Energy Probe

Toronto.ctv.ca

July 31, 2007

As Toronto residents brace for staggering heat, experts say striking a balance between power consumption and supply will be difficult in the coming week.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator says three vital nuclear units – representing eight per cent of the province’s power suppy – are down at the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant, which could lead to power outages in the GTA.

The OIESO says if the humidity rises with the mercury, residents could be asked to limit their power intake for the second time this summer.

"We obviously pay very close attention to the weather," Terry Young, a spokesperson from OIESO, told CTV News on Monday.

Toronto has already experienced one power advisory this summer when residents were asked to limit their consumption to prevent rolling black outs.

According to the OIESO every three-degree increase of humidity increases power demand 450 megawatts, with is equivalent to one nuclear reactor.

Forecasters are calling for temperatures in the mid-thirties on Wednesday and Thursday of this week.

Tom Adams, a spokesperson from Energy Probe, says Toronto is particularly vulnerable because there aren’t enough power lines to import energy from New York or other generators.

In order to meet increased demand the province will be firing up its coal plants, which are a major contributor to poor air quality.

Wind turbines are ruled out as a reliable source of energy.

On a hot day, the city uses 26,000 megawatts and on Monday at noon the turbines were producing only nine megawatts of energy.

But for residents who love the heat, there are plenty of outdoor activities in the GTA designed to keep you cool.

City pools are open and the new HTO Park and beach at Spadina and Queen’s Quay provides ample room for catching some rays.

Even with the water close by, experts recommend residents take precautions to avoid heat-related illnesses:

* Wear lightweight, light-colored clothing to reflect the sun’s rays
* Drink and carry ample amounts of water to prevent dehydration
* Eat small meals and avoid meals laden with protein
* Avoid strenuous activity and take regular breaks if working outdoors.
* Stay indoors when possible.

With reports from CTV’s Paul Bliss and Desmond Brown

Oilweek magazine
August 9, 2007

Cutting industrial hydro rates by at least 15 per cent and reining in salaries and inefficiencies at Ontario’s power agencies would provide a badly needed boost to the province’s flagging manufacturing sector, New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said Thursday.

The all-in cost of industrial electricity in Ontario would be no higher than $55 a megawatt hour – $10 less than the current rate – if he were elected premier in the Oct. 10 election, Hampton told a news conference in Hamilton – a city that has endured significant manufacturing job losses of late.

Manufacturing companies in sectors like steel, auto parts and forestry would be eligible for the lower rate at the start of next year and would have the price locked in for five years, he said.

Those businesses would be required to guarantee jobs and meet energy-efficiency targets, but Hampton said he doesn’t think getting those commitments would be a problem.

"I’ve met with people in the forest sector, the steel sector, and the auto parts sector and many of them would be quite prepared to sit down and negotiate," he said.

"A lot of companies want to stay in Ontario. They want to continue to manufacture and produce here, but the tools to do that just aren‘t there."

Hampton said the lower rates wouldn’t lead to higher bills for non-commercial users because he would limit the salaries and profits at Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation to make up the difference.

He also said costs have risen more than 50 per cent since hydro deregulation and he would look at combining some of the hydro services.

"There’s absolutely no reason why we should be paying hydro executives $1 million plus, $2 million plus when the head of Hydro Quebec is paid $500,000 and when the heads of Manitoba Hydro, Saskatchewan Power, and B.C. Hydro are paid even less than that," he said.

"For starters we would consolidate Hydro One, the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority because there’s a great deal of duplication of work and duplication of effort in those three agencies."

Tom Adams of utility watchdog Energy Probe said trying to undo deregulation and cutting salaries would not save enough money to help lower industrial rates and would almost definitely lead to higher bills for homeowners.

"If you add up all the executive salaries across the entire power system it adds up to a very, very tiny amount on your overall power bill – executive salaries are way less than one per cent," Adams said.

"If rates are going to go down for one class of customers they’ll have to go up for another class of customers."

While Hydro One had profits of $455 million in 2006, and Ontario Power Generation made $490 million, that revenue ends up benefiting ratepayers by paying off existing debt and building hydro projects, said Steve Erwin, press secretary for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan.

"It’s quite unclear how the NDP would cover the cost of its proposed rate cut, unless it meant scaling back on important energy projects in the province which are funded by agency profits," Erwin said.

Ontario’s wholesale rates are also in line with other jurisdictions like New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, Erwin said, while some companies are already paying less thanks to government rebates.

Companies including Bowater, Tembec and St. Mary’s Paper are already paying rates in the mid-to-high $40 range per megawatt hour because of a rebate program for northern Ontario pulp and paper companies.

Paul Clipsham, director of policy for the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said the association is generally supportive of any initiative to help the sector compete – although he questioned whether the NDP’s policy would be popular with businesses.

He doubted that many companies would want to lock into a five-year contract or absolutely guarantee jobs.

"I don’t think that’s the best approach to take and I don’t know if that would be very appealing," he said.

"To try to guarantee those jobs over that five-year period is challenging, especially when you’ve got plants that are closing their doors. I think the approach is questionable."

Robin Harvey
Toronto Star
August 12, 2007

Years after the 2003 blackout, most people still are clueless as to what sparked the chaos.

The prevailing myth is that our gluttonous demand for power fried the system. The paranoid say it was due to a terrorist/government (take your pick) conspiracy gone awry. In the movie Déjà Vu terrorism fighter Denzel Washington links it to a secret government time machine.

But it was just trees. Branches hit three power lines in Ohio between 3:05 and 3:12 p.m. on Aug. 14, 2003. By 4:15, after stupendous blunders both human and cybernetic, more than 263 power plants had died, cutting power to Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Ontario.

There was no subway. No elevators. Good (or obnoxious, take your pick) Samaritans directed traffic. At block-party barbecues and ice-cream fests, we scarfed down the spoils.

Waxing weird, Mayor Mel predicted "the biggest baby boom we’ve ever seen." But there is no bumper crop of three-year-olds running around these days, a Statscan spokesperson said last week.

We bought batteries, candles and emergency kits. Some creeps overcharged. And briefly the motto "be prepared" crept into the zeitgeist.

Too briefly, says Gord McBean, director of policy studies at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, a group formed by academics, the insurance community, and other agencies to improve society’s capacity to adapt to, withstand and recover from disasters. "Once a disaster disappears from their priorities, people forget."

Calls to half a dozen hardware stores proved that. "After 9/11 . . . the blackout, we got a surge for emergency kits," one clerk said. "No more."

Still, the crisis had some lasting positive impact.

In 2005, Woodstock’s environmental committee started a voluntary blackout day, urging residents to cut energy use to mark the 2003 anniversary. This year the city has challenged municipalities province-wide to join in on Tuesday from noon to 8 p.m. So far, seven local governments have agreed.

A joint U.S.-Canadian commission made new technical standards, already required in Ontario back then, mandatory across North America.

The Ohio energy firm that started the mess went on a tree-trimming frenzy, prompting area homeowners to complain.

The blackout made Toronto’s Solomiya Gotsko, now 18, an environmentalist. "I’d never seen the stars in the city before. Now I care. We deserve to see the stars."

Jim Morrison, owner of Mackenzie’s High Park restaurant on Bloor St., says his worry has worn off, but memories of free food at a local pub and drinks served by candlelight remain. "People showed spirit."

Could it happen again? Experts say maybe, but it is unlikely.

Energy Probe chief Tom Adams sees progress because of the blackout. Though summer power use still peaks at record highs, yearly use has flattened, meaning that if you consider growth, overall we are conserving. And Hydro One has strengthened the power grid infrastructure, something Adams says was long overdue.

Sylvia Kovesfalvi, with Ontario’s energy ministry, says a 2006 independent North American agency audit concluded Ontario had sufficient generating capacity to cover demand until 2015; and more was built.

Ontario will have given out 800,000 green smart meters by year’s end, and by 2010 everyone will have one, she says. The commission inquiry into the blackout set regulations (with hefty fines for violators) to make sure power firms across North America adhere to technical and training standards.

And there is the lasting cultural legacy, such as it is. Part of the graphically erotic Shortbus is set during the blackout. Cleveland’s Great Lakes Brewing Co. named its dark brew Blackout Stout in honour of Ohio’s role in the mess. You can still buy Blackout tour T-shirts for $5.99 (U.S.) on eBay, where Time magazine’s blackout issue was lately offered for 97 cents (U.S.), and Newsweek’s for $4.25.

Tyler Hamilton
Toronto Star
August 15, 2007

Critics of the Liberal government are screaming foul that John Beck, the top executive at construction giant Aecon Group, has been elected chair of the Ontario Power Authority as the province embarks on a $40 billion upgrade to the electricity system that includes new nuclear plants.

Aecon is the largest publicly traded construction and infrastructure company in Canada, and a major player in Ontario’s energy sector.

One of its biggest projects, a $200 million contract through a joint venture with engineering firm SNC Lavalin Inc., is the multibillion-dollar refurbishment of the Bruce A nuclear reactors – a controversial deal inked with the power authority in October 2005.

