The Black Rod

The origin of the Usher of the Black Rod goes back to early fourteenth century England . Today, with no royal duties to perform, the Usher knocks on the doors of the House of Commons with the Black Rod at the start of Parliament to summon the members. The rod is a symbol for the authority of debate in the upper house. We of The Black Rod have since 2005, adopted the symbol to knock some sense and the right questions into the heads of Legislators, pundits, and other opinion makers.

Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

We are citizen journalists in Winnipeg. When not breaking exclusive stories, we analyze news coverage by the mainstream media and highlight bias, ignorance, incompetence, flawed logic, missed angles and, where warranted, good work. We serve as the only overall news monitors in the province of Manitoba. We do the same with politicians (who require even more monitoring.) EMAIL:

Sunday, February 27, 2011

A - lynching we will go...

The lynching parties were out in full force this past week.

You almost needed a traffic cop to separate the mobs and keep them from stepping on each others' toes, which is ironic since one of the lynch mobs was determined to string up two police officers who had seen serious charges against them tossed out of court.

The rush for the pitchforks and nooses started Tuesday afternoon when a judge dismissed perjury charges against the two Winnipeg city policemen.

Police officers, you have to understand, have become the new criminal class in the eyes of the NDP government. They have devoted a decade's worth of resources to demonize the police through a series of show trials disguised as public inquiries (Sophonow, Driskell, Unger) while rewarding men convicted of murder, by juries, with millions of dollars.

The only thing missing in the government's scheme of things is the successful prosecution of a police officer for ... well, anything. They need at least one scalp to satisfy the mob and they'll stop at nothing to get it.

Unfortunately for them, the laws of Canada exist as much to protect the innocent from false prosecutions as to convict the guilty.

That's why there are rules such as insisting the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Another rule is ensuring the person on trial is the actual person who you're alleging committed the crime; the government can't just snatch someone at random and charge him with an offence.

In whipping up the Tuesday lynch mob, Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck called this rule "almost silly."

The judge presiding at the perjury trial didn't think so.

After the prosecution wrapped up its case against Jess Zebrun and Peter O’Kane, Justice Brenda Keyser ruled that there was no evidence that the two men before her were the men at the heart of the perjury case, a warrantless visit to a hotel room where drug dealers had stashed almost a pound of crack cocaine.

The mob hit the streets screaming for blood. They split into two camps. One believes the special prosecutor, Robert Tapper, deliberately botched the trial to let the policemen off. The other believes that he, as a civil litigator handling a criminal case, was just incompetent. The one thing they agree on is that the police are guilty, jury or no jury.

"It’s not like there was a real issue with identity. We all know who the cops are..." wrote Brodbeck demanding the rules of trial be ignored.

Except that's the problem.

When "we all know" becomes the basis of a prosecution, there's a very serious defect in the system. That's exactly why the rules exist, to prevent the innocent from being convicted because "we all know" they did it.

In this case, the judge didn't rule on the basis of the careers of the men standing before her. Justice was indeed blind. She applied the rules of law as evenly to them as to anyone else who wasn't a policeman who might be in their shoes.

And that's driven the mob mad.

They don't want the police to get any special treatment, except for when equal treatment benefits them; then they should get special treatment.

"But much greater harm was done by not allowing this case to proceed based on evidence. It brought the administration of justice into disrepute and it’s one more reason for the public to lose faith in the justice system." wrote Brodbeck.

Uh, no. What brought the administration of justice into disrepute was dropping the charges against the drug dealers who were caught red-handed. You want to talk about losing faith in the justice system? Start by talking why drug dealers were set free on a "technicality" and why the policemen who arrested them were prosecuted for doing their job.

The simplest way to handle this matter would have been to take the drug dealers to trial. Their defence lawyers could have raised the issue of an allegedly improper search and the jury would have decided then and there whether they agreed and whether to acquit the accused. No question of identity involved.

Instead, the provincial government went after the arresting police officers, and the federal prosecutor, seeing his case dissolve before his eyes, dropped the drug charges.

As a perfect example of how petty the government's case against O'Kane and Zebrun was, is the other, forgotten, charge against them --- unlawfully being in a dwelling house.

