The Conflict Over NSP’s Rates Could Cause Chaos

Back to article »

  • Bill, I think that collectively we have been in a situation where NS Power has been setting energy policy in NS for too long.
    The Fuel Adjustment Mechanism was allowed to be implemented by the Rodney MacDonald government when NS Power decided that they didn’t want to forward buy energy. NS Power has since had no incentive to buy better for the ratepayers.
    The Muskrat Falls project is another example you mentioned in today’s column.
    The rate of return is another example. As an Emera shareholder I earn the best dividends of any holding in my portfolio and it could drop by 25 percent and would still be above RBC. Utilities that function as a monopoly have never had a problem attracting capital. Never!
    Yet we allow NS Power to collect their capital invested in 11 years because of the more than 9 percent return on capital where most assets that have productive lifespans of up to 40 years.
    Emera’s historical cost of borrowing is just a bit above the province and they repay over 20, 25 and thirty year term repayment financing.
    Personally, I find Tim Houston hard headed but on this issue he is right. NS Power aka Emera needs to know who is driving the bus. Houston should be talking with Hydro Quebec about energy and give Emera a taste of its own medicine.

    Wayne Fiander | October 30, 2022 | Reply

    • Thanks Wayne.

      Yes we can have lots of power generated by other than NSP/Emera. But you still need a system for distribution and load management that has to be a monopoly.

      Bill

      Bill | October 30, 2022 | Reply