatility (not based on a regulated tariff). Positively, given the increasing global demand, particularly in the U.S. and Canada, for non-carbon emitting and renewable power
resources, HQ's 'green' hydropower exports should remain a valuable and marketable resource for the foreseeable future.
Lastly, with respect to the proposed acquisition of NBP, HQ is acquiring quality 'green' generating assets and another
transmission interconnection into New England, which lends support to HQ's plan to increase export power sales.
Included in the generating assets to be acquired is NBP's Point Lepreau Nuclear Plant, currently being refurbished. HQ does not assume any liabilities with respect to the nuclear facility until refurbishment is completed and that portion of
the acquisition is closed on or about Jan. 1, 2011. HQ will make two payments totaling $C3.2 billion; the first ($C1.8
billion) due on or about March 31, 2010 and the remainder due at the time of closing of the Point Lepreau nuclear transaction. HQ will also maintain a long term wholesale power supply arrangement to serve NBP's customers at a
favorable, but fixed price for the first five years of the contract. Thereafter, the wholesale power contract prices will adjust according to the New Brunswick consumer price index.

Positively, the acquisition price has declined to $C3.2 billion from the original estimate of $C4.75 billion. The acquisition is projected to be positive for HQ earnings within the first year, and will not materially change HQ's debt
position. Equity to total capitalization will fall to the 30% level through the construction period (to 2013), but should remain adequate for the rating category.
HQ is a vertically integrated electric system providing electric service to virtually all of the province of Quebec, Canada, or 3.9 million customers. HQ is comprised of four operating segments: power production, transmission,
distribution, and equipment/construction divisions. HQ's power facilities include installed generating capacity totaling 36,429 MW and over 33,000 kilometers of transmission lines, placing HQ among the largest electricity systems in
North America.
Applicable criteria available on Fitch's website at 'www.fitchratings.com' includes:
--Revenue Supported Rating Criteria, (Dec. 29, 2009).
--Public Power Rating Guidelines, (June 11, 2009).
Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com.

Oh My, Where to start?

The new deal? Wow. A whole two pages. I guess Graham didn't want us getting confused and emotional like the last time. Keep it simple for us this time. Less information to digest and analyze and ultimately rip apart and criticize. Thanks Graham, for trying to be thoughtful, but no thanks. Your lolli pop sucks. Ha Ha. I thought it was funny.

I don't think much has really changed from the original MOU. Except that it is even better for Quebec. Charest already stated that fact. It still uses up their 8.5 TW surplus, and they saved $1.5 Billion in the process. NB gives up all it's clean sources of generation, which will provide over 50% in the provinces needs, and will pay $1 Billion per year to buy it back. In three years Quebec makes it's money back. It looks like the transmission rights have been given up in a long term lease. The power plants are still on a tolling agreement, so there is no control over them either.

It doesn't seem like much control was kept.

Are we going to get the fine print to review before you sign this Graham, or is this another done deal like the last one?

Lets take a look at the 7.35 cents per kw hour part of the deal. My residential bill averages around 9.5 cents per kw hr. So seems fair that the remaining portions of NB Power can make a decent profit and pay for their transmission and distribution costs.

But how about those industrials. I tried to find the industrial rates on the NB Power site, but could not. I was quite sure they were there before, but I cannot seem to find them now. Plus the Sustainability report is missing form the website. It has numbers that give an overall average rate paid by industrial customers.
http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/annual/sustainability.html

But in any case, I have a paper copy somewhere I save. I beleive the rate was around 6 cents per kw hour. Right there, that should ring some bells. NB Power is now forced to buy power at a rate more expensive than it is to sell it. On top of that, it has to give a 23% rate reduction, that will bring the cost for industrials down to 5.2 cents kw hr???

That is quite a subsidy that us poor residentials will be forced to pay.

And on top of that, some days they could make money doing nothing.

Check out the rate that is paid on the open market in New England/Maine. They could just tell NB Power to buy it there, and sell that to it's customers. Meanwhile they will just kep the water in the headponds in Quebec for a "rainy" day.

http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/hrly_data/hourlyLMP.do

As I write this, the price is 4.2 cents per kw hour. That would be about a 43% markup. And they didn't supply anything. Graham, why can't NB Power do that by themselves?

Ahhh, i just puked on my keyboard. This stuff makes me sick.
.
.
.

Lolli pop lolli pop ooohhh lolli pop

To quote an accommplice who has given me a topic or two for my blog, have we been offered the lolli pop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8sZcmQr6KY

I like lolli-pops too, but I’m gonna hold out for a tastier treat too I think.

And to James on the Lower rates site, where are you? I see you have not posted since
“1.14.2010 at 10:41 am James at Government of New Brunswick :”

This was two days after that fateful meeting where somone’s world was turned upside down. Did it take that long for someone to get through to Charest’s office and utter those famous words ” Houston, we have a problem”.

James, have you been meeting with your Hill & Knowlton advisors scripting new information to feed us? We all might get a little hungry if a single lolli-pop is all you have.

But, without some concrete information to reasearch, it's hard to say how much the new MOU will really change anything. But a high five and congratulations to all those who particpated in any form for the past 2 1/2 months. From letter writing, to blogging, to protesting, to attending information meetings, to talking one on one with your mla, to being one of those 8 people who sent Keir an email, and to online partipaction in everyone's favorite social media.

The graham cracker has been broken !! Maybe the pieces are not small enough yet, but...

I imagine tomorrow will be a busy day. The comparisons will start. The spinning wheel will need to be wound up and sprung free. The teleprompter scripts will be typed up. Crib notes will be handed out to all 32 mla's of the kind required for "yah" instead of a "nay". Opposition parties will be asking for a resignation. Online news story commenters will be calling someone a liar. Again. And Again. And think about it. How many times has Graham said "this is the best deal for New Brunswickers" and now the quote is "We will present an improved deal ... that, I think, is better for Quebec and that will also be better accepted in New Brunswick," Charest said in Quebec City.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSY7d5FPdtix52TSYqG3mM2VbCHA

I think there is a structural financial issue looming behind the scenes that is quite large. I think Quebec has stepped up their desire for any form of revenue, and I will state a comment a have said previously, that Graham was in the driver's seat with this , and should have held Charest over a barrell. A simple power purchase agreement, at a very favourable rate, that would have replaced the power required while Lepreau was being overhauled, plus as much oil as would have been required in the Coleson Cove and/or Dalhousie station would have been a good start. Throw in some extra for the large wholesalers like Saint John and Edmunston, and the large industrials like, well....... you know who. HQ still has a TW surplus, and while it sits in the headponds, it generates no revenue. Selling it to NB at any price is money in their ( Charest's) pocket.

But instead, Graham has chosen to still sell off the free fuel generation. Water is free, at least when it snows and rains, and the last time I checked, I believe the uranium comes from Canada. Maybe not free, but damn cheap compared to other sources. So here we have two home grown sources of fuel, that will provide at least 50% of the provinces electrical needs, in an already constructed infrastructure, not subject to third world instability, not subject to hostile takeover of foreign governments, and providing local jobs. Lepreau replacement costs are $16 million per month (from NB Power annual report). Assuming that will become profit next year when the refurbishment is fininshed, potential profit over the next 25 years will be :

$16,000,000 per month x 12 months per years x 25 years = $4.8 Billion.

Maybe some one should tell the NERA group so they can project that over infinity and see how much money we are losing.

Hydro alone has been averaging about 3 TW per year.

http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/sustainability/supplementarydocuments/StatisticalOverview_English_Nov%2019.pdf

3 TW hours is 3,000 Gigawatt hours, is 3,000,000 MW hours, is 3,000,000,000 KW hours.
To use 10 cents a kw hr for simplicity sake, that is $300,000,000 per year in revenue.

From the same source, Lepreau has been averaging over 4 TW per year when it runs. If the rest of the 14 TW heritage pool comes from Quebec, I feel bad for any independent power producers in NB. I think it will kinda shut them out in the cold.

