Automatic reply: YO Teddy Why doesn't Mr Jones consider Court of Appeal File No. 68-23-CA - Judicial Review of Board Decision in Matter 541 newsworthy?
Carr, Jeff (LEG)<Jeff.Carr@gnb.ca> | Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:30 AM | ||||||||
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |||||||||
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued. You can be assured that all emails are carefully
read, reviewed and taken into consideration.
If your concern is constituency related, please contact Rose Ann at my constituency office in Fredericton Junction at RoseAnn.Smith@gnb.ca or call 506-368-2938. Thanks again for your email. ============================== Merci pour votre courriel. Vos pensées et commentaires sont grandement appréciés. Vous pouvez être assuré que tous les courriels sont lus, examinés et pris en considération. Si vous souhaitez signaler un état de la route, veuillez composer le 1-833-384-4111 ou envoyer un courriel à transportnb@gnb.ca. Si votre préoccupation concerne la circonscription, veuillez communiquer avec Rose Ann à mon bureau de circonscription à Fredericton Junction à RoseAnn.Smith@gnb.ca ou composer le 506-368-2938. Merci encore pour votre courriel.
| |||||||||
Gilles Volpé<Gilles.Volpe@libertyutilities.com> | Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 2:23 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Hi: Thx for your message. I am currently out of the office on vacation returning on Tuesday July 11. I will be checking messages periodically.
Thx, Gilles
Bonjour: Je suis en dehors du bureau jusqu'au mardi 11 juillet. Je vais vérifier mes messages périodiquement.
This message and any attachments contain confidential information and
are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, review, disclosure, forwarding,
distribution, copying or reliance on the contents of this message is
strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by email if
you have received this message in error and delete this message
immediately from your system. | |
Clean fuel charges in New Brunswick will be double those in N.S., N.L.
On Friday, 8 cents will be added to prices in N.B., but only 4 cents elsewhere
Newfoundland and Labrador imposed the exact same charges in that province early Thursday morning.
The amounts are half of what is expected to be an eight-cent charge in New Brunswick.
Parties connected to the petroleum industry in Nova Scotia pushed for the province to follow New Brunswick's eight-cent plan, but the board found fault with that approach, according to David Roberts.
"Nobody thought that the cost was really going to reach that amount," said Roberts, who is Nova Scotia's consumer advocate.
David
Roberts acts as consumer advocate at Nova Scotia's Utilities and Review
Board. He argued against allowing oil companies to charge an extra
eight cents to pay for federal clean-fuel standards, like in New
Brunswick. The body settled on half that amount. (CBC)
He argued an eight-cent increase is well beyond expenses oil companies are likely to face and would punish drivers needlessly.
"There's not going to be any rebates going back to consumers if, as it turns out, they were paying four or five cents a litre more than the clean fuel regulations would have required to compensate suppliers," he said in an interview.
Campaign launched over cost
The New Brunswick government has been waging a major social media and advertising campaign to convince residents the upcoming eight-cent increase on gasoline and diesel is required.
It claims the full amount is necessary to help oil companies pay for the high cost of federal clean fuel regulations that otherwise they would claw from the vulnerable retailers they supply.
"New Brunswick has made amendments to how regulators set maximum prices because if this change was not made, small retailers in the province would have to absorb the additional cost of the federal government's clean fuel regulation," the province wrote in materials distributed last week that included rare, full front-page newspaper advertisements.
"Prices may go up by as much as eight cents per litre as a result of the clean fuel regulations."
But Nova Scotia has decided four cents should be adequate, a ruling that will save consumers in that province about $1 million a week in clean fuel charges over what New Brunswick consumers will pay.
Clean fuel regulations took effect in Canada on July 1, but costs associated with them are to be included in formulas that set regulated prices in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for the first time this Friday.
The national regulations are meant to cut the "carbon intensity" of automotive fuels sold across the country.
The
New Brunswick government took out a full two-page ad in the
Telegraph-Journal last week to criticize federal carbon policies. The
ads blame Ottawa entirely for the eight-cent fuel-price increase. (Robert Jones/CBC)
They are aimed at making refiners and importers of fuel lower the emission intensity of products they manufacture or resell by setting targets for those emissions and establishing financial rewards and penalties to reach them.
The regulations do not apply to heating fuels or to petroleum products exported from Canada.
Companies can earn credits by changing practices
Refiners can comply with the new rules in different ways, including putting more ethanol in domestic gasoline, selling biodiesel products or finding ways to reduce their own refining emissions.
Companies that come in below the federal government's emissions intensity ceiling will earn credits they can sell on a market being set up for that purpose. Other producers can buy those credits if their fuels fall short.
It's also possible to earn credits through investments in things unrelated to refining, like electric-vehicle charging stations.
Oil companies have complained that making those changes will be costly and, in response, the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia governments each passed new rules to allow those costs to be passed to consumers.
The New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board and Nova Scotia's Utilities and Review Board each held its own hearing to determine what those costs might be, but ultimately reached different conclusions.
Both regulators hired Angie Brown, with the consulting company Grant Thornton, to report on what would be fair.
She built a model around existing clean fuel rules and credit-trading markets operating in California and estimated, based on the California experience, it would take roughly eight cents per litre added to gasoline and diesel retail prices in both provinces to compensate refiners and importers.
