Energy Probe

Canadian Press

May 26, 2006

A surprise Ontario government cabinet shuffle that returned Dwight Duncan to the Energy portfolio has further delayed a key report outlining the province’s strategy to prevent electricity shortages, sources said yesterday.

The report – a formal response to December recommendations that $40 billion be spent on upgrading and expanding existing nuclear plants to prevent blackouts – was expected weeks ago.

Donna Cansfield, who was energy minister before the shuffle, had been expected to respond to the Ontario Power Authority’s proposal in the next week or two.

But her move to Transportation – part of a domino effect caused by Greg Sorbara’s reinstatement to the Finance portfolio – will further hold up the response, which is highly anticipated by energy sector stakeholders including environmentalists, nuclear power proponents and consumer watchdogs.

A government source said it could be mid- to late June before Duncan is in a position to release such a statement, which would launch a process that could eventually result in the construction of new nuclear power facilities.

Even after the government responds to the report, Premier Dalton McGuinty has promised months of discussion about how to meet energy supply targets in an environmentally safe manner.

Without substantial new electricity generating capacity, Ontario is poised for shortages five years from now, the report warned.

The government’s plan of action has been delayed several times. It was last expected in mid-April, but sources have said Cansfield was stalling in a bid to squeeze in more measures to encourage energy conservation among Ontarians.

"The government is way behind schedule," said Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto consumer research watchdog. "This file’s on fire. They’re in such trouble on this thing."

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, said it isn’t too concerned about another holdup, despite summer’s impending arrival.

"A delay of a few months to get the job done right is certainly worthwhile," said Jack Gibbons, who chairs the alliance of 89 health, environmental and consumer organizations.

Gibbons said he was pleased with Duncan’s reappointment, prompted by a judicial ruling that removed Sorbara’s name from warrants used in an RCMP investigation.

Rob Ferguson
Toronto Star
May 31, 2001

It seemed more like July yesterday as the heat wave set a record for hydro use in May and appeared to melt the Liberal promise for closing the last of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants by 2009.

While Ontarians cranked up their air conditioners and smog cloaked much of the province, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan repeatedly refused to reaffirm the coal pledge aimed at making the air easier to breathe.

It was just last June that he admitted the Liberal election promise to close all the coal plants, which contribute to smog and global warming, by 2007 was not feasible and had to be pushed back two years.

"Only these guys could break a broken promise," said Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory, telling Duncan: "You owe it to the people to be clear."

About 30 per cent of Ontario’s power comes from coal plants.

Duncan hinted the government is more concerned about limiting pollution from the coal plants than it is about how soon the plants are shut down as Ontario struggles to meet growing demand for hydro.

"We remain committed to moving forward on reduction of emissions and making sure that as we go forward, as we’ve always said, that we don’t compromise the reliability of the system."

The system was stretched in yesterday’s 33C sauna, at one point seeming it might approach the all-time record set last July 13, when 26,160 megawatts of electricity were used.

Yesterday’s demand was an early reminder of last year’s summer of heat, which recorded nine of the top 10 all-time days for electricity demand in Ontario history.

Yesterday’s maximum use reached just under 25,000 megawatts, nearly 25 per cent higher than during the previous May record set two years ago. It included more than 2,000 megawatts of imported power because plants in the province couldn’t produce enough to meet demand.

"What’s significant is it’s happening in May," said Terry Young of the Independent Electricity System Operator, the government agency in charge of securing enough power for the province.

Customers won’t feel the pinch from the cost of imported power until next year when rate increases are set, said Tom Adams of the watchdog group Energy Probe.

"This is going to come back to bite us."

The heat wave that began a few days ago is "just the beginning of what looks like a warm summer," climatologist David Phillips of Environment Canada told Canadian Press. "Find out where your halter tops and your muscle shirts are and where your cool beer is, because we’re going to see more of it."

