Connect with us

News

Uneven electrical bills could create a National Electric Strategy

Published

9 years ago

5 minute read

Is it time to have or implement a National Electrical Strategy?

I live in Red Deer, a small city in Central Alberta. My electrical bill last month was $95.

The average household, according to Google, in Canada uses 972 KWHs monthly, but I used 848 KWHs last month, so if I had been an average user then my bill would have been $109.

My electrical bill shows that my electrical use cost only $32.40 while administration cost $6.99, distribution cost $25.90 transmission fees cost $23.86, include access fees, rate riders and balancing pool allocations and GST and my bill came to $95.

Talk of carbon taxes, green energy would increase my energy costs. Fine, increasing my energy costs by 10% would mean an increase of only $3.24 because all the other charges should not go up. Changing fuel or supply should not affect administrators, power lines, poles or switches.

I started requesting electric bills from homes in other parts of Alberta and the costs varied from 3.75/ kwh to 5.99/kwh and the other costs varied in name and amount for varying total costs per kwh from 11.7 to 15.75/kwh. So at 848 kwh my bill would go from $95 up to $133.56 depending on location.

Alberta is deregulated and you have options of providers. Floating and fixed rates, but the other fees are always added.

A home in Vancouver showed an average 11.37/kwh so my bill would be $96.50, very similar to my Alberta bill. Vancouver is vastly different and denser market. Vancouver has 5,249 people per km. or 2100 homes per square km.

Alberta has a population of 4,252,879 people in 640,081.87 sq. kms. For a density of 6.7 people per square km. or 2.7 homes per square km. So you would think that the costs would be astronomically higher to compensate for the vast distances, and the increased wiring, poles, and installation of such, but apparently not.

So I thought about Ontario. Population of 13,982.984 in 908,607 square kms of land. 15.4 people or 6.2 homes per square kms. More than twice the density of Alberta. The transmission and distribution costs should be equal to or less than sparsely populated Alberta. I started requesting power bills from home owners in Ontario, especially in rural Ontario.

The first bill came from Winchester, 40 kms. from Ottawa. It showed a monthly usage of 661.24 KWHs. Energy costs varied from 8.7/kwh of low peak to 18/kwh during high peak for energy cost of $79.06. Add in delivery charge of $65.41, regulatory fees and HST and the bill comes to $164.96. Or 25/kwh. My current bill would now be $211.55 if I lived in Winchester.

The second bill came from a family outside Chesterville. It showed higher usage, perhaps because of location, age of appliances or lifestyle. Energy use of 1281 KWHs for a bill of $278.93 or 22/kwh. My bill would then be $184.65 if I lived outside Chesterville.

Albertans get their power from natural gas (44%), coal (39%) and even hydro (6%) while Ontario get their power from Nuclear, (66%) and Hydro (22%) But in Alberta, we are expecting increases in our power bills due to carbon taxes, green initiatives and the new power lines being built to the southern border. Paid for by current users to provide power south of the border. Ontario has some similar changes and challenges ahead to incur expectations of increased costs. Is this proper?

Alberta is only 70% the size of Ontario, our population is only 30% of Ontario, yet Alberta power bills are substantially lower. Capitalists will tell you that larger markets like Ontario, means lower costs, as one would also expect with increased density as in this case, Ontario.

Alberta deregulated the electrical sector increasing competition. Would that help or exasperate the problem in Ontario? Should the vast majority of urban homes subsidize the rural users? Should a standard rate be applied to all in Ontario?

To recap with averages of 972 KWHs per home per month it would cost $110.61 in Vancouver B.C., $108.90 in Red Deer Ab., $242.48 in Winchester Ont. And $211.65 in Chesterville Ont. Definitely not a level playing field, is it?

Is it time for the Federal Government to create a National Electrical Strategy? We could at least study on it.

What do you think?

 

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
National / 4 mins ago

Women and girls beauty pageant urges dismissal of transgender human rights complaint

espionage / 7 hours ago

FBI’s Dan Bongino may resign after dispute about Epstein files with Pam Bondi

National / 11 hours ago

How Long Will Mark Carney’s Post-Election Honeymoon Last? – Michelle Rempel Garner

Media

CBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship

Published on July 10, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Travis Dhanraj accused CBC of pushing a ‘radical political agenda,’ and his lawyer said that the network opposed him hosting ‘Conservative voices’ on his show.

CBC journalist Travis Dhanraj has resigned from his position, while accusing the outlet of anti-Conservative bias and ”performative diversity.”

In a July 7 letter sent to colleagues and obtained by various media outlets, Travis Dhanraj announced his departure from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) due to concerns over censorship.

“I am stepping down not by choice, but because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made it impossible for me to continue my work with integrity,” he wrote.

“After years of service — most recently as the host of Canada Tonight: With Travis Dhanraj — I have been systematically sidelined, retaliated against, and denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill my public service role,” he declared.