Beck, whom the energy minister appointed as a director of the power authority’s 10-member board in May 2005, was quietly elected chair two months ago by fellow board members. There was no official announcement of the change.

Even Beck, who is chair and chief executive of Aecon, saw potential problems with the appointment.

"I was concerned about perception of conflict," he said in an interview, explaining that he approached the province’s integrity commissioner for advice and was told, in writing, that there was no conflict.

However, he has agreed to step aside from any board issues that he regards as a possible conflict of interest.

"This is quite extraordinary," said New Democrat environment critic Peter Tabuns. "There’s the perception that you’ve got the fox guarding the chicken coop, and a guy who wants to go big on transmission and generation."

The role of the power authority is to plan for and procure new generation, as well as strike electricity purchase agreements with large power producers. The agency is also responsible for planning future development of the electricity system, including new transmission and major power-generation projects that represent potential business for companies such as Aecon.

Tabuns said the optics of having a top Aecon executive at the head of the power authority’s board, an otherwise diverse and experienced group, don’t look good just two months before an election. It also sends a bad signal, he said, at a time when the province should be giving priority to renewable energy projects and distributed generation.

Premier Dalton McGuinty should know better, he said.

"I don’t know why McGuinty wants this headache."

Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, said it was "shocking" to learn of the appointment. "It’s an obvious and drastic conflict of interest, and I can’t believe the provincial government thought it would be appropriate."

But the energy ministry and the power authority defended the appointment.

Steve Erwin, spokesperson for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, said it’s not unusual to have board members with expertise and in some cases influence in the sector they oversee.

"He was elected by the board, and was already a board member when appointed, so if people think there’s a controversy, they certainly didn’t say so when the OPA board was first established," said Erwin.

"Minister Duncan has much respect for Mr. Beck and has absolutely no doubts whatsoever about his integrity and leadership."

The chair has no executive authority.

"He represents, along with management, the board’s view to the ministry," said power authority spokesperson Tim Taylor. "It’s a slightly different role than you’d see of a chairman in a private-sector organization."

Beck said he was flattered when a number of fellow board members elected him as chair, pointing out that the minister played no role in the decision. He said his experience dealing with government and running the board of a large public company is what got him the job.

But according to the Electricity Act, the power authority’s directors "must be independent of participants in the electricity sector."

Erwin said he wouldn’t define Aecon as a "participant" because the company is a global organization involved in many sectors, while Beck said the power authority would never make a decision where Aecon is directly involved.

But Andrew Stark, a professor of political science at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said the rules don’t distinguish between indirect and direct involvement when it comes to conflict of interest.

"The general rule of thumb would be that, if somebody holding an official position has the capacity to participate, even if he’s not the sole decision maker, in a decision that can affect the financial interest he has or is associated with, then there’s a conflict of interest," said Stark.

Aecon’s participation in Ontario’s energy markets was made clear on June 19 when Beck spoke at the company’s annual meeting.

"We have a hand in building, expanding and maintaining virtually every form of power generating facility used in the province – from the early hydro facilities to natural gas and co-generation plants, to the Bruce Nuclear facility," he said.

He said the company completed $75 million worth of power construction projects in Ontario. The company’s order backlog, he added, "has another $100 million worth of work scheduled for future periods."

Jennifer Wilson
CBC News feature article
September 25, 2007

Every flick of a switch sends electrical currents flying through Ontario’s 29,000 kilometres of transmission lines, powering millions of homes, offices, lights and computers. Many days it can also spark quite the political debate.

Ontario’s population is on the rise and demand looks to be growing far faster than the province’s 31,000 MW of generating capacity can handle. When paired with plans to shut the aging coal-fired power plants for environmental reasons and the need to replace many of the older nuclear reactors within the next 15 years, whoever forms the next government in Ontario will need to make decisions, and soon, about how to handle the energy crisis.

As the provincial election heads into its final stage, the leaders began to turn their attention to the province’s energy needs, a historic underpinning of its manufacturing prowess. But the discussions made it clear that there’s no easy answer to this pressing problem, despite the fact that it has been building for decades.

The current system

For decades, Ontario’s power needs were provincially regulated and run by a provincial commission and, later, crown corporation known as Ontario Hydro.

That changed in 1998 when, in an attempt to get a handle on rising energy costs and the debt hangover from building expensive nuclear plants, then Conservative premier Mike Harris separated Ontario Hydro into five branches and also opened the system to private power operators.