Duncan said he’s not too worried about blackouts or a repeat of last summer’s brownouts this year because Ontario has 600 more megawatts of generating capacity than it did last year, mainly from a restarted unit at the Pickering nuclear station.

"This summer should not be as challenging as last summer," he said. "We should be okay."

But Adams challenged that view given the power use yesterday.

"I expect it’s going to get a lot worse this summer," he said. "The first heat wave is never the worst. A lot of people don’t even turn their air conditioners on until day three."

The high temperatures of the last two days were caused by an air system from the Gulf of Mexico and are expected to ease off by tomorrow, but the political heat is expected to remain on Duncan.

His plan from last June was to close three remaining coal plants near Sarnia, Thunder Bay and Atikokan by 2007 but keep the huge Nanticoke coal-fired plant near Lake Erie, the largest polluter in Canada, open until early 2009.

That’s in doubt given Duncan’s refusal yesterday to repeat those dates.

"Now he’s getting wishy-washy all of a sudden," said Adams, warning that shutting coal plants could be a disaster in terms of keeping the lights on.

The irony is that imported power is largely from coal-fired plants in the U.S. Midwest that spew pollution and smog into Ontario, Adams added.

Duncan promised more details "very shortly" on his plan for meeting Ontario’s need for energy over the next couple of decades.

It is widely expected his plan will include more nuclear power.

Canadian Press
CTV News
June 7, 2006

A team of companies lobbying to build new nuclear plants in Ontario say they’re willing to ensure any new reactors will be built on budget, though critics say it’s a misleading pledge that can’t be guaranteed.

Representatives of so-called "Team Candu," a group of five Canadian firms that includes federal Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., say government officials have asked for price guarantees for new nuclear projects in an effort to avoid cost overruns under an energy strategy slated to be unveiled within the next week.

It’s expected the government will set the stage for a massive expansion of the Darlington nuclear site east of Toronto.

The initial cost to build the plant nearly tripled to $14 billion by the time construction was completed in 1993.

"The province wants a guarantee – a schedule and a fixed price," said Ken Petrunik, AECL’s chief operating officer who spent the last six years working on nuclear projects in China.

"We recognize that we need to step up and deliver and meet the requirements of the province, which is to transfer risk and be able to give a fixed price."

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said Wednesday he will "very, very soon” announce a long-awaited government response to a report released in December by the Ontario Power Authority.

The report included recommendations for $70 billion in electricity generation spending over the next 20 years, more than half of it on nuclear projects.

Critics say cost guarantees by the nuclear industry are meaningless, pointing to past cost overruns at Darlington and the impact of future changes in government and political will.

"They’re not commercial guarantees, they are political guarantees," said Tom Adams of Energy Probe, an electricity sector watchdog.

"Because the nuclear industry is so highly dependent on political favours . . . changes in political favours could cause drastic changes in the outcome."

Petrunik said officials from AECL and four private firms, Babcock & Wilcox Canada, General Electric Canada, Hitachi Canada Ltd. and SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc., plan to meet with Duncan over the next two weeks to outline their fixed-price promise.

Candu will be competing with foreign companies for any government projects.

"We’ll take the load off the taxpayers,"said Martyn Wash, general manager of the Organization of Candu Industries.

"That’s a big difference between where we are right now, and when Darlington was first started back in the late ’80s."

But New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said while the province might negotiate price guarantees, the federal government would have to cover cost overruns.

Ultimately, taxpayers would have to foot that bill, he said.

"At the end of the day, the people who live in Ontario will end up paying for this, either on their hydro bill through some kind of fee, or some other tax," Hampton said.

Observers widely expect Duncan will position the province to build up to 12,400 megawatts of new nuclear capacity by 2025. Much of that could involve refurbishments of existing reactors, but additional new capacity will most likely be required.

The amount of Ontario’s electricity generation supplied by nuclear power, however, would remain at about 50 per cent.

