Are there plans afoot to sell off part or all of the Snowy Mountains Scheme?

Snowy Hydro Ltd states on its website that:

The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority was corporatised on 28 June 2002 under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 to establish Snowy Hydro Limited. The Snowy Hydro Limited Constitution (Constitution) prescribes the responsibilities of the Board and Snowy Hydro’s reporting obligations, subject to the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001. Snowy Hydro’s shareholders are the New South Wales (58 per cent), Victorian (29 per cent) and Commonwealth (13 per cent) governments, with each shareholder having equal voting rights…….

Since corporatisation in 2002, Snowy Hydro has grown beyond the Snowy Scheme and now operates a growing and profitable retail energy, wholesale energy risk management and power generation business. We combine the power of the mighty Snowy Scheme with gas and diesel fired peaking generators to deliver a flexible and reliable mix of energy to our customers every day. We have 15 power stations, generate 4500 Gigawatt hours (GWh) on average per annum and have 5480 Megawatts (MW) of generating capacity across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. We’ve become the fourth largest retailer in the NEM by investing in growing our customer base, modernising our generation infrastructure, building and acquiring more generating capacity where we need it and developing our workforce of more than 1700 employees.

Snowy Hydro controls the headwaters of the Snowy, the Murray and the Murrumbidgee rivers and its water licence allows it to collect, divert, store, and release water by and from the works of the Snowy Scheme for the 75 year term of the licence. This licence is due to expire sometime between June 2076 and June 2077.

On 19 December 2016 the Dept. of Energy and Industry called for expressions of interest in conducting a valuation of the corporation for the three owners – with the contract to commence 1 February 2017.

The tender document states in part:

The contractor is required to provide each shareholder with a “fit for purpose” certified report, detailing the valuation of Snowy Hydro Limited's (SHL's) equity at fair value as at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018. The report will detail the scope, methodology, procedure and outcomes as well as all relevant assumptions, definitions and limiting conditions appropriate to the procurement. The contractor will supply the three shareholders with the preliminary and final versions of the valuation report in both written and electronic format. The report is to include explanations of movements in the valuations from year to year and take into account the interest holdings of the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Governments. The contractor will undertake the valuation as at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 as a Limited Scope Valuation Engagement….. 

On 15 March 2017 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Securing Australia’s Energy Future with Snowy Mountains 2.0 – a plan to boost Snowy Hydro’s power generation by 50 per cent.

This announcement mentioned $2 billion in federal government funding but in effect only commits to a feasibility study of pumped hydro expansion.

Remembering the 2006 push led by the Howard Government to sell off the Snowy Mountain Scheme as well as 2016 media reports of a possible sale, the valuation of Snowy Hydro Ltd raises questions about Turnbull’s out-of-left-field announcement.

Was it a prime ministerial thought bubble thrown in to quieten the heated debate over energy security which is currently taking place or was it a calculated ‘sweetener’ thrown in to make future sale of the corporation to institutional and foreign investors more attractive?

National Farmers' Federation calls for market-based mechanism to secure clean and affordable energy, such as an emissions intensity scheme

I’ve grown old waiting for Liberal and Nationals members of parliament to turn and squarely face the reality of global warming and climate change.

I suspect that I will be long dead before they actually do.

Once more the call went out to government………

The Guardian, 7 March 2017:

The National Farmers’ Federation has called for a market-based mechanism to secure clean and affordable energy, such as an emissions intensity scheme, joining a long list of organisations urging an end to Australia’s policy impasse.

In a submission to the Finkel review, the NFF calls for the government to reconsider its opposition to an EIS and institute a market-based mechanism by 2020 because it would be the cheapest path to low-emissions power generation.

The NFF joins many organisations calling for consideration of a market mechanism including network company Energy Networks Australia, retailer Energy Australia, electricity provider AGL, the Climate Change Authority, the Business Council of Australia and the CSIRO.

The chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has also given implicit support for an emissions intensity scheme, saying it would integrate best “with the electricity market’s pricing and risk management framework” and “had the lowest economic costs and the lowest impact on electricity prices”.

In December the energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, ruled out pursuing an EIS, pre-empting the findings of the Finkel report by taking one of the most widely supported policies to meet Paris climate targets off the table.

On Tuesday the NFF president, Fiona Simson, told ABC’s AM the current system was “broken”, citing blackouts in South Australia and poor energy reliability and affordability in the agricultural sector.