Provincially-owned Hydro One was given the responsibility of operating transmission lines and also serving as the local distribution company in some parts of the province, while Ontario Power Generation, also provincially owned, became the province’s generation company, operating the hydroelectric, nuclear and coal-fired stations that generate about 85 per cent of the province’s energy. The rest comes from private operators, many of them large mills that sell their surplus requirements to the grid.

Since 1998, two additional energy planners were added to the mix. The Ontario Energy Board, an independent tribunal, was given the responsibility for regulating the natural gas and electricity sectors, and in 2004 the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) was charged with addressing the supply gap in the face of aging infrastructure, retiring power plants and increasing demand.

OPA’s most recent plan was released in August and called on the provincial government to spend an additional $26.5 billion on nuclear power plants in order to ensure a steady energy supply until 2025. It also proposed doubling the amount of renewable energy on the grid by 2025 and phasing out coal-fired plants by 2014, while increasing hydroelectric output and conservation efforts.

There were already two nuclear reactor refurbishments in the works, but the OPA plan said further refurbishments could be necessary in order to meet the expected demand.

The energy crunch

According to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IES0), energy demand in the province has steadily increased over the past decade at an average of 1.5 per cent a year, and suppliers are struggling to keep the lights on.

The most obvious example of the province’s energy crisis was the Aug. 14, 2003 blackout, which left more than 50 million people from New York to Toronto to North Bay in the dark. According to a Canada-U.S. joint task force the outage was caused when an Ohio coal plant unexpectedly shut down, in the process triggering a series of transmission line problems that overloaded the circuits.

Since then, demand has grown. In 2006, the province needed 152.3 terawatt hours (a million megawatt hours) of electricity and the IESO says the province will demand an additional 16.7 TWh by 2014.

Currently, the province produces about 31,214 MW from five nuclear stations, 68 hydroelectric, four coal, 22 oil and gas, four wind and five biomass and landfill gas plants. That breaks down to nuclear, 54 per cent; hydro, 22 per cent; coal, 16 per cent; and eight for the rest.

There’s an additional 10,000 MW of production currently under construction, but critics fear that even with energy imported from the U.S., Quebec or the Prairies (which will require a huge and expensive transmission-line corridor), the province still won’t be able to meet demand.

The options

When it comes to power, it’s not easy to be green. Energy planners need to balance quick means of meeting the increasing demand with safe, low-emission technologies.

The dirtiest culprits in the energy mix are the province’s four coal-fired power stations – Nanticoke, Lambton, Thunder Bay and Atikokan – which account for about 16 per cent of the province’s generating capacity.

While coal power is inexpensive, the environmental costs are huge. When coal is burned for energy it produces greenhouse gases as well as pollutants such a nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury. Most of the pollutants can be eliminated by scrubbers and other technology but there is not yet a proven, full-scale way of capturing carbon dioxide emissions, the most pervasive of the greenhouse gases.

The current government management plan would see these plants closed by 2014 – Premier Dalton McGuinty had promised to close them by 2007 but had to backtrack following the blackout and new growth forecasts. However, the government still needs to find a way to replace the reliable power boost that coal plants can provide when the rest of the system is operating at maximum capacity.

Natural gas is one low-emission option. It accounts for about six per cent of Ontario’s power supply but it is a non-renewable resource that has been going up in price because of demands elsewhere.

The more climate friendly ways of generating electricity, such as solar, hydroelectric, wind, biomass and nuclear all come with high start-up costs. Solar and wind have weather-dependant drawbacks.

Hydroelectric generation, which accounts for about 22 per cent of the province’s energy, is low-emission but the most accessible sites have already been exploited.

Biomass production, which uses alcohols, ethers and other chemicals made from plant, agriculture and forestry residues, and municipal solid and industrial waste, are lower emission than fossil fuel and are renewable. But they can also release pollutants when burned.

Then there is nuclear

Finally, there’s nuclear power, which produces between 50 and 60 per cent of Ontario’s energy needs, depending on the daily requirement.

The province’s three nuclear stations at Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Power (on Lake Huron) have a total of 20 CANDU reactors, 16 of them currently in operation.

Nuclear energy produces the "base" for the province’s energy usage as these reactors are always generating and aren’t turned off, except for maintenance.

Nuclear power is highly efficient, as one uranium dioxide pellet can produce as much energy as 400 tonnes of coal, and is low emission as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. But it’s technology is very expensive and the construction of the most recent Darlington plants in the late 1980s, in a period of already high construction costs, is responsible for almost half of the the billions of dollars in debt that rate payers are still paying off.

Critics also cite the potential health and environmental concerns should there be a nuclear accident as well as the problem of what to do with the thousands of tonnes of leftover waste that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years.