Darlington, with four reactors, was built to contemplate a Darlington "B” set of four more reactors.

The mayor of Clarington, which is near the Darlington station east of Toronto, has been lobbying for the project that would create thousands of jobs in his community.

"This whole discussion is all about Darlington B," said Adams.

Adams suspects the province has known that it wanted to expand the site for more than a year and that talk of public debate about the issue is mere "window dressing."

Duncan hasn’t said how much public input will be allowed after he responds to the OPA report, beyond voters casting ballots on that and other matters in the October 2007 election.

"Once we reveal our plan, it will be incumbent of me to go out and sell it," Duncan said, adding that "at the end of the day, an election will be a pretty important public consultation I would think."

Rob Ferguson
Toronto Star
June 10, 2006

The prospect of more long, hot summers is forcing Ontario’s Liberal government to once again break a promise to close highly polluting, coal-fired power plants, says Energy Minister Dwight Duncan.

The admission came yesterday after what Duncan dubbed a "disappointing" report from the province’s power monitoring agency, the Independent Electricity System Operator.

It warned a "significant delay" is needed in the plan to close coal plants by 2009 because last summer’s steamy weather and unprecedented demand for power during May’s brief heat wave are signs power use will be much higher than forecast.

"This is a disappointment and a setback," Duncan said in a telephone interview from Windsor. He refused to set a new deadline for closing coal plants.

The Liberals promised in the last election campaign to close all coal plants by 2007 in an effort to clean the air and reduce the hundreds of deaths caused every year by air pollution.

The schedule was revised a year ago, with most plants closing in 2007 but the giant Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie staying open until 2009.

While two northern Ontario coal plants are still slated to close next year, the Lambton station near Sarnia will stay open past 2007 and Nanticoke past 2009, Duncan said.

It would be irresponsible to close them before more "cleaner, greener" power generation is ready to take their place and keep the lights on across the province, he added. "You cannot compromise reliability by shutting down coal plants along the time lines we had hoped for."

Opposition parties and electricity watchdogs – who have warned for years the original Liberal promise to close coal plants was unrealistic because new power sources aren’t coming on line soon enough – were quick to say I told you so.

The 20-page report from the Independent Electricity System Operator released yesterday made a similar point and urged measures to speed up new generation sources.

"The minister’s got nobody to blame but himself because the government has been ignoring the facts," said Tom Adams of Energy Probe.

Ontario’s air quality could have been improved by now if the Liberals hadn’t stuck stubbornly to their plan and had taken stronger measures to clean up emissions at coal plants, said Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory.

"They’ve wasted almost three years."

Cleaner emissions are now on the government’s priority list, said Duncan.

He defended his "aggressive" coal promise, saying he never expected such a huge change in the long-term forecast, which now calls for an additional 3,000 megawatts of power. That’s almost as much as Nanticoke, the largest coal-fired plant in North America, provides alone.

Duncan accused the agency of overestimating the availability of hydroelectric power in summertime – when droughts keep water levels low – and underestimating demand for power now that usage peaks in summer, not in the winter.

"It’s the McGuinty government looking for someone to blame for their broken promise," said New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton.

London Free Press editorial
June 12, 2006

One hundred years ago this month, Sir Adam Beck of London became chairperson of Ontario Hydro and set in motion his plan for at-cost public electricity to power this province’s businesses, industries and homes.

By 1910, his Niagara Falls hydroelectric power (HEP) vision had become reality.

How things have changed. Our power-generation capacity is stretched as never before and we still await government plans on new generation.

This newspaper supports a broad-based generation system. So it was encouraging to hear from Ontario NDP Leader Howard Hampton that there is still potential for more hydroelectric power in this province. Quite a lot, in fact, if Hampton is right.

He says it can be expanded on Northern Ontario rivers, including the Abitibi, Mettagami and Missinabi, with a potential gain of 7,000 megawatts. Ontario’s peak daily usage is usually about 25,000 megawatts.