That's a charge laid when a drunk wanders into your house through an unlocked door and falls asleep on your sofa. It's not a charge you lay against a police officer tracking down a drug dealer's stash house.

The fact that this was one of the accusations against the officers is proof that the investigators handed the Crown a grabbag of possible charges and let them decide to take one from column A, one from column B, and maybe one from column C and see what happens. In this case, what happened was, the case collapsed.

The other lynch mob on the streets last week had a bigger fish in its sights, a Court of Queen's Bench judge.

Justice Rob Dewar became Public Enemy #1 when he convicted a man of rape but refused to send him to prison. The man was guilty of the one offence, but the circumstances were such that he didn't deserve a severe punishment such as the 3 years the Crown wanted, the judge said in imposing a two years conditional sentence that includes a one-year curfew. Those circumstances included a sexy, flirting victim.

That's all it took to send the mob into a frenzy. An unprecedented rally at the Legislature by sign-carrying protestors demanded that Dewar quit, be fired, be suspended, or be otherwise punished for "blaming the victim."

After all, she had only been in such a hurry to "party" that she forgot to wear underwear when she left the house, although she thankfully remembered to wear her high party heels. She playfully suggested going swimming in a nearby lake to her new friend, although her bathing suit was still at home with her bra. Some judgemental people might call that an invitation for skinnydipping.

And she did some making out with the man she knew for all of an hour or two, but when her "clumsy Don Juan" misread the signals and forced intercourse on her along a darkened highway, she definitely was not willing. She said.

So the lynch party rallied to demand Dewar's head or his job.

Now, you might think that someone would point out that that's not how justice is decided in Manitoba---by mob rule. And, in fact, the Crown has 30 days to appeal the sentence Dewar imposed and his reasons for doing so.

But that didn't stop unelected Premier Greg Selinger from dashing to the head of the mob with his torch held high and his noose swinging low.

His government was going to file a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Complaints Council and he wanted you to know it. He even sent out a news release to make sure the news got into the newspapers.

And the release carried a list of "numerous initiatives" the province has implemented "to protect women from sexual attacks ", not that the NDP was politicizing the case for political gain in the coming provincial election.

No, they wouldn't try to influence the courts to win an election, would they?

Certainly not after telling the Legislature year after year that they couldn't interfere in court cases because that would be unethical, if not illegal.

Oh, wait, Greg Selinger, the dirtiest politician in Manitoba.

Pass the pitchfork, ethics be damned.

Labels: ,

Saturday, February 19, 2011

The Asper curse begins eating away at the CMHR

The Asper anti-Midas touch of death has begun to claim another victim.

Gail Asper has single-handedly managed to unite Canada's ethnic groups against the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. In the past week, the anti-Asper snowball has gathered more mass than ever as it rolled through Ottawa and the disputed centre of the universe, Toronto.

The Canadian Polish Congress has joined the Ukrainian Canadian Congress in opposing the museum's plan to give the Holocaust a permanent display while the rest of the world's ethnic groups get to see the stories of the injustices against their peoples rotated through a "mass atrocity" gallery.

The Central and European Council of Canada, which, according to the Globe and Mail, "represents 3 million Canadians of Latvian, Estonian, Lituananian, Hungarian and Slovak descent", has added its voice against seeing their suffering under the Nazi's and the Communists "callously ignored."

The Globe's story on the growing anger at the CMHR was swamped with comments demanding equal treatment for Armenians, who are fighting for recognition of their own genocide under the Turks.

The one thing all the ethnic associations agreed on was the need for “an embargo on any further or incremental funding” until a new and more representative (i.e. not kowtowing to Gail Asper) board of directors is seated and a review of the recommendations of the museum's content committee is conducted.

Gail has poisoned any goodwill the museum had beyond the rich and elite while turning her pet project toxic to any politician foolish enough to touch it. (More on that in a moment.)

All was going well (if you don't count the fact that the project is functionally broke) until December, when the uppity Ukrainians realized they had been suckered by Gail and, before her, her daddy Izzy. In order to create the appearance of mass support for his museum, Izzy told the Ukrainian groups what they wanted to hear to get them to sign on the dotted line.

They were promised the suffering of the Ukrainians under Stalin would get equal billing with the Holocaust in the newly planned national museum. But by the time the building was well under construction under the supervision of daughter Gail, they realized it was going to be a holocaust museum with a guest room. They would get to share the guest room with 50 or so other ethnic groups, each with its own atrocity story.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress went public with their opposition to second-class status in the CMHR. Then they went political.

Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk, director of research for the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, subtly reminded the Harper government that this matter could get ugly. In a piece in The Hill Times, the must-read newsletter on Parliament Hill, Luciuk wrote:

Genocidal Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Ukraine should be highlighted in Human Rights Museum
by Lubomyr Luciuk
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have boasted of being the party that reached out to Canada’s minorities – particularly in the person of Jason Kenney, the Minster of Citizenship and Immigration –strategically undercutting what many saw as a “traditional” source of political support for the Liberals. There’s truth in their claim. They certainly secured broad-based gratitude in Ukrainian-Canadian circles for settling issues arising out of Canada’s first national internment operations, a file the Liberals, for all their pretensions to being the party of social justice, nevertheless ignored, for decades. That said, the Conservatives are about to be reminded that it’s not just about a first date going well. You’ve got to nurture nice feelings if you don’t want them to blow away.

How to explain that the Crimes of Communism – which the Tories have claimed they have a special interest in commemorating - weren’t even referenced by the Content Advisory group? Everyone knows that Stalin and his satraps murdered millions more than Hitler, a point underscored in Professor Norman Naimark’s outstanding new book, Stalin’s Genocides. Yet that Soviet dictator is not named, not once. Nor are Mao Tse Tung’s atrocities acknowledged even though the Chinese Communists slaughtered about the same number as Hitler and Stalin did, combined. And what about Imperial Japanese barbarities, like the infamous “Rape of Nanjing”? It’s left out, as it is in most Japanese textbooks, even as the Holodomor is currently being cut out of Ukraine’s.

Should a Canadian museum, even indirectly, succour deniers?

Responding to mounting criticism, the museum’s boosters have insisted that the Committee’s submission, while important, is only one of many sources being considered as the museum’s final contents are developed. Alas, they speak with forked tongues. For while it may well be true that the contents of the museum are “not set” two of its twelve galleries are permanently and prominently giving privileged space to the recounting of aboriginal tales of injustice and to the Shoah. All other crimes against humanity are lumped together in a “Mass Atrocities” gallery, so consigned to inferiority. Funding this kind of partiality is not acceptable in a taxpayer-funded national institution that the Conservatives first attached to the public teat and from which it has, ever since, been sucking generously, not likely to ever be weaned.
Until the controversy over this museum’s contents are resolved, and the composition of its appointed board members made more truly representative of Canadian society, Mr Harper’s government should reject calls for increased funding for this boondoggle and begin a truly inclusive consultation process with the many communities who want to ensure that the Canadian Museum for Human Rights meets its stated goal of “contributing to the collective memory and sense of identity of all Canadians.” All Canadians, not some."
The government is in a tricky dilemma. They've spent years cultivating the Jewish community by strongly supporting Israel. Do they risk their gains there by embracing Gail Asper's critics, whose support they may need in the Toronto battleground in the election, which by all accounts is just around the corner?

At least two Conservative MP's have responded to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress challenge on the CMHR. Although its obvious their responses have been run through a central clearing house to sure they don't stray far from the official government position, they do go on the record supporting a change in the CMHR board of directors. This is not a good sign for Gail and her cronies on the current board.
Leon Benoit, Member of Parliament for Vegreville-Wainwright
Statement issued February 8, 2011

"Benoit has heard from constituents about their specific worries – that the Holodomor will be lumped into a general section of “Mass Atrocities” which does not provide autonomy and permanent recognition of the event in the museum. They are also worried that other elements of their history will not receive ample recognition and be subsumed under other permanent exhibits promoted by the Content Advisory Committee Report."

James Bezan, Member of Parliament for Selkirk-Interlake
Statement issued Feb. 3, 2011

"The community is concerned that the Holodomor will be lumped into a general section of “Mass Atrocities” which does not provide autonomy and permanent recognition of the event in the museum. They are also worried that other elements of their history will not receive ample recognition and be subsumed under other permanent exhibits promoted by the Content Advisory Committee Report."