Despite the concerns with nuclear, it is expected to continue to play an important role in Ontario’s electricity production through 2025. However, to do so, the province will need to replace or refurbish much of the current technology to maintain energy production at current levels.

The Canadian nuclear association has estimated that by 2020 the province will need to replace about 80 per cent of its total electrical generation technology or roughly 25,000 MW, about half of which is nuclear, because of growth in demand and aging plants.

So, the problem for government becomes not only meeting the new demand but also maintaining the current levels in the face of aging technology.

The political solutions

Ontario’s energy future has been one of the important, if understated, themes of the campaign, though it has not had the same prominence as school funding or health care.

To meet the needs the Liberal plan is to shut down the coal power plants by 2014, a delay from their original plan to close them by 2007 and to encourage innovation in the energy sector.

Under Dalton McGuinty, 3,000 MW of new generation was added to the energy mix, with an additional 10,000 MW in the works. This new generation included renewable sources such as wind turbines and a solar farm near Sarnia as well as a commitment to two new nuclear reactors. "A reliable, healthy mix is going to have nuclear," McGuinty said during the recent leaders debate. "We’re going to pursue conservation and renewables at the same time."

The Conservative leader John Tory pledged during his campaign to spend $1.3 billion on coal scrubbers to clean up the four coal-fired plants.

During the debate, he said his party would move quickly to increase the number of "reliable and greenhouse-gas free" nuclear power plants in the province to meet future energy needs and help curb the use of the coal plants. He said that while he was committed to exploring renewable energy options, the province will need more than the two additional nuclear plants the Liberals are promising.

He has also expressed an interest in seeing if private companies, such as Bruce Power, can both build and own these stations, which would be a first in Ontario.

The NDP energy platform would halt plans for nuclear expansion and focus on reducing consumption and boosting clean, renewable power.

If elected, Howard Hampton also plans to close the Nanticoke coal plant – considered the worst polluter of the four – by 2011. During the debate, Hampton cited Ontario’s "sad history" with nuclear power and said that energy efficiency must be the central point of any energy program.

The Green Party plan focuses on reducing overall electricity usage by 20 per cent. If leader Frank de Jong were elected, the party would ban the construction and refurbishment of nuclear reactors and close the coal-fired plants by 2009, depending on whether consumers could reach energy reduction targets.

Norm Rubin, the director of nuclear research at Energy Probe, which is not a fan of nuclear energy, said Tory’s coal plan makes sense. "Instead of arbitrarily choosing a shutdown date, we should be getting the emissions out of the air," he said. "Clean up the coal plants and run them less."

But he was critical of the Liberal and Tory plans for building more nuclear plants, especially since they could not replace lost generation from the closure of coal plants.

"Nuclear plants and coal plants provide different functions in the grid," he explained. "Coal is the backup, effective and dispatchable source. It, unlike nuclear power, can be shut down."

Energy Probe’s view is that research and investment in renewable energy sources should be encouraged and that existing nuclear reactors should run until the end of their natural lives and not be rebuilt.

Marlene Bergsma
The Standard (St. Catharines)
September 28, 2007

If you could save six cents by running your dishwasher after midnight, would you do it?

How about saving another 30 cents by setting your clothes dryer to hum while you sleep?

Horizon Utilities – the company supplying power to 232,000 customers in St. Catharines and Hamilton – hopes you will.

So does the government of Ontario.

As part of a provincially mandated initiative, Horizon is switching all its customers to smart meters by 2010. In east Hamilton, 50,000 homes in a neighbourhood bounded by Rymal Road, Upper Wentworth and East Townline are getting the new meters this year.

In St. Catharines, about 1,000 new homes or homes that need replacement meters will get the new technology.

The idea is to track not only how much power you use, but when you use it.

By offering cheaper rates to consumers when demand is lower, industry officials hope to entice customers to switch their power-hogging appliances – like pool heaters or air conditioners – to run at off-peak hours, such as overnight, or on the weekend.

"Our electricity system is reaching capacity," said Sandy Manners, spokeswoman for Horizon Utilities. "It’s an encouragement for people to shift their usage away from peak times. We either do that, or we build more generating capacity."

Currently, about 500 north St. Catharines customers already have the meters, in the neighbourhood bounded by Niagara Street, Scott Street, Carlton Street and Government Road, Manners said.

But none of the meters are working smartly yet.

They are functioning as regular meters, which track total consumption over a billing period.

Horizon is still testing various data collection and transmission systems before deciding how customers’ hour-by-hour information will be collected and