It would require a 600- to 700-kilometre transmission line to power-hungry southern Ontario; some of it is already there.

Of course, the cheapest power is the power we don’t use. The state of California, through conservation, has reduced its power consumption by 12,000 megawatts (15 per cent). That, says Hampton, is equivalent to saving the state the need to build three nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Darlington at a saving of $10 billion apiece.

California’s aggressive conservation program includes strict building codes that demand high energy efficiency in all new buildings and renovations. There is also a push to replace old energy-guzzling appliances with new, efficient ones. This has turned old appliances into a lucrative recycling business.

London Hydro’s Chill Out London, which provides free pickup and disposal of old refrigerators and freezers, along with $75 toward the cost of new Energy Star units, is a start. Much more could be done if Ontario offered loans at low interest rates to upgrade appliances, windows, insulation, furnaces and air conditioners.

While Hampton opposes nuclear energy because of its cost overruns, delays and shutdowns, it is likely to play a major role in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s plans. Nuclear power could contribute a major portion of Ontario’s electricity. But it is expensive and it produces radiactive waste that is dangerous for thousands of years.

Energy Probe executive director Tom Adams would like to see clean-burning coal plants established. He prefers the latest technology – "super critical combustion" of coal, used in Europe and Japan. It requires very high pressures and temperatures to maximize efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases. In Europe, coal is being used for co-generation of heat and power. A common application is locating the plant in the centre of a city so it can provide large buildings in the core with heat.

Failure to deal with Ontario’s energy demands now would lead to brownouts and devastating blackouts. The dawdling McGuinty government must produce a good plan and soon.

Antonella Artuso
Toronto Sun
June 13, 2006

Premier Dalton McGuinty says he’s prepared to be judged by voters as his government gets set to announce controversial new nuclear power projects.

"I look forward to being judged on that," McGuinty said yesterday.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan will formally respond to the Ontario Power Authority’s energy supply report today, explaining how the province will meet its electricity needs over the next two decades.

The report, released in December, calls for $72 billion to be spent on new electricity generation, including up to $40 million for nuclear power, to avoid shortages by 2013.

McGuinty would not provide details but has essentially acknowledged that new nuclear power will be part of the solution.

"We’ll look to solar, we’ll look to conservation, we’ll look to whatever sources of renewables we can, but at the end of the day, that is not enough," McGuinty said.

"And if we’re going to be responsible about this, if we’re going to ensure that the international investment community understands that we will in fact (have a) reliable source of electricity, we’ve got to take these things on. And our government will do that."

Tom Adams of Energy Probe said a new nuclear plant at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington remains the most viable option.

The Bruce nuclear power plant site may also be named but there are transmission concerns, he said. It’s also possible that Duncan could float the old Ontario Hydro Blind River option.

The solution that is aggressively being pursued in competitive electricity markets – so-called clean coal – is not on the table in Ontario.

Six environmental groups lined up yesterday behind a plan that would see coal and nuclear power phased out in favour of more conservation and renewables.

Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace said nuclear power has proven unreliable and overpriced, and any attempt to build a new nuke plant in Ontario will be fought all the way.

"It might be trench warfare for 10 years, but we’re prepared to do that," Stensil said.

Antonella Artuso
Ottawa Sun
June 13, 2006

Toronto: An Ottawa-area site will be among locations considered for new nuclear reactors as the government embarks on a multi-billion-dollar strategy to tackle a potential electricity shortage, sources say.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan will approve the Ontario Power Authority’s December recommendation that roughly half the province’s electricity should be powered by nuclear reactors 20 years from now – the same share nuclear holds today.

The Liberals won’t tell the OPA where they think plants should be built.

However, they will direct the agency to identify which of up to a half-dozen sites should be nominated for environmental assessments, sources say.

Deep river area

The list of potential sites includes Rolphton, near Deep River; Pickering and Darlington; and Tiverton, home to Bruce Power’s reactors.