Leon Benoit, MP Vegreville-Wainwright

“I think the Advisory Committee is to be thanked for their report, but it is also important to remember that it is just a report,” states Benoit. “It isn’t the final decision and it isn’t government policy.”

James Bezan, MP Selkirk-Interlake

"I thank the Content Advisory Committee for their report. However, it is just a report and by no means determines the final decision on content in the CMHR, nor is it government policy."

Leon Benoit, MP Vegreville-Wainwright

“I certainly believe that the Holodomor genocide should have a unique, autonomous and prominent place in the CMHR,” affirms Benoit. “I also think it is quite important that the CMHR Board of Directors contain respected members of the Ukrainian community with knowledge of the Holodomor and other human rights violations. I’m proud of our Government’s support for the CMHR.
I hope the Museum’s Board of Trustees finds the courage to provide the Holodomor with the appropriate and respectful recognition it deserves.

James Bezan, MP Selkirk-Interlake

"...I believe that:
- The Holodomor genocide should have a unique, autonomous and prominent place in the CMHR, and
- The CMHR Board of Directors contain respected members of the Ukrainian community with knowledge of the Holodomor and other human rights violations.

I am proud of our Government’s support for the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. I hope the CMHR Board of Trustees finds the courage to provide the Holodomor with the appropriate and respectful recognition it deserves."

Newly elected MP Kevin Lamoureux made sure to include in his first newsletter to constituents his statement in Parliament (in December) about the CMHR, including this firm declaration:

"Today I stand with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and urge the Canadian Museum for Human Rights to include a permanent display devoted to the Holodomor."

It's only three MP's but all three have aligned with the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Lithuanians and the other ethnic groups against the CMHR. The next time Gail Asper comes begging for money, which will be anyday now, she may find a chillier reception than she expects.

Oh, and somebody remind her that the deadline to fork up payment in lieu of taxes is only four months away. Time to start shaking that tin cup.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Wuskwatim White Elephant, Ed Schreyer's electric car and more

Dig deep, because very soon you'll be paying for Gary Doer's legacy.

By the end of the year the $1.6 billion Wuskwatim generating station will be sending its first power to the U.S.---with every kilowatt subsidized by you.

You read that right. It will cost more to produce the power than we'll get from selling it.

The Manitoba Public Utilities Board has been told that we'll be subsidizing all the Wuskwatim electricity (200 megawatts) we sell to American customers for the next 9 years---at least.

Wuskwatim is the first of three Hydro mega-projects that Doer was banking on to become sweet money machines for our poor have-not province. His vision was to turn Manitoba into an energy high-roller, using our hydro electricity the way Alberta uses its oil to bankroll government services and spending.

When it was first pitched to the Clean Environment Commission in 2004, Manitoba Hydro said Wuskwatim was being built for export. The power wasn't needed in Manitoba for 15 years, but sales of U.S. customers would bring an estimated return of 10 percent, money that would go to paying off the cost of the project and a little extra.

Then, in 2008, the PUB crunched the numbers and blanched
. Wuskwatim would be a lot less lucrative than expected, bringing only a 6.5 percent return. Or it would if everything worked out perfectly. Otherwise, the project would be lucky to break even.

We reported on the PUB's red flag at the time:
Today, almost three years later, the worst has come to pass. It will cost in the vicinity of 9 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour to produce power from Wuskwatim, and the best we can sell it for is 2 to 3 cents on the spot market.

And we have to sell it at bargain basement prices, because, according to Hydro, in about 3 years we'll almost run out of power for Manitoba customers and we'll have to tap into Wuskwatim's production. But once over that hump, we won't need the rest of Wuskwatim power for local use until 2019. So until then, Hydro can sell what we're not using at a higher price as "dependable energy" instead of on the "opportunity" market.

From the recent PUB hearings:

Mr. Bob Peters (PUB):...if we again assume Wuskwatim on a per energy basis comes in at about ten (10) cents a kilowatt hour. If there are no firm export sales we know that the opportunity sales this past year are in the two (2) to three (3) cent range, correct?

MR. VINCE WARDEN (Manitoba Hydro): Correct.

MR. BOB PETERS: And we know that if there was a dependable contract available for some or all of the Wuskwatim energy, the average dependable price was less than six (6) cents this past year.