Hydro Quebec's strategic plan published in September/October indicated they had 8.5 TW of surplus power because of all the industry they lost due to the economic slowdown. Their projections showed it taking almost 7 years before it started to shrink.

I don't even think HQ needs to sell us much power. I just think they need to have the higher priced revenue on their books to make it look good for those high cost dams they are building.

But 8.5 TW (HQ surplus) plus 4.1 TW (Lepreau) plus 3 TW (hydro) = 15.6 Tw . Lots to go around. Maybe that's why Charest is saying it's a better deal for Quebec. It uses up his surplus, and it didn't cost him so much. Way to go Graham.
.
.
.
.

Huh ????? Another MOU

Well, I imagine everyone has heard the news by now. Graham shipped off to Quebec for the weekend and begged for mercy from old mighty Quebec to give him a deal suitable to his dissident fellow mla's.

Kelly Lamrock gives his version here in a CBC interview.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/spinreduxit_20100118_26018.mp3

The Canadian Press has reported this:

"The New Brunswick government has reworked the proposed deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Quebec following a public backlash and criticism within the Liberal caucus.

The government's house leader, Greg Byrne, says caucus members voiced their concerns at a meeting last Tuesday, prompting a number of changes to the proposed deal.

Byrne says the amended deal got the support of all members during a subsequent caucus meeting on Thursday.

He says the full details of the amended agreement will be released on Wednesday.

On the weekend, a source told The Canadian Press that changes in the deal would reduce the amount of power rate reduction promised for industry in New Brunswick."


The CBC version is here. Five mla's in total that want a slim chance at re-election:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/01/18/nb-liberal-caucus-nbpower-1241.html

The Globe and Mail version here. Even some talk of the proposed regional transmission system in Eastern Canada to foster collaboration across political boundaries.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-revised-deal-nb-power-to-retain-some-assets/article1435619/

Fort Reliance, Irvings parent company, says the new system would lower energy costs, improve carbon emissions performance and facilitate economic development.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/irving-firm-calls-for-regional-energy-transmission-system/article1435548/

But no details were given. Maybe Shawn sold them the rights to the "little boxes" I blogged about in December titled "I'm losing it folks". Why would Irving need to hound the province ( well NB Power) for lower rates if they can do all this themselves? Why would their pulp and paper division need handouts to the tune of several millions if they can do all this themselves?

Another article here tells of some details about selling Lepreau and the hydro system for 3.2 Billion.

New Brunswick and Quebec have made major changes to the proposed deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Quebec.

The Telegraph Journal posted this early this morning and seems to be the first out of the gate. I searched early and this was the only new NB Power article.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/923808

It amazes me that some of the details of the document were basically leaked out here and there, with the official announcement to only come on Wednesday. I guess it will take a awhile for Hill and Knowlton to swallow the fact that they didn't succeed with the spin the first time, and need to re-group and step up their game a notch with the new MOU.

I wonder if a new NERA report will follow soon as well. I would like to go back and see how many thousand times Shawn Graham said that this deal is the best deal for New Brunswickers as soon as we see the details. (20 seconds in : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtOC26tXcSk) All it took was a couple of mla's to fess up and admit they can only vote "NO" , and all of a sudden the deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I hope everyone is ready for round two, because the sell job is probalby going to come harder and faster this time. They basically wasted two and half months and had to go back to the drawing board and start over again. Charest's provincial debt must have ballooned more than anticipated and he's desparate for any form of revenue that HQ can get. And they still want it signed and delivered by March 31.

I also imagine you will see a press release this week from the special advisory board that Graham and company threw together the review the MOU. Their opinion won't matter much now. Or at least they will have to take another six weeks or so to review the new MOU. Graham will probably have it passed in the legislation by then. That would kinda seem like a kick in the privates if I was on that team. I imagine they will all send in a bill for their time. Asking them nicely to give a reputable opinion, and then throw out the whole deal. Maybe that's why the Hill and Knowlten rep only spent five minutes with Ganong last week. Not much point in moving forward on that report. And of top of that, Graham is rolling back their rate reduction!! Ha Ha.
.
And maybe this is not the best analogy to use (I like the video), but as former President Bush said, "you fool me once and I can't get fooled again" .
about 40 seconds into this short video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLY8zrHZ64&NR=1
.