Nanticoke in southwestern Ontario, the site of North America’s biggest coal-burning plant, and Wesleyville, east of Darlington, are also under consideration.

"It’s conceivable they might try a trial balloon in the Ottawa area, too," said Tom Adams, of watchdog group Energy Probe.

The OPA report calls for $72 billion in new electricity generation, including up to $40 million in new nuclear power, to avoid shortages by 2013.

Achieving this will require refurbishments of existing reactors.

At least one new plant with twin reactors is being considered, sources say.

Premier Dalton McGuinty has essentially acknowledged new nukes will be in the mix.

"We’ll look to solar, we’ll look to conservation, we’ll look to whatever sources of renewables we can, but at the end of the day that is not enough," McGuinty said.

"And if we’re going to be responsible about this, if we’re going to ensure that the international investment community understands that we will in fact (have a) reliable source of electricity, we’ve got to take these things on."

The solution that is aggressively being pursued in competitive electricity markets – so-called clean coal – is not even on the table in Ontario.

Six noted environmental groups lined up yesterday behind a plan that would see coal and nuclear power phased out in favour of more conservation and renewables.

Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace said nuclear power has proven unreliable and overpriced, and any attempt to build a new nuclear plant would be contested.

"It might be trench warfare for 10 years, but we’re prepared to do that," Stensil said.

Antonella Artuso
Toronto Sun
June 14, 2006

The Ontario government is flicking the switch on a $46-billion electricity plan that will see refurbished and new nuclear reactors and continued coal-fired generation.

Seven Greenpeace anti-nuke activists wasted no time yesterday chaining themselves together in Energy Minister Dwight Duncan’s office. Just after 7 p.m. officials moved in to cut the locks of the protesters.

Duncan announced the overhaul of four existing units at Pickering B and the construction of one or two new reactors at an existing nuclear plant to be named later.

The four coal plants, which the Dalton McGuinty government promised to close by 2009, will stay open for an unspecified period and undergo emission-control improvements.

Duncan said his plan, which also calls for strong conservation measures, provides the best means of ensuring a stable and affordable supply of electricity.

Without action, the province will be short 10,000 megawatts by 2025, he said.

He acknowledged that this vision is not without controversy, especially the construction of new nuclear power, which many environmentalists have vowed to fight to the bitter end.

The costs of the plan, estimated at $72 billion, or $46 billion in today’s dollars, will be carried entirely by hydro ratepayers.

Energy Probe‘s Tom Adams said consumers can expect to see their rates increase by double-digit figures.

Peter Gorrie
Toronto Star
June 14, 2002

The province faces a long, tough slog – and court battles – over the nuclear power plan it announced yesterday.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan appeared to skip nimbly over the issue of environmental assessments and other reviews of his decision to build or refurbish nuclear reactors able to generate up to 14,000 megawatts of electricity.

But even without opposition, the footing would be tricky.

And critics suggest they’ll do their best to trip him up.

The crucial issue, they say, is whether Duncan’s plan must undergo provincial environmental assessments, which allow debate on the need for new facilities and possible alternatives.

In his announcement, Duncan told Ontario Power Generation to prepare for assessments of individual refurbishment and new reactor projects.

But those reviews are apparently to be under federal law, and conducted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. That process is generally far less stringent than provincial assessments, critics say.

The federal process "is regarded almost as a joke," says Mark Winfield, a Toronto-based analyst with the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank. "It’s window dressing. It mostly exists so they can say we had an environmental assessment."

It "doesn’t have court-like procedures that would allow it to get to the bottom of the truth," says Norm Rubin, of Energy Probe.

At hearings, environmentalists would raise issues such as the impact of uranium mining and smelting, spills and air emissions from reactors, the remote possibility of meltdowns and the unresolved – and most likely enormously costly – issue of disposing of radioactive spent fuel. They would also point out that previous reactors went billions of dollars over budget and have a worsening record for reliability, and that wind, solar, biomass, conservation and other options are better for the environment and the economy.