Mr. Peters: What you're telling -- telling us all, Mr.Cormie, is that the difference to be made up between the ten (10) cent number that I used and whatever number you're able to sell the dependable energy for will narrow the more successful you are.

MR. DAVID CORMIE (Manitoba Hydro): Yes. I -- I'm not sure, Mr. Peters, that we can get ten (10) cents prior to 2020 but it will be pretty close.

Close is for Horseshoes. We're going to be stuck subsidizing power to the States for the next 9-10 years.

But Hydro says they're not expecting Manitobans to pay the whole shot.

Mr. Vince Warden (Hydro): So we're not asking ratepayers to make up that difference, otherwise we'd be asking for our debt equity ratio to be maintained where it is today. We're not asking for that. We are prepared to see the debt equity ratio deteriorate with the confidence that it will--- will rebound in the subsequent decade.

That's a high falutin way of saying that Hydro plans to use its profits to pay off some of the subsidy for Wuskwatim power.

We'll pay some and they'll pay some, except that they is us, too.

In the shuffle, Manitoba Hydro's credit rating will start heading south of Florida. Guess who will have to make that up eventually.

You can see why the PUB is holding hearings on Hydro's risk management. The first and smallest of Doer's megaprojects has turned into a white elephant; there's two more in the pipeline, which, if given the go-ahead, will cost us $17 billion over the next decade or so.

Hydro has a ready answer to detractors.

The American economy will turn around any day now and prices will go up. Shale oil is an illusion. Obama will impose a carbon tax to drive oil and gas out of the energy market. Trust us.

Other tidbits from Manitoba Hydro:
Electric cars of the future

MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: In terms of adoption of the hybrids, in 2010 there was twenty-three hundred (2,300) that were purchased or sold, and -- which represented .33 percent of the sales in Manitoba that year. And in terms of what we're forecasting over the next twenty (20) years, we're forecasting that about seventy-nine (79) -- I think it's seventy-nine thousand (79,000) vehicles will be purchased in the market.
Electric cars of the past

Believe it or not, The Black Rod tracked down Ed Schreyer's electric car from the Seventies in Nepean, Ontario.

Darryl McMahon's EVs, Present and Past

"This vehicle was one of seven purchased by the Province of Manitoba from EVA. This specific car was the personal use vehicle of Premier Ed Schreyer while he was Premier of Manitoba - he was later Governor-General of Canada. He confirmed this to me when I met him at a conference where I displayed the vehicle.

Due to problems with battery charging and maintenance, most of the vehicles in the Manitoba fleet fell into disuse and were auctioned off by the Province of Manitoba circa 1980.

This vehicle was purchased by a gentleman in Brantford, Ontario who did not return it to operation while he owned it. I purchased it from him in 1982, installed a new battery pack and repaired some minor mechanical items and put it back on the road in June of 1982. I have had it ever since, although it has not been in operating condition continuously during that time."
Windmills hate the cold as much as you do

They stop working when it gets too cold or too windy.

MR. BOB PETERS: And in cold weather, do the wind farms operate?

MS. HAROLD SURMINSKI: It has to be very extremely cold. We've found very few hours where the Manitoba turbines are actually shut down because of temperature.

MR. BOB PETERS: But it has happened for -- for cold reasons?
MR. BOB PETERS: Has it happened because it's been too windy, as well?

MS. HAROLD SURMINSKI: Yes, that's --that's automatic. The shut down occurs automatically for excessive winds.

MR. DAVID CORMIE: Well, I'm -- I'm assuming -- I think it's a safe assumption that it -- that -- that -- on -- on one (1) particular day it was too windy. I know the shut down in -- in the wintertime occurs when the temperature drops below about minus 30.

Why Doesn't Hydro trust John Sauder?
MR. ROBERT MAYER: Just -- just as a matter of interest, CBC very lately has been arguing they probably have better equipment to forecast weather and whatever than Environment Canada. Do you get your forecast from Environment Canada or do you get them from John Sauder?

MR. DAVID CORMIE: I believe get our forecasts from Environment Canada as well as several other service providers. And then we have a cons -- we -- we use a consensus forecast in order to predict the load.