An Analysis of the Proposed Energie NB Power Sale

This is a great analysis posted at Save NB Power site. I'm a fan of knowing your history before you move forward on a subject. They give a history lesson before moving on with explaining the impacts of the proposed sale. The cover letter as sent to the premier, and list of authors can be found on the Save NB Power website.

http://www.savenbpower.org/CitizensPanel/Analysis.pdf

I have copied the Conclusions here:

1. The major benefit of the proposed sale is the immediate reduction to Industrial rate payers in New Brunswick who realize savings of about 32%.

2. Residential, General and Commercial customers will not see any reduction in rates. They must calculate what the rates would have been had the sale not been completed and consider the savings over time while assuming that many future unknowns do not eliminate some of the savings.

3. HQ realizes substantial benefits both financially and strategically.

4. The value of the ENBP assets to HQ is significantly greater than the outstanding ENBP debt. The rate relief to New Brunswickers does not cost HQ anything. Its gross margin on its NB business will be greater than for its Quebec business.

5. If the deal is concluded it should be at a higher cash value than the ENBP debt.

6. The major cost to NB will be loss of control of this essential service plus the loss of opportunity to take advantage of other sources of energy in the future such as the Lower Churchill developments. The value of retaining control is difficult to quantify. It is a matter of judgement for each citizen/shareholder of ENBP.

7. If the deal is not concluded New Brunswick rate payers will forego rate savings. The NPV of these savings, subject to risks as noted, are calculated to be as follows:
For Industtrial customers calculated to perpetuity (NERA) $2.1 billion
For Residential Customer with a monthly power bill of $400/m $7367 or $30.69/mo
(Calculated at 6% interest for 20 years) $200/m $3683 or $15.35/mo
$100/m $1842 or $7.67/mo

In the event that NB ratepayers believe that only 5 years of savings should be considered because of the many future uncertainties of the NPV, the projected savings would become:
Average Monthly Bill NPV of Savings for 5 years Equiv.$/mo
$400.00/month $1818 $30.30/mo
$200.00/month $909 $15.15/mo
$100.00/month $455 $7.58/mo
Each New Brunswick consumer should be able to decide whether these savings are
worth the loss of ownership of ENBP, its services and its assets.

8. PNB has stated that four objectives were the reason for pursuing this MOU with HQ.
The following is an assessment of whether the stated objectives would be met by
this deal: · “NB must continue to have control of its energy independence and its
energy policies.”
Comment: NB has those controls now because it owns 100% of EBNP.
How can it claim to maintain control when it owns 0%. It cannot!

“NB families and business must have rate relief.”
Comment: NB rate payers currently have the lowest rates in the Maritime
Provinces and substantially lower than the New England states. Lower
rates are always nice but why the imperative?

“The debt must be slashed significantly or eliminated altogether.”
Comment: Lowering the ENBP debt while selling productive assets worth
much more than the debt does not improve NB’s financial position, it
worsens it. The Provinces debt is not lowered at all.

“Our dependence on fossil fuels must be lowered.”
Comment: There will be little or no difference in the use of fossil fuels in
NB whether ENBP or HQ operate the system. HQ does not have the
excess generating capacity, the interconnection capacity or the market
incentive to replace all of NB’s fossil fuel generation with hydro energy.
It will probably be years before it will be in HQ’s interest to expand its NB
facilities.