Simson said some farmers faced power bills of double or triple the rates in previous years, labelling price spikes “indefensible”.

“In agriculture it’s absolutely devastating – we have businesses that rely on secure, reliable and affordable electricity to conduct cool stores that store fruit, for example, that run their milking machines for their cows, that run irrigation pumps for their fruit and their vegetables.”

Simson said that an evidence-based policy would result in “the market sorting it out” and called for a technology neutral approach.

An emissions intensity scheme is part of Labor’s climate change policy and has been backed by the South Australian government, which the Coalition has used to revive a scare campaign about power prices despite findings that policy stability can reduce prices…..

Finkel is expected present his final report to the Council of Australian Governments by mid year.

Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Mk2 also falls at first judicial hurdle

Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Maryland joined with the State of Washington in seeking to restrain U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order of 6 March 2017 which revised his earlier order of  February 2017.

Along with Hawaii in separate litigation that makes seven states opposing what is colloquially known as Trump’s Muslim Ban.

AP News, 16 March 2017:

HONOLULU (AP) — Hours before it was to take effect, President Donald Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii who questioned whether the administration was motivated by national security concerns.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order blocked the flow of students and tourists to the state, and he concluded that Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.

"The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable," Watson wrote. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed."…..

The judge issued his 43-page ruling less than two hours after hearing Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order to stop the ban from being put into practice.

The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries. Federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be allowed to take effect early Thursday as scheduled.

In all, more than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban.

Watson made it clear that his decision applied nationwide, ruling that the ban could not be enforced at any U.S. borders or ports of entry or in the issuance of visas…..

Court transcript of the temporary restraining order granted can be found here.

Seattle Times, 15 March 2017:

A Seattle federal judge who ruled against President Donald Trump’s first immigrant travel ban has taken another challenge to the president’s revised order under advisement, this one filed by the families of immigrants that have been separated because of the policy.

U.S. District Judge James Robart remained skeptical of the government’s continued claims that the president can bar people from immigrating because of their nationality. Attorneys for the families argued that statutes governing the issuance of immigrant visas specifically prohibit such discrimination.

Robart heard nearly 90 minutes of arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging the travel order filed by several legal immigrants who are separated from their families and who fear the new order will prolong that separation. Their family members all are in various stages of attempting to obtain visas to enter the U.S.

The latest travel ban was set to go into effect at midnight Wednesday. However, a federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday put the revised travel ban on hold.

Matt Adams, the legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is spearheading the immigrant-family lawsuit, said the Hawaii order is a godsend for his clients, who will benefit from any delay in the order’s implementation.

Still, he said they will pursue a restraining order of their own.

Robart did not say when he would rule on the suit filed by several immigrants.

Daily Mail 14 March 2017:

Immigrant advocacy groups and the ACLU are suing in Maryland. They will ask a judge there early Wednesday to issue an injunction, saying it's illegal to reduce the number of refugees in the middle of a fiscal year. The lawsuit is broader, but the ACLU expects a ruling on that part of the case even if other aspects of the ban are blocked elsewhere.

The Baltimore Sun, 16 March 2017:

The Washington Post reported that U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a ruling early Thursday, using Trump's own comments against him in deciding the ban was likely unconstitutional.

The Maryland ruling marks another win for challengers of the president's executive order, which had been slated to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Trump expressed his displeasure in a typically dishonest prepared political speech he read from two transparent autocues.

https://youtu.be/08xYkGADatE

Full speech video at https://youtu.be/z9ghcGzkpZo.

The revised text of the travel ban:

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/342025899/PROTECTING-THE-NATION-FROM-FOREIGN-TERRORIST-ENTRY-INTO-THE-UNITED-STATES-2017

Quote of the Month

"The general manager was an employee until late this afternoon. I believe his decision is in the best interest for the council and the Clarence Valley. It would not be appropriate for me to make further comments on his resignation."  [Clarence Valley local government councillor Karen Toms quoted in The Daily Examiner, 10 March 2017]

It can't be long now - first meme of the killing season?

Political Tweet of the Month

Look at this crabbed and narrow face. It is bigotry, jealousy, hatred, suspicion, paranoia, ignorance and stupidity personified. pic.twitter.com/2OtzWmQfVu

— Mike Carlton (@MikeCarlton01) March 6, 2017