Dhanraj, who worked as a CBC host and reporter for nearly a decade, revealed that the outlet perpetuated a toxic work environment, where speaking out against the approved narrative led to severe consequences.

Dhanraj accused CBC of having a “radical political agenda” that stifled fair reporting. Additionally, his lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, revealed that CBC disapproved of him booking “Conservative voices” on his show.

While CBC hails itself as a leader in “diversity” and supporting minority groups, according to Dhanraj, it’s all a facade.

“What happens behind the scenes at CBC too often contradicts what’s shown to the public,” he revealed.

In April 2024, Dhanraj, then host of CBC’s Canada Tonight, posted on X that his show had requested an interview with then-CBC President Catherine Tait to discuss new federal budget funding for the public broadcaster, but she declined.

“Internal booking and editorial protocols were weaponized to create structural barriers for some while empowering others—particularly a small circle of senior Ottawa-based journalists,” he explained.

According to Marshall, CBC launched an investigation into the X post, viewing it as critical of Tait’s decision to defend executive bonuses while the broadcaster was cutting frontline jobs. Dhanraj was also taken off air for a time.

Dhanraj revealed that in July 2024 he was “presented with (a non-disclosure agreement) tied to an investigation about a tweet about then CBC President Catherine Tait. It was designed not to protect privacy, but to sign away my voice. When I refused, I was further marginalized.”

Following the release of his letter, Dhanraj published a link on X to a Google form to gather support from Canadians.

“When the time is right, I’ll pull the curtain back,” he wrote on the form. “I’ll share everything…. I’ll tell you what is really happening inside the walls of your CBC.”

CBC has issued a statement denying Dhanraj’s claims, with CBC spokesperson Kerry Kelly stating that the Crown corporation “categorically rejects” his statement.

This is hardly the first time that CBC has been accused of editorial bias. Notably, the outlet receives the vast majority of its funding from the Liberal government.

This January, the watchdog for the CBC ruled that the state-funded outlet expressed a “blatant lack of balance” in its covering of a Catholic school trustee who opposed the LGBT agenda being foisted on children.

There have also been multiple instances of the outlet pushing what appears to be ideological content, including the creation of pro-LGBT material for kids, tacitly endorsing the gender mutilation of children, promoting euthanasia, and even seeming to justify the burning of mostly Catholic churches throughout the country.

Continue Reading

International

CBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview

Published on July 6, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

CBS will pay Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. The deal also includes a new rule requiring unedited transcripts of future candidate interviews.

Key Details:

  • Trump will receive $16 million immediately to cover legal costs, with remaining funds earmarked for pro-conservative messaging and future causes, including his presidential library.
  • CBS agreed to release full, unedited transcripts of all future presidential candidate interviews—a policy insiders are calling the “Trump Rule.”
  • Trump’s lawsuit accused CBS of deceptively editing a 60 Minutes interview with Harris in 2024 to protect her ahead of the election; the FCC later obtained the full transcript after a complaint was filed.

Diving Deeper:

CBS and Paramount Global have agreed to pay President Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris, Fox News Digital reported Tuesday. Trump accused the network of election interference, saying CBS selectively edited Harris to shield her from backlash in the final stretch of the campaign.

The settlement includes a $16 million upfront payment to cover legal expenses and other discretionary uses, including funding for Trump’s future presidential library. Additional funds—expected to push the total package well above $30 million—will support conservative-aligned messaging such as advertisements and public service announcements.

As part of the deal, CBS also agreed to a new editorial policy mandating the public release of full, unedited transcripts of any future interviews with presidential candidates. The internal nickname for the new rule is reportedly the “Trump Rule.”

Trump initially sought $20 billion in damages, citing a Face the Nation preview that aired Harris’s rambling response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That portion of the interview was widely mocked. A more polished answer was aired separately during a primetime 60 Minutes special, prompting allegations that CBS intentionally split Harris’s answer to minimize political fallout.

The FCC later ordered CBS to release the full transcript and raw footage after a complaint was filed. The materials confirmed that both versions came from the same response—cut in half across different broadcasts.

CBS denied wrongdoing but the fallout rocked the network. 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April after losing control over editorial decisions. CBS News President Wendy McMahon also stepped down in May, saying the company’s direction no longer aligned with her own.

Several CBS veterans strongly opposed any settlement. “The unanimous view at 60 Minutes is that there should be no settlement, and no money paid, because the lawsuit is complete bulls***,” one producer told Fox News Digital. Correspondent Scott Pelley had warned that settling would be “very damaging” to the network’s reputation.

The final agreement includes no admission of guilt and no direct personal payment to Trump—but it locks in a substantial cash payout and forces a new standard for transparency in how networks handle presidential interviews.

Continue Reading

Trending

X