9. A more desirable option would be to negotiate another long term firm power purchase
agreement (PPA)with HQ . HQ may need some PPA’s to obtain financing for new
generation and additional interconnection capacity. The savings realized could be
distributed to rate payers as necessary for the best economic outcomes. ENBP would
remain as a productive asset of the people of New Brunswick.
Another long term plan would be to develop a strategic partnership with a major electric
energy producer and distributor with a proven track record in international developments
such as Eletricite de France (EDF). In the 1970s EDF faced essentially the same issues as
ENBP . Like ENBP EDF had few indigenous natural resources, but like ENBP was
strategically located and could and did develop strong electrical interconnections with
electric utilities in all neighbouring countries .
EDF is now the “ENERGY HUB” of Europe. Nuclear energy accounts for 86% of France’s
electricity supply. Electricity is France’s fourth largest export.

EDF has made major investments in generating and distribution utilities in the U.K and
recently acquired a 49% interest in Constellation Energy (formerly Baltimore Gas and
Electric) in the U.S.A.
With NB’s strategic location for generating plants and interconnections to the U.S. market,
a company like EDF would be a great partner in implementing Premier Graham’s vision for
NB as the “ENERGY HUB” of North Eastern America.

Rally in Fredericton at the Legislature Building

Just back from Freddy Beach. Didn't feel like no beach though. -12 with the wing blowing. It was cold. But that didn't stop the faithful from attending. The crowd was strong given the weather. There was even a 85 year old couple sitting in the front in chairs that were kept sheltered by the huddled crowd.

A lone sign was stuck in the snowbank contrasting the intended purpose of the building versus the action of the current government. The sign says " NB 1st : One does not sell the right to power. This is a democracy. Support NB Power families. Where an orange ribbon"

Several speakers including union leader for IBEW 37 Ross Galbraith , Conservative Leader David Aylward, NDP Leader Roger Duguay spoke, representatives from the other parties, as well as others. My opologies to everyone else who spoke who I did not name, I have a short memory, and it was too cold to take notes.

This guy is making sure everyone knows his opinion.

The RCMP had a forensic investigation vehicle there with a little cam corder in the window pointed at the crowd. If they were looking for a crime, most felt it should be pointed at the ruling government inside the building.

These two make such a cute couple.

A freindly conservative mla kindly opening the window so the loud ruckus could be heard inside. He's giving a thumbs up, the volume must have been good.

Jack Keir braved the cold to be confronted by an even colder crowd. Unfortunately my camera was set on hi-def and the video I have is too massive to upload. I'll see wht I can do to shrink it and upload later. That's all for now folks. Sorry, no new facts or thoughtful stories today. Well, I did get a handout from the NB Media Co-op. It talks about the well known fact that Hill and Knowlton are used to help the government market the sale of NB Power. Check it out. Worth a look anyway. http://www.nbmediacoop.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=708:media-expert-exposes-marketing-of-nb-power-sale&catid=96:politics&Itemid=197

Conspiracy theory? Another one?

Who beleives in conspiracy theories? I feel the urge to type, and am short on relevant topics, or at least topics that need more research than I want to do at the moment. So here's a non relevant (or is it) rant involving some of our favorite chracters of the day.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global asset manager focused on property, renewable power and infrastructure assets with over $90 billion of assets under management. http://www.brookfield.com/

They currently own Frasers in Edmunston. http://foresttalk.com/index.php/2009/08/10/brookfield-asset-management-reports-increase-in-profits

Guess who is on the board of directors? I'm not telling. You gotta look. But they are very familiar NB faces. One of them even commented that he wished he had the political aptitude to sell NB Power.

http://www.brookfield.com/content/corporate_governance/board_of_directors-1057.html?Page=1

Now the following link will bring you deep into the heart of conspiracy theories. Yes, business leaders around the world are free to gather and discuss common issues, further trade among themselves, and even have a glass or two of the finest wines or a pricy shot of a good cognac. But others feel they are up to no good.

And at the risk of losing my own credibility : have a look
http://www.bilderberggroup.net/

and here : http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/

Now that you know, you can just type that special word into any internet browser and get a thousand links. All fun stuff.

