Waiting for NDP policy – feedback
Contrarian reader Justin Ling thinks we're too impatient:Come on now. The legislature isn't even sitting, and you're taking thinly-veiled jabs at the government-to-be for not doing anything?
28 July, 2009
Come on now. The legislature isn't even sitting, and you're taking thinly-veiled jabs at the government-to-be for not doing anything?
Seven weeks after electing Atlantic Canada's first NDP government, Nova Scotians have seen little if anything in the way of policy initiatives from Dexter and Co. Senior civil servants, however, seem practically giddy with delight at the NDP's methodical approach to policy.
"They actually read the briefing books," exclaimed one official, referring to the massive tomes each department prepares detailing the policy issues an incoming minister will face. "They read them, and they ask intelligent questions. They are really into policy."
Lurking behind Nova Scotia Power's increasingly frantic efforts to find renewable sources of electrical generation is the threat of a crushing $500,000-a-day fine should it fail to meet legislated targets for 2010. That works out to $183 million per year—half again what NSP earned its shareholders in 2008.
For better or for worse, the threat is symbolic, not real.
Under the Electricity Act, a set of regulations known as the Renewable Energy Standards (RES) requires NSP to purchase at least five percent of its 2010 energy supply from renewable sources owned by third parties and built after 2001. The RES requirement increases to 10 percent in 2013, but may include generation from both third party and NSPI facilities. The Climate Change Action Plan, released last January, would have increased this to 25 percent by 2020, but a little noticed NDP campaign promise trumps that provision, moving the 25 percent deadline up to 2015.
RES regulations stipulate "a daily penalty of no more than $500,000" for failure to comply.
Why did Nova Scotia Power come to the Utility and Review Board with what the board called, "an incomplete, poorly documented application?" In an email exchange with contrarian, Consumer Advocate John Merrick offers a couple of theories: They didn’t expect as much opposition and questioning because they thought it was such a win-win scenario (using a renewable energy source other than coal; helping keep NewPage viable and thus an employer in the province; giving woodlot owners and sawmills a source of revenue) they would be applauded from all corners of the province. Once into the hearing it was too late to...
Too much about this story is starting to look like a setup to me. First, there is the bit about the police not identifying the lawyer, but "sources" naming her. Somebody wanted her identity leaked, and the front-page photo in the Chronicle the next day certainly made sure everyone knew who she was. Then there were the two "tidbits" about her legal career: that one client had a mistrial, and that another client had fired her. How many other trial lawyers in Nova Scotia could have both of those things said about them? I'm willing to bet a fairly high percentage. Again, it looks to me as if this information is being reported in an effort to embarrass and humiliate her. Just to make sure, the Chronicle-Herald repeated those "details" again the next day. Just who did Anne piss off, anyway?
