Author: ChrisRam

Posted on

An energy policy for Guyana

Introduction
However the Amaila Falls Hydro project turns out, there seems to be an implicit agreement that the country needs an energy policy. Janette Bulkan favours a Green Paper which in Westminster type countries is a document published by the Government as part of the consultation process before any major policy change is undertaken. While the LCDS March 2013 refers to the Amaila project – no doubt because it was already well-advanced – it did not place the project in any policy context. For that and some three years earlier, there was the Guyana Power Sector Policy and Implementation Strategy 2010 done by Verna Klass, which incidentally also anticipated Amaila coming on stream in 2015. But that Strategy included a specific recommendation that the Potaro river basin be developed in stages to meet the increasing requirements of the national grid. That Strategy noted that fuel oil was a better option than wind which it considered “did not seem appropriate for the long term either as it would be displaced by the expected hydro facility”. It also recommended the ongoing use and research into bio-fuels.

And if we go still further back to the National Development Strategy (2001 -2010) we note an entire chapter dedicated to Energy. The NDS looked at alternative energy sources noting that “many ideas for utilising renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, are appealing, but that the costs are high. It added however that in the view of some experts, the cost of both wind energy applications and solar power generation could be considerably reduced.

The NDS made a number of recommendations some of which are as valid today as they were ten years ago. These included enhancing the energy-generating capacity in the interior districts to increase economic activity in all parts of Guyana, attaining an equitable distribution of economic activity, and eradicating poverty in the most depressed areas of the country; the use of locally available energy resources utilising local production e.g. bagasse in sugar and rice mills, and wood waste in sawmills; tax credits to encourage the use of wind and solar energy; and the exploitation of hydropower centred on Amaila in the Potaro River Basin. It should be noted that the NDS saw Amaila not as a stand-alone project but in a modular framework.
Continue reading “An energy policy for Guyana”

Posted on

Response to Gouveia

Dear Editor,

Captain Gouveia’s widely publicised open letter on Amaila in the dailies juxtaposes extracts from statements by Drs. Clive Thomas and Anand Goolsarran and the two signatories to this letter on the one hand, and statements made by the Government on the same or similar issue on the other. The Captain then requests the four of us to answer four critical questions. Ignoring the contribution to the debate by such committed Guyanese as Janette Bulkan, Alfred Bhulai, Tarron Khemraj and Sasenarine Singh, Carl Greenidge, Lincoln Lewis, Charles Sohan and M. Ali, GHK Lall and others, Capt. Gouveia sees the four as “the ones who killed the project”.

Capt. Gouveia did not invite the Government of Guyana to explain its conflicting claims about the virtues of the project or challenge it for underplaying the hydrological, geotechnical and exchange risks associated with the project. One must remember that the Government has so far not tabled in the National Assembly any of the critical documents for the project or sought the Assembly’s approval. Presented by the Government were two peripheral pieces to meet the requirement of a foreign agency. Were it not for that demand, the Government would not have come to the National Assembly and the project could have gone the way of the Marriot and slid away quietly and successfully like the camoudie.

For the benefit of readers, we address the issues under five headings: debt, tariffs, subsidies, fuel and savings, and cost. We now address those issues, make a brief conclusion and raise some questions to Capt. Gouveia.
Continue reading “Response to Gouveia”

Posted on

Money-Laundering not in recess

Amaila Update
Late on Friday evening, Mr. Winston Brassington, the Government’s point man in the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project (AFHP) announced that Sithe Global was exiting the project. Later that evening the President was reported as stating his Government would continue working to bring the Project to reality. Sithe would only say that it would issue a statement on Sunday August 11.

Meanwhile I had an initial but extensive engagement on Tuesday with Mr. Brassington, his two Amaila technical advisers and Mr. Kit Nascimento, PR agent of Guyana Power & Light Inc. on the scores of concerns I have had with the project. At the end of that session we agreed to meet again and in anticipation of that further meeting I sent a number of questions to Mr. Brassington. I had given an undertaking that I would reserve further statements on the project pending the meeting with Mr. Brassington and his team. Accordingly I am withholding any comments on the announcement of Sithe’s withdrawal from the project.

Introduction
The National Assembly has gone into recess leaving further consideration of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill before the Special Select Committee of the National Assembly until at least early October. The logic it seems is that if the deficiencies in the Act could have waited a year or two what harm can a couple of months do? Perhaps illogically, the answer is “a lot”. Trading blame by the various sides in the National Assembly does nothing to assuage the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), of which Guyana is a member, about Guyana’s consistent non-compliance with its obligations to have the appropriate legislative framework in place, supported by a strong regulatory body to oversee relevant bodies and enforce the legislation.

That the government has failed massively on each of these measures has not restrained the language used by Dr. Ashni Singh, Minister of Finance to describe the conduct of his colleagues on the opposite side in the National Assembly. In March this year, he described the AFC as “shamelessly irresponsible” accusing it of holding the nation “hostage” to derive concessions on, in his view, the small matter of the Public Procurement Commission. Of course many Guyanese regard the establishment of the Commission not only as a constitutional imperative but as a critical governance and anti-corruption matter. Now, as members of the National Assembly shut shop and head for their summer vacation their decision is being described as “unconscionable”.
Continue reading “Money-Laundering not in recess”