But this page has that same familiar face. Recent attendee to a conference in fact. http://www.mtl911truth.org/?p=1740&cpage=1

And check this out for fun. Not ready to commit this one to a permanent side link yet. If you listen carefully near the end of the video, I think the former premeir makes reference to the fact that there is no "oil" in NB. But there appears to be something else in the ground around Sussex. Conspiracy theory??

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/

And a final note. I love the title of the website. First time I seen it was today. It must taken a looong time to photoshop that photo.

http://www.thetelecrapurinal.com/news/2009/11/is-premier-shawn-graham-is-selling-out-new-brunswick-i-dunno-im-just-asking/

Get your "VOILA" t-shirt here and support the cause.
http://www.shirtmagic.com/shop/The%20Telecrap%20Urinal


See everyone at the Rally in Fredericton tomorrow.
.
.
.

Natural Gas in NB ? Who knew!! I know who did.

There seems to be some buzz about Natural Gas these days.

Seems Graham thinks we are a province with no energy related resources.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NB/ID=1379331595 1 minute 13 seconds into video.

Until recently, that was probably true. But several things have happened in the past decade to change that, and Graham would know, his father seems to be well involved in the whole process.
Seems he recently became chairman of the board for a junior resource company that has a lot to gain in the Maritimes from natural gas and particularily shale gas.

http://www.cnsx.ca/Storage/1213/109023_PetroWorth_appoints_Alan_Graham_as_Chairman.pdf
http://www.petroworth.com/welcome.htm

Shale gas looks to be a game changer in the future of generation of electricity.

A hot of the press article from Power Magazine gives a really optimistic outlook of the future of shale gas, and its use in the generation of electricity. It should help to keep the wholesale price of electricity from spiking up in the future. More bad news for Hydro Quebec who don't need the competition. This article is 6 pages long. You need to click on each successive page. It is quite comprehensive.

http://www.powermag.com/gas/The-U-S-Gas-Rebound_2357.html

More evidence of a future "glut" and even some bad news for Irving.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/05/20/nb-lng-tankers-canaport-559.html

The amount of gas has been known for awhile. And too think, they said "it's too early to get excited"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/12/13/nb_mhsusgas001213.html
http://ent-fundy.ca/documents/final_report_oct2004.pdf

And shale gas production could start soon.

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/914969

This is how its done. Link to video :
http://www.csug.ca/index.php?option=sawvidgallery&task=showVid&id=9

So does any of this tie into the sale of NB Power? Possibly. Possibly not. Will NB Power and the citizens of NB ever get to benefit from it? Except for the 10% royalties, which we'll probably give back the industry players, like we do stumpage for the big players in forest sector, NB'ers will probably not see so much. We'll be quite happy to ship it all stateside, have it turned into electricity down there, and purchased back on the open market as required when oil prices are too high (if we even have to wory about oil prices) . Heaven forbid it is used at Coleson Cove, or even one of the four "gas" turbines in Millbank, just north of Miramichi.

So why, if the volume of gas soon to be available in NB dwarfs that of Sable Island, would Graham be pushing the province away from being able to access and use it to the benefit of the province? I don't know, maybe his father does?
.
.
.

Frasers to close ??

Rumours from street indicate that representatives from Hydro Quebec paid a visit to the Frasers mill in Edmunston. They have a biomass power generator that provides steam and some electricity to the pulp and paper mill. The rest they sell to NB Power. Apparently this makes the company viable and able to stay open.

http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/journal/article/617746

The visit was apparently to inform them that HQ will no longer need the power generated from the biomass plant. Does that mean the plant will close?

Other information from another source, indicates that trucking contracts for material related to the biomass plant will be terminated on April 1. No concrete sources for this information at this point, but I'll keep my ears open.

On a side note, even if the rumours are just heresay, apparently the NB Government already subsidizes these facilities, and Irving to the tune of several million dollars per year.

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/abc/Local/NB/ContentPosting?isfa=1&feedname=CBC_LOCALNEWS&date=true&newsitemid=nb-nb-paper-mill-energy-subsidy-1055

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/11/13/nb-forestry-fund.html

So the big savings for industry might be there if the sale goes through, but it won't even be as much as the government pundits claim, because they already subsidize them now anyway. I wonder did they include that in the NERA calculations? I doubt it.