Brown was questioned about the relevance of using California data to estimate costs of the new Canadian policy, but she said there were few examples to go by.
"I acknowledge this is an imperfect solution and relying on actual data would likely get you a better outcome," said Brown during her Nova Scotia testimony.
However, she argued if oil companies were under-compensated for new costs, they could decide to stop supplying local markets.
"I think there are some pretty significant risks if you do take the wait-and-see approach," she said.
Too early to fix costs, consultant says
Brown's modelling and recommendations went largely uncontested in New Brunswick, but not in Nova Scotia.
The Nova Scotia board hired a second expert who argued that because no one knows yet how expensive the new clean fuel rules will be, it is too early to charge consumers for them.
Vijay Muralidharan, with Calgary's R Cube Economic Consulting Inc., agreed the new regulations will add costs to oil companies, but said regulators should wait at least a couple of months to get some data on how companies actually respond to the rules.
"Any cost projection at this point would be an estimation with a relatively high degree of potential error, said Muralidharan in his evidence.
The
Shell refinery, upgrader and petrochemical facility northeast of
Edmonton has installed solar panels and signed wind energy contracts to
cut down on the greenhouse gases it emits during manufacturing. It's the
kind of change new federal clean-fuel standards are seeking to force on
the petroleum industry. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)
"Therefore, we recommend that the Board wait and conduct a study with the primary suppliers of fuel, once the new Clean Fuel Standard has been initiated, to understand the realized impact on their business before amending the current regulatory framework."
Reasons for the decision have not yet been issued, but its ruling to add four cents of clean fuel costs falls halfway between Grant Thornton's eight-cent recommendation and R Cube's advice of no immediate increase.
Roberts said R Cube's involvement in the Nova Scotia hearing likely had an important influence on the outcome, that was missing in New Brunswick.
"The difference is that there were no alternate scenarios put to the New Brunswick board other than the one that was included in the Grant Thornton report," said Roberts.
"The New Brunswick board accepted the [Grant Thornton] recommendation. The Nova Scotia board did not."
Newfoundland and Labrador regulators have not held a hearing on clean fuel costs yet but were instructed by the province to implement an interim charge and earlier Thursday selected Nova Scotia's amounts as its own.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
"The New Brunswick government has been waging a major social media and advertising campaign to convince residents the upcoming eight-cent increase on gasoline and diesel is required."
- does it really amount to 8 cents/litre? I highly doubt it.
-why did the NB EUB approve this increase? No doubt because that was what Higgs wanted from them, and he pretty much controls it.
-why does any increase become effective before suppliers are even providing us with the cleaner fuel that we're supposed to be paying for? The provincial government argument doesn't convince me.
Seems like there's some skunks that need to get flushed out of the woodpile.
Sadly we all realize this 8 cents is just pathetic. It should be 100 cents. We all have to pull together, as Canadians, and do our fair part in reducing the global C2O pollutions that increase our climate temperatures. It's collective effort Canadians - all will have to chip in much more to stop the carbones.
YO Teddy Why doesn't Mr Jones consider Court of Appeal File No. 68-23-CA - Judicial Review of Board Decision in Matter 541 newsworthy?
Moore, Rob - M.P.<Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca> | Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:30 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
*This is an automated response*
Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office.
If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner.
If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal | |
Newsroom<newsroom@globeandmail.com> | Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:31 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail. If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department
at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail. If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases. | |
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:30 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| To: "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, "andrea.anderson-mason" <andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, "jeff.carr" <jeff.carr@gnb.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "Jack.Keir" <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>, "jacques.j.leblanc" <jacques.j.leblanc@gnb.ca>, "jake.stewart" <jake.stewart@parl.gc.ca>, "Mitton, Megan (LEG)" <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>, "Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)" <kevin.a.arseneau@gnb.ca>, "robert.gauvin" <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, "robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, andre <andre@jafaust.com> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, nouvelle@acadienouvelle.com, Frederic Cammarano <frederic.cammarano@radio-canada.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David Amos Content Deactivated Why doesn't Mr Jones consider the NB Power lawsuit against the EUB newsworthy? Court of Appeal File No. 68-23-CA - Judicial Review of Board Decision in Matter 541
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Court of Appeal File No.: 68-23-CA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK UNDER SECTION 52(1) OF THE ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD ACT, SNB 2006, c. E-9.18, AND RULE 69 OF THE RULES OF COURT, NB REG 82-73 BETWEEN: NEW BRUNSWICK POWER CORPORATION, APPLICANT, - and – NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD, RESPONDENT. TO: NEW BRUNSWICK COURT OF APPEAL AND TO: New Brunswick Power Corporation, Applicant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT I hereby acknowledge that on the day of July, 2023, I received the following documents: a) Notice of Application dated July 4, 2023, issued by the Court of Appeal on July 5, 2023; b) Affidavit of Darren Murphy dated July 4, 2023, with Exhibits “A” through “I” attached; and c) Correspondence from the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal dated July 5, 2023. I am a Registered Party who is named at the top of the notice of application why would I be required to seek status? Veritas Vincit David Raymond Amos On 7/5/23, John Furey <JohnFurey@fureylegal.com> wrote:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 1:03 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment