If the government wants to encourage the right behaviours to ensure aggressive take up of RE solution the usual government sloth but not factor here.

Why is Bizzy adopting early?

@Miller

Good feedback!

Very interested in the retroffiting BL&P has to do to align with government’s RE Policy.

in most countries govts regulate power rates charged by power companies.the govt should be able to dictate fair mkt value.private cos here are renting warehouse roof space and install solar panels , they are making money as is the warehouse owner from leasing his roof

@ Harry callihan (sic)
The men in white coats should be arriving at your house shortly and with the drugs available these days and the innovative treatment now available it is possible that you will make a full recovery.

@millertheanunnaki

Reduced revenue base for BL&P – If BL&P’s revenue decreases, so be it. Government has a renewable energy strategy which may affect BL&P’s revenue and they therefore have to roll with the punches. Don’t forget that they are guaranteed a return on investment under the FTC rules. Not many businesses have that comfort. As you have said, a sceptic would say that BL&P are arguing for a payment regime which does not exactly incentivise people to rush to install systems as this is not in their interests.

Would small non-RE consumers pay more if RE rates increased? – The current number of 25 RE systems connected to the grid is a joke. The RE credit has to be increased in order to get more people to adopt RE. Does this impact on the small non-RE consumer? I am not sure, because I am not convinced that BL&P’s payment for RE based on “avoidable cost of fuel” represents the real cost saving to them for consumers generating RE power. What about reductions in BL&P’s cost of running the current generating plant, savings in the construction and running costs of future generating plant, overheads and finance costs? I am arguing for short to medium term incentivisation for RE which should be monitored and reviewed against demand/adoption. This would allow any undue allocation of cost against the small consumer to be addressed when the numbers of RE producers increased – if it needs to be addressed.

How will government make up for the loss in VAT – I could answer this by saying that as Government has a plan for 29% renewable power it would have already addressed the reduction in VAT in it’s future revenue plans. I suspect this is not the case and that no-one in Government has given the slightest thought as to how this will develop. One charging option put forward by BL&P (for the technical amongst us – Billing Alternative 2 in the consultation paper) means that the consumer pays BL&P for all power consumed, whether this is generated by the consumer or BL&P. This would retain VAT at current levels. I support the other alternative 1 which would mean VAT is charged only on power which consumers buy from BL&P, not on power that consumers generate and use themselves. If this means a reduction in VAT, so be it. VAT should not be paid on self-generated power; that would be like paying VAT on the vegetables you grow in your garden.

@ St George’s Dragon | December 12, 2012 at 11:30 PM |
“If BL&P’s revenue decreases, so be it. Government has a renewable energy strategy which may affect BL&P’s revenue and they therefore have to roll with the punches.”

Strong fighting words indeed! But you can’t be so ‘offhanded’(LOL!!) and must remember that you are dealing with a strategic business entity mostly owned and controlled by a transnational corporation whose sole purpose is to recover its recent investment and achieve a profit acceptable to its overseas shareholders. Any major changes in business circumstances that could reduce the investment’s cash flows and jeopardize outflows by way of dividends and management fees will certainly have serious repercussions on shareholders’ long-term interests in such a nonperforming overseas asset.
This is the cost a small economically vulnerable country pays for giving almost total control of its strategic assets of such crucial importance to a nation’s economic development.

The question is: How do we ensure to Emera a guaranteed return to recoup its investment and satisfy its shareholders dividend income expectations to avoid any run down of the plant or disposal to some unknown speculator possibly out of Russia?

We must ensure that the local electricity generation remains financially and operationally viable and sustainable not only to provide the remaining energy needs that RE can’t meet but also to ensure that there is a reliable working back-up facility in case (as will happen) there are “unusual” extended periods of poorly penetrating sunlight to satisfy the RE requirements.

The next question is: which class of consumer will be expected to finance this guarantee to Emera? As you pointed out, it certainly can’t be the ‘RE producing’ consumers? You can’t incentivize the RE investor and producer on the one hand (planting your own food analogy) and then penalize him by demanding a cost premium to meet Emera’s profit expectations and imposing a VAT charge to keep government revenues at socially demanding levels.
The VAT loss could be recoup byway of transferring the imposition on other classes of fuels like gasoline or imported discretionary consumables.
But how do we finance that guarantee to Emera? Who will pay the local increases in cost of electricity generated directly by BL&P? The forex equivalent to meet dividends and management fees remittances could come out of the savings accruing from reduced fuel oil imports but we can expect higher energy cost per unit of Kwh from the BL&P if RE sources are rapidly expanded.
Will the government design a policy that would subsidize the BL&P operations by way of a special cess or tax on general consumption to ensure that those classes of consumers who can’t qualify for RE producing status are not unfairly penalized and forced to carry the Emera dividend burdens brought about by the country’s shortsighted decision to sell the BL&P to foreign interests like the dog grabbing at the bone that turned out to be just a shadow. For the proverbial 30 pieces of silver we have sold our financial and economic soul to the devil of profit and greed.