In fact, if you take away the subsidies, and add the possible large Quebec Government induced rate increase that I blogged about earlier, I wonder if there will even be any savings for industrial after the first couple of years. And then their rates will be back to where NB Power rates would have been, plus subject to large increases year after year after that.
.
.

What is wrong with the status quo?

What is wrong with the status quo??

If anyone has read this article written by economist Jeff Rubin? http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/908518

Or seen the Shawn Graham interview with Terry Seguin on the CBC?
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NB/ID=1379331595

Do you beleive what you see? Do any reporters have the ability to do some significant research? (and I'm not refering to Terry Seguin)
Do politians have the ability to talk without doublespeak? Check this out to see how completely dependent NB Power is on oil pricing and supply volatility.

http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/sustainability/supplementarydocuments/StatisticalOverview_English_Nov%2019.pdf see page three

Oil (and orimulsion combined) as a percentage of provincial net generation and purchases for the last 5 years is 23%, 16%, 17%, 20% and 23% respectively.

Oil only, while Dalhousie was still on Orimulsion, was 10% for 2005 and 13% for 2004.

Now that the industrial load has droppped off, and orimulsion is gone, once lepreau is back, oil load for the province should be next to zero. Especially if you calculate the numbers with a 14 TW cap on the heritage pool. as proposed in the MOU.

When Lepreau is back to full load, and they generate at at least historical rates (4.1 Tw / year) in province electricity supply should be about 29% nuclear, 23% hydro, 25% coal, and the rest from purchases. Purchases are currently about 30%. All totalled, there seems to be a surplus, because I can add it up to 107%. So coal generaton, or purchases will be down a few percent. Not much dependency on oil. Even dependency on coal could drop to less than 20%.

Nuff said???

Actually, I have more. Lets look at this from another angle. Where is Quebec going to profit from the good citizens of NB. They will run the nuclear station. Right ? Status Quo there. They will run the hydro stations. Right? Status Quo there. Any refurbishment at Mactaquac in 15 or 20 years will be added to NB Power rates. And don't think otherwise? Who else would pay? Quebec residents? No. Quebec Government? Why would they do that? They'll dump the money in Quebec first. Government of NB maybe? Well then there is no reason to sell NB Power. What about purchased power from independent power producers. Any reason for anything except Status Quo there? This includes natural gas generation. Lots of natural gas in the Maritimes. http://www.soep.com/cgi-bin/getpage?pageid=1/0/0 and http://www.gnb.ca/0078/Minerals/pdf/McCully_Gas_Field_Projecte.pdf
No foreign oil imports there. Wind Power. Lots of that. In fact, more to come. Free fuel forever there! Biomass generator at Frasers. Lots of trees in NB. Status Quo there. Hydro station at St George. And gas turbine at Grandview in Irvings backyard. Do they use this themselvles, or sell it on the grid? http://www.transcanada.com/pdf/power/grandview.pdf Doesn't matter does it. Just more in province generation that won't likely change. That just leaves the other 18% to 25% generated at Belledune from coal and petcoke. We just shutdown a 300 year old coal mine in Grand Lake. http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/cityregion/article/911216 About time for that eh!! A mine that has supplied Grand Lake, Dalhousie, and Belledune. The US has 120 plus years of coal reserves for it's coal fired fleet of generators that produce over 40% of the electricity required. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html I also seen elsewhere where over 50% of US electrical supply is from coal sourced generation.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think there is enough water in Quebec to fill that gap in electricity supply to the states and shut down all those coal fired generators. So where would the profit come from? TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION silly. That's where it comes from in PEI, NS, NL, Bangor Hydro, even Quebec. Well maybe not Quebec. They just pillaged and plundered Churchil Falls for $0.25 per megwatt hour and sell it in their own heritage pool at $28. Lots of generation profit there. 1.7 Billion in profits and 63 million paid back to NL last year. Well, technically maybe it is a transmision profit. But anyway, back to the transmission and distribution profits. Why would I make that assumption? Well, check out our neighbours.