A change in the weather forecast of -- the temperature forecast of 1 degree means the demand for power will vary abou -- about 30 megawatts from what was forecast. So if a forecast is off by 2 degrees or 3 degrees we'll have to either -- we'll have extra 30 to 50 megawatts, or we'll have to buy an extra 30 or 50, and that's -- those adjustments can be made, you know, in the hour that it's actually happening, in the Real-Time Market.
Wind power insanity. Take my power, please.

The subsidizing windmill operators so much that wind power producers can literally give electricity away for free and still make a profit on the subsidies. But that's driving Manitoba Hydro out of the market during those times when U.S. wind power floods the market so that we can't sell our electricity. And the problem is only going to get worse.

MR. BOB PETERS: Couple of points. When you said even if the price goes negative, help the Board understand that. That means that the counterparty will - - will be -- will pay others rather than put energy on the market?

DAVID CORMIE: Yes, because there are-- there are other companies who run wind facilities who are receiving a production tax credit of -- let's say they're getting ten dollars ($10) a megawatt hour for every megawatt hour they produce. So they can let the market go down as low as negative ten dollars ($10) before they lose money.

And so, they will bid in at -- at a -- at a negative amount, up to their production tax credit, and they can force the price of power to go negative. And in those situations Manitoba Hydro can't compete and we don't want to compete. We'd rather buy out of the market and -- and make money by being paid to purchase energy.

MR. ROBERT MAYER: Mr. Cormie, in all the years I've been on the Board I -- God, I can't remember how long since I've said that -- I have never heard this concept of getting paid by somebody's power before. I can't believe that this is something that happens daily. I mean, what kind of percentage are we talking about? Of your imports, what kind of percentage are you talking about where somebody pays you to actually take it off their hands?

MR. DAVID CORMIE: It's a -- it's a small percentage of time, Mr. Mayer. It usually occurs in the spring when there's not a lot -- a large demand for electricity, so demand is down. It occurs at a time of year when there's a lot of wind energy being produced and generally there's a lot of hydro being produced because most US utilities don't have storage so they have to generate the water that's being -- flowing down the rivers as a result of the snow melt runoff.

Your comment about not having heard about it, well, it's -- it is quite recent and in the time that you've been on the Board the market has changed several times and there's been quite a -- quite a large development of new wind generating stations being built in the United States. Tens of thousands of new megawatts of wind turbines are coming on market and -- and that's driving -- that's changing the cost structure of the... And then -- and then the US production tax credit makes it profitable for those companies to continue to make money even though the market clearing price goes negative. So if the price goes negative minus five dollars ($5) but they're being paid ten dollars ($10) by the government to produce they're still making five dollars ($5). So the market price can go negative and they're still make... So it's only when -- when the -- when the market price goes below ten dollars ($10), so now let's say it's fifteen dollars ($15), but the government is only paying them ten dollars ($10) now they're losing five dollars ($5). At that point they'll stop generating the wind. And -- and so it's the -- the wind generators who are receiving a production tax credit that -- that -- that cause those situations mostly to occur.

MR. BOB PETERS: Mr. Cormie, can you advise the Board as to whether those production tax credits continue or whether there is a -- they've been stopped or do you -- can you update the Board on that?
MR. DAVID CORMIE: The production tax credits are renewed -- have been renewed every year or every couple of years in -- in the US Congress. I'm not sure whether the existing program has been extended. I -- I understand that it's still up in the air whether those production tax credits will continue.

But once a project is eligible for them, they continue to receive them for the life of the project. But new projects, whether they will be eligible, will depend on what Congress does.

MR. BOB PETERS: Are there many new wind projects in the -- in the queue, Mr. Cormie? MR. DAVID CORMIE: In -- in -- in Manitoba's market in the United States in South Dakota and North Dakota and in Minnesota, there still remains tens of thousands of undeveloped megawatts of wind. What -- and those -- those will continue to be developed because the renewable portfolio standard that Minnesota has is one that grows with time. So by, for example, one (1) company needs to produce 30 percent of its -- supply 30 percent of its retail load by 2025 from renewables. And so that's a -- that's a -- a limit, Mr. Peters, that's increasing with time and they will need to continue to develop their -- their renewable resources to achieve that. They're -- they're not there already, so additional wind developments need to be brought online.

Labels: ,