Electrical deregulation?

[cowman]

Just wondering about what the costs were on electrical deregulation? Now I know my cost is up but for what? And how much of that extra cost can be blamed on deregulation?
So on my bill(REA) electricity is .06750/kwh or 6 3/4 cents? Is that way out of line? Seems to me it was 6 cents about five years ago? Total energy charge makes up 51.5% of the total bill!
Transmission charge makes up 9%...Energy administration fee- 5%...and distribution- 27.4%! And then of course the good old GST! And I also notice whatever my actual energy consumption is the other costs remain the same!
It seems to me energy costs have stayed fairly low with all the BS costing more?
Now I don't know if the REA does a good job or not? They used to run a pretty tight ship when they contracted most of their stuff out? Now they have an office with about a dozen girls working in it! Used to be one girl over at the gas co-op who did all the billing on a partime contract basis!

[wilagro]

We are paying more. Used to pay $60 per month avg. Now pay $107 per month avg. Actually using LESS power now than before as the farming enterprise has been downsized.

Way to go Ralph, Steve, Jim and the rest of the PC Alberta Advantage crew. Or should that read SCREW.

[wilagro]

Jim Dinning told Caucus that DEREGULATION will NOT fail.

Remember that when the leadership convention rolls around !!

[cakadu]

How quickly we forget. Remember when the deregulation came about and there was a ceiling on the price that could be charged for electricity? Well, the power companies were allowed to charge everyone the difference between what they could have gotten and what they actually did get. For TWO years we all had a rider on our electricity bills that covered that so-called loss in compensation.

For the record, when was the last time a producer could tack on the difference between what his/her product is worth and what they actually get?

[cowman]

Linda: I Know we paid a rider to make up for the shortfall. And I remember when electricity got up to 11 cents a K? But look at my figures now? Electricity at 6.75 cents a kilowatt, and yet my bill isn't any less, and I'm not using anymore power! Seems to me the REA beuracracy just grabbed the extra and seems to be building a little empire?
Having said that, I still am glad I belong to the REA because the directors are elected and at least you can have someone to complain to!

[cakadu]

You can also expect to be paying more for your power in the future as well. According to the latest literature we have received from AltaLink regarding the high voltage line they want to run, they are going to be paying 3 to 4 times the rental rate compared to what they have been paying. That is what they are saying they heard the most about.

Fear not though, they will finance these higher payments by charging ALL customers more. They have to apply to get the rates increased, but how much do you want to make a bet they will get that increase? Anyone got any odds?

On the other hand, they are also going to be making application to have the time period that they have to go through the motions of consultations etc. shortened because it is costing them too much to go through this lengthier process.

There will be more consultations in 5 areas because they seemed to be more challenging and one of those areas is around *****on/Gleniffer Lake. Oh happy day!!!

[cowman]

Yea I saw in the paper they had increased the payments to about $980 per tower. Do you think that move will quiet a lot of the oppostion?
Also in the article they named a few of the leaders of the opposition including Mr. Larsen and Ross Watson. Know Mr. Watson from the ratepayers association and consider him a reasonable man. Don't know Mr. Larsen...other than through his rants in the paper supporting the Canadian Wheat board!

[cowman]

Thinking on this further: I should have said $980/year rent not payment per tower?
Now consider this: How much space does a tower take up? Maybe twenty ft. by ten ft. max? or 200 sq. feet? 42,800 sq. feet in an acre? So you are renting less than one twentieth of an acre for $980! In other words for one acre of land you are getting over $20,000 a year/acre rent! Sure beats growing barley, right? And if you are grazing around the tower virtually no land is lost?
Now lets consider a coalbed well? 10ft. by 10 ft.? $2700 yearly rent? For one fortieth of an acre! $108,000/acre rent!!!
Forget cows, forget sheep, forget barley,wheat,canola! Grow gas leases and electric transmission towers! No wonder the power corporations think the farmers are crazy?

[cakadu]

We just got some new literature from AltaLink today - looks like they have chosen their proposed route and that is to run parallel to the already existing line. It isn't a done deal -- yet -- and they are saying there will have to be more consultations, particularly in the *****on area.

I wonder how those poor folks feel? No matter where they moved the line, many were going to be affected by it.

The compensation is one thing cowman, but it is just that - compensation. The towers are not nice looking - think of all the folks that paid for a "view" that will now have to look at the towers all the time. Think of the people who have to farm around them. What about the consequences of living near high voltage lines? What about the loss in resale value because even if there is development, how many people are going to want to buy in close proximity to these huge power lines?

When you don't have to deal with any of the challenges, it is easy to look at how "great" the compensation is.

[cowman]

Well I don't decide these things? We elect governments to make those decisions?
The "not in my backyard" thing is prevalent everywhere? But for the good of the country sometimes these things happen and yep the individual might get screwed! But I also think there is a thing in there about "No expropreation without just compensation"?
This is no different than the municipality designating me "primary agriculture" and thus taking away my right to profit and benifit to the max from my property? What do you think that does to my land values?
We had contemplated(with a neighbor) creating a large multi lot subdivision on some very unfarmable land? Well so much for that and adios to millions of dollars...due to being zoned "primary agriculture"!...while they continue to strip three feet of black dirt off the housing developements east of Red Deer!
Pipelines, power lines, roads...they have to be built...and somebody is always going to be not a happy camper! Too bad...thats just how it is? If you don't like it change the government.

[cowman]

Folks have an opportunity to send a clear message to government when they choose the new leader.

Each candidate should be on the hot seat asked questions about how they are going to deal with industry vs people, or hog farms vs people etc.

Genuine concerns of people should come first, sadly to say they don't at this point in time.

[cakadu]

That is partly why I don't get this whole transferable development credit solution being proposed in the county. I get the concept well enough but how does one value the credit?

The premise, as I understand it, is that if someone close to the city or to the QEII wants to develop, they would have to buy development credits from a landowner that, as cowman pointed out, has been zoned agricultural, therefore not supposed to develop the land (power lines, pipelines and drilling rigs notwithstanding.) If I were to "sell" my development credits now it would be at a "price" the county deems appropriate. Here is where my questions come in.

If I sell my credits, I'm finished as far as any more compensation or development ability is concerned. Meanwhile, the entity that buys my credits, develops the land and then goes on to sell it, reaps the increase in value of the development. How will I ever see an increase to my end of the deal? Why would I ever want to sell my credits, particularly in the early stages? Wouldn't it make more sense to hold on to them to see what land values in the county get to? To my way of thinking, if they paid $20,000/acre for the transfer station, then surely to goodness my development credits must worth at least that.

Emrald, maybe you can shed some light on this. (As an aside, how is the land use committee coming along? Please feel free to e-mail me: cakadu@telusplanet.net as I really would like to hear about it.)

[cowman]

Well I know they talked a lot about that transferable credits, but I think that was all it was...talk?
I don't think it would work or at least it sure would cause a lot of problems? Especially if the county tried to impose a set price? Maybe if it was wide open on the market?
It is a difficult problem and no matter what a council decides there is going to be dissent when it comes to these zoning/land use deals?