Here is a summary:

In PEI Fortis owns Maritime Electric and makes money from the Distribution of electricity obtained from NB Power. Most new wind power is sold to NY.

In NS Emera owns NS Power and makes money from the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. The electricity and self generated from coal (75%)and hydro.

In NL Fortis Group owns Newfoundland Power and makes money from the Transmission and distribution of electricty obtained from the Crown owned Newfoundland Hydro. Newfoundland Hydro is Crown owned and provides over 93% of the electricity in NL from Hydro power.

http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines&en/industry/overview.stm

In NB, NB Power is Crown owned and NB Power makes money from the Generating,
transmission and Distribution of electricty. The sources are from self generation from nuclear, hydro, coal, oil, wind, and purchases from biomass and natural gas generators.

As you can see, the privately owned, and profitable area in each of the other Atlantic provinces is the TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION system within the province. The crown corporation Newfoundland Hydro, supplies over 90% of the power that is sold in Newfoundland through the privately run Newfoundland Power. NF Power has little to no risk in the generation of electricity. As long as the markup on purchases is sufficient to cover expenses, with a fixed rate of return, you're in business. PEI is the same. They have some small deisel and bunker generators that rarely run. Why bother when you can get all the power from the mainland. Let NB Power worry about the capital cost and risk of a generation sytem. MaritimeElectric just buys, marks up, and sells. I grew up in PEI at the tail end of a local distribution system. Having no power after a winter storm for three days was routine. Our house was well equipped to deal with it. We didn't go without a hot meal or a hot shower just because the power was out. It been better the past few years, but my parents have an even bigger generator now. So basically, Maritime Electric service is there, but it has it's bad days. I've been living in New Brunswick for 20 odd years, and don't recall the power been out in my area for more than a couple of hours, and rarely, if ever, on a windy stormy winter day.

Emera also own Bangor Hydro in Maine. They provide transmission and distribution to over 110,000 people in Northeastern Maine. It appears they have no Generation capability. They get a guaranteed return on equity of 11.5%. On the downside, if you read this report you can see the reliability issues they have to contend with. http://www.bhe.com/data/pdf/BHE%20Local%20System%20Needs%20and%20Alternatives.pdf

Emera also recently acquired the 260 MW Bayside power station in Saint John. A former NB Power facility leased out to a private interest many years ago to develope a natural gas fired combined cycle unit.

Even the town of Sumerside is trying to ween itself off of Maritime Electric by Purchasing a portion of the wind power generated at West Cape, PEI.

So the people are right in being outraged that the current government would consider selling NB Power. Especially the part that has less risk, and a basically profitable, guaranteed rate of return.

Plus, as we all know, NB Power has spent considerable time and money developing interchanges will all it's neighbours. NB Power has nearly as many interprovincial, and US connections as does Hydro Quebec, and it's only one tenth the size. See the earlier side by side comparison I did.

This doesn't even include the options available to HQ by getting the transmision system into Maine. And they get to control the NS open access grid. http://oasis.nspower.ca/en/home/oasis/default.aspx In an earlier post I explained that they get their hands on PEI's grid.

So Folks, tell me please, becasue I can't figure it out. How the hell can selling NB Power be good for NB? And nothing but obscenley profitable for HQ?

For the next 20 to 30 years, what needs to change? Why not just sit back, relax, and pay off the debt. All new generation will come from the open market. Right? That's what the MOU is telling HQ to do. NB Power does it now. Why not keep the T&D profits.

And on a side note, if you want to get Hydro Quebec rates, but not move there, call NS power. They have a demand metering system with rates compararble to HQ's. They will even finance your heat pump and ETS device to allow you to drop your rates by nearly 50%.

http://www.nspower.ca/en/home/residential/homeheatingproducts/default.aspx

I don't know about you guys, but I feel ill.