Never leave a paper trail

An astute reader has searched my blog for my historical comments on NB Power and unearthed this blog from way back  in 2005. 

I actually stand by this blog post – there are likely many I wouldn’t – I still think it would have made sense to bring in Emera back then.  I like Emera – I have said this many times.  It seems like a well run company. 

The problem in the current context is that Emera buying/taking over NB Power doesn’t fix our generation or debt problems the way the HQ model would have.  Now that HQ is off the table, I would be more than willing to restate my position that a merger with Emera should be considered.

5 thoughts on “Never leave a paper trail

  1. Actually that 2005 entry popped up on it’s own this morning under Random Posts. But no, Emera buying NB Power isn’t an answer to our current predicament. Ideally it should have been the other way around. NB was in the right geographical position to have bought Emera and gone about some of the things Emera has been doing, buying Bangor Hydro, getting into pipelines, etc. but NB governments have been all over NB Power and have stifled it’s options.
    Some are suggesting a revival of the old Maritime Energy Corporation idea. But that begs the question – What of value would NS and PEI bring to the table? The only apparent potential benefit would be a)a pooling of misery and some mild economies of scale – if the respective politicians could ever let anything out of their grasp – or b) a different guise under which to try and recapture the benefits which have just slipped through our fingers with the demise of the HQ arrangement. It just might also bring the feds to the picture – they and the National Energy Board have been MIA for years.

  2. You have a few flip-flops David, but none that couldn’t be spun in your favour. 😉

  3. Admittedly, the recent HQ proposal is dead, but the advantages and benefits that underpin the potential for a future NB-HQ deal is not difficult to imagine, in part because the dynamics of the original proposal were strong. With political support, a revision of MOU #1 could again produce the value that HQ did not see in MOU #2 for reasons consistent with their operational objectives. In fact, we could enrich MOU #1 to include working more strategically with HQ in Atlantic Canada in addition to being a conduit for HQ power.

    Alternatively, Don introduces another concept where NB Power is positioned as a strategic locus for eastern power. Don is right that a substantial amount of that capacity has been lost, but it is not inconceivable that with the right investment (read: confidence) this option could be reactivated.

    In both cases, we would still need political commitment to explain the benefits and risks to the electorate.

Comments are closed.