Asthetics aside, is it sound business - again, the key concern.
For info: Click the screenshot below to read, or go to the Xcel website, here.
If this Crown Hydro Phenomenon is a "feel good" propaganda effort paid and delivered by flaks on behalf of rich people looking only to jump subsidy income without being of a scale and need to justify itself aside from tax breaks and/or subsidy, why should the public, via tax breaks or subsidy, pick up any part of the bill for unsound venturing, if that's what's at play? Is it a justifiable business proposal, if all costs and incomes were internalized, and Xcel were not forced to purchase someone's power at a premium over what it could produce itself? Have the Crown Hydro promoters put sound beliveable numbers on the table, and if not will they? "Trust me," well, why if the numbers are not there to be trusted?
These are preliminary questions I have, and am trying to research, but there's much public record at FERC, from years ago, so what's today's dollars and cents truth? Has any such disclosure been forthcoming?
Only soundness without direct or indirect public/ratepayer subsidy at play would justify moving forward. Why should power consumer ratepayer subsidy or public money be put into a questionable business proposition simply because promoters feel they've found a new, smart thing?
Can Crown Hydro promoters drop feel-good propagandizing, clean energy rhetoric, and show hard numbers and sensible projections?
What's Xcel Energy's view in this? Playing politics and agreeing with friends because of the small scale effect it might encounter, or strongly for or against Crown Hydro? Has anyone asked? Has Xcel definitively spoken? They are a player with chips, sitting at the table.
1 comments:
"Only soundness without direct or indirect public/ratepayer subsidy at play would justify moving forward. Why should power consumer ratepayer subsidy or public money be put into a questionable business proposition simply because promoters feel they've found a new, smart thing?"
You are asking good questions, Eric - and presumably, questions that were asked and answered during the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's licensing process, where agencies had the opportunity to weigh in.
What is refreshing is that you're asking good questions.
Others seem to feel this project shouldn't go through because, among other reasons, the developer had the audacity to host a fundraiser for Michelle Bachmann, with Dick (cheney)in' Cheney as the featured guest.
For instance, here:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2009/02/wealthy-eminent-domain-advocate-hosts.html
Here was my response to that post; although, the blog has not chosen to publish it at this time:
"But what’s even more offensive is that he’s willing to use eminent domain to take public park land—an historical site, no less—to achieve his goal."
lloydletta, lloydletta, lloydletta.
the right to eminent domain, as I read the FERC stuff, is automatically granted in issuance of the FERC license - with the exception for parks.
The developer, as I read it, was exploring the legal rights granted to it upon receipt of the license.
The reasoning, according to official documents, was that the land the development was proposed for, was not really "parkland" when the license was granted. Wether you agree with that argument or not, reasonable people can conclude the developer made a valid argument. It didn't prevail; but there was logic and reasoning behind that argument.
What you're really arguing here, as I read it, is that it was wrong for the developer to explore it's legal rights inherent in a license he was legally granted?
Seriously. lloydletta - if you're going to object to this project, find something real to object about.
Oh, and BTW - can you document how this proposed development is a taking?
You know, with facts?
I'll wait....
****
Retribution is NOT a valid reason to derail a project.
Derailing it because it isn't a worthy project, is.
Post a Comment