Let’s continue this very important debate.

@ David | December 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM |

You are entitled to take potshots (and to some extent justifiably so) at the BLP’s proposal to subsidize electricity by way of reducing fuel oil costs to the BL&P via the pass through FCA mechanism.
But you also should decry this administration’s lack of correlation and synchronization between high sounding RE policy announcements and implementation and leading by example. Why is it taking so long to get the amendments to the BL&P Electricity Generation Act before the House? This is not any piece of controversial legislation like FoI but a vital legislative framework to save this country from further economic dislocation and forex losses. Even if it means a late Tuesday sitting just to go through the formalities which the Opposition would be foolish to oppose.

What about the government leading by example by installing RE systems in buildings under its control and switching to hybrid models for its MP & ML fleet of vehicles?

When are we going to see some action regarding the extraction of gases from the landfills to boost our existing natural gas reserves for commercial land domestic consumption?

Is the government still on board regarding the pipeline from Trinidad and does it make economic sense to pump only LNG or can other fuels be included in this pipe line deal?

This administration also has to stop advertising untruths and propaganda regarding the unprofitability of supplying fuel oil to the BL&P.
It’s a blatantly misleading lie to state that the TOTAL fuel oil sold to the BL&P is purchased at Platts Prices and sold thereon with insufficient markup to cover costs incurred in this product sale. It is absolutely misleading to say that the locally drilled and produced component of the fuel oil sold to BL& P and bought back from the refinery in Trinidad is purchased at ruling Platts prices.
I would like any one to come on this blog and refute what the miller has just posited.
Where are you “To the point” & co including Amazing.
In the land of the blind the one-eye man is king.

lizard- some body dead and left you in charge of something ?eat shit and die cunt hole.!

st George delusional lizard [dragon]and by the way retarded funk /dragons dont exist therefore you are the one who needs the medication.fairy tales.
see some one soon before your delusions get worst.and dont forget
s——–m————r —–ya hereeeeeeeeeeeeee

http://youtu.be/C2j6eVgtVDY

@miller

It is a serious subject which has deep implication for sustaining our standard of living. It merits a robust non partisan debate if such is possible.

Douglas Skeete before he lost a bit of his steam and challenged for a St. James (North?) seat made it clear that based on the offering to share holders and the rates that were guaranteed by the FTC people, that Emera would be paid back in full in under five years … FIVE YEARS, in case yah deaf …! I therefore see no challenge to ROI from a fall off in revenue that may result from a 29% swap out by existing consumers …!

Don’t believe the hype , once you go solar you dont go back to BLP . BLP can’t stop change they can choose to come aboard or get lost . Why should we allow Oil Companies to exploit us ?

St George’s Dragon | December 12, 2012 at 11:30 PM |
@ Harry callihan (sic)
The men in white coats should be arriving at your house shortly and with the drugs available these days and the innovative treatment now available it is possible that you will make a full recovery.
*******************************************************************
You mean the men from the Animal Control Unit? In this particular very rabid case, the drugs that they will inject ,would be best administered via a 9 millimetre or a Magnum .357.

@Malcom

It is not rocket science what the government needs to do if it is serious. However the government is mindful of a group who claims to employ hundreds of people who will howl about having to send home people if the government embarked on such a policy. It is the same reason successive governments have lacked the will to go after food prices in the distributive and retail sectors.

@Baf

You maybe correct when one realizes the unexplained concessions to the sector a couple budgets ago in an environment where the government is pushing RE.

@ NationBLPnewspaper | December 13, 2012 at 11:12 PM |

So why do you continue to “read” lies and BLP propaganda?

What does that say about your integrity and intellectual capacity?

Why not stick to the Advocate for ‘truthful’ news and advertising?
BTW, can you direct us to the page in the Advocate of today that mentions anything about the dismissal of the rape case against Mr. Crawford? I have not read the Advocate but would do if you could tell me where to look.

@Enuff

Like the point you are making you should develop it. Is there a country we can use as a model?