Federal assessments don’t include discussion of options. They look only at specific projects and how to deal with any immediate impacts. "They’re scoped very narrowly," Winfield says. "That’s why (Queen’s Park) is so enthusiastic about it."

Lawyers for environment groups argue the province must use the Ontario process unless it is willing to take the political heat for explicitly exempting a project. In an odd twist, they say, wind, solar and other less controversial power projects – not to mention routine constructions such as bridges and culverts – are subject to the tougher provincial review.

Queen’s Park insists the law is clear: "Nuclear projects are exclusively the domain of the federal process," says Anne O’Hagan, spokesperson for Environment Minister Laurel Broten.

The two sides also dispute whether the overall electricity supply plan –which includes nuclear, natural gas and renewable power, as well as conservation measures – must undergo an environmental assessment.

That plan, to be prepared by the Ontario Power Authority following Duncan’s direction, "is conceptual. … It reflects broad government policy direction," O’Hagan says. "That means it’s not subject" to an assessment.

"Our legal opinion is … it’s subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act," Winfield says.

Apart from likely court challenges on those issues, Duncan faces other hurdles.

The Ontario Energy Board will review the supply plan. The board generally examines whether plans or projects follow government directives, and do so in a prudent, efficient way that protects consumers.

The board will take about a year to assess the plan. Since the power authority isn’t expected to produce it until early next year, the review won’t be done until after the next provincial election, set for October 2007.

A provincial environmental assessment would take at least two years.

Federal assessments also take a year or two. Refurbishment projects would likely go through a quicker process called screening. Rebuilds would be subject to a full review. The nuclear safety commission can recommend the federal environment minister call for a public hearing by an independent panel. But that decision, which would create further delays, is the minister’s.

The federal process doesn’t start until the safety commission receives a complete proposal for a project, including the site and the size and style of reactor, says spokesperson Sunni Locatelli. So, if more than one company bids to build a reactor, assessment can’t start until the choice is made.

Antonella Artuso
Toronto Sun
June 15, 2006

Toronto: The province is flicking the switch on a $46-billion electricity plan that will see refurbished and new nuclear reactors and continued coal-fired generation.

Seven Greenpeace anti-nuke activists wasted no time yesterday chaining themselves together in Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan’s office. Officials moved in to cut the locks of the protesters last night.

Duncan announced the overhaul of four existing units at Pickering "B" station and the construction of one or two new reactors at an existing plant to be named later at a cost of $3 billion. Darlington, east of Toronto, is the likely choice.

The four coal plants, which the Dalton McGuinty government promised to close by 2009, will stay open for an unspecified period and undergo emission-control improvements.

The minister said his plan, which also calls for strong conservation measures, is the best means of ensuring a stable and affordable supply of electricity. Without action, the province will be short 10,000 megawatts by 2025, Duncan said.

He acknowledged that this vision is not without controversy, especially the construction of new nuclear power, which many environmentalists have vowed to fight to the bitter end.

Hydro hike expected

The costs of the plan, estimated at $72 billion, or $46 billion in today’s dollars, will be carried entirely by hydro ratepayers.

Energy Probe‘s Tom Adams said consumers can expect to see their rates increase by double-digit figures as the government pursues expensive gas and nuclear power instead of more affordable "clean" coal.

"Dalton McGuinty is more pro-nuclear than even George Bush," Adams said.

NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the plan will also lead to dirtier air. Duncan countered by saying that under his plan, nuclear power capacity by 2025 would be 40% of Ontario’s power supply, down from 50% today.

Adam White, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, welcomed the "practical" response to the province’s electricity-supply problems. "(The) announcement demonstrates that the provincial government clearly understands the links between power reliability, prosperity and our quality of life," White said.