the Advisory Panel Report

I have not completely read this yet, but for those who may be looking for the Ganong Panel Report, here it is in it's full glory.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/final-advisory-panel-report-eng.pdf

My observations:

The panel seems on the ball with the Lepreau deferral:

"The Panel recognized that the Lepreau deferral account
is an issue both in the business as usual case and if the
Proposal is implemented. The concern is when the costs
will be recovered in the rates. The Panel recommends that
the costs associated with this deferral account should
begin to be applied to rates in the first year of the Proposal term rather than being deferred thus reducing interest charges on the deferred debt and mitigating a larger rate increase in sixth year after the plant restarts."


This statement I have an issue with :

"However, should the restarting of Lepreau be unsuccessful or extended for some time, replacement electricity supply will be needed.
The guarantee of lower cost replacement electricity supply under the HPS would reduce the cost compared to replacement supply from the open electricity market. It is unlikely that any electricity producer bidding into the regional electricity market would be lower in price than the guaranteed HPS from Hydro-Québec under the Proposal."

I think the reason the Quebec government even made an offer to Graham to buy when he did go there looking for cheaper rates, is because the price of natural gas dropped like a rock, (see my earlier post on that subject) and HQ is left holding the bag for $25 billlion in captal expenditures, and doesn't have a customer anymore. This is even talked about in the report. but they didn't see that open market rates available from the US because natural genration is so cheap, are currently about 40% lower than the proposed heritage pool rate.


Keir disagrees with this statement:

"NB Power would be left to service the debt of only the transmission and distribution companies and the deferral account. This debt should be sufficiently serviced by revenue from rates."

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/938069

They brought up Grand Lake again. Everyone knows it was going to close, so why give credit to any emmissions savings.

It's too bad they just seem to rehash the same NERA and MacQuarrie Consulting numbers.
I don't know if that's really due diligence.

They did tell the government to keep their fingers out of the pie, though.

Anyway, I'm off to finish reading it. Goodnight Folks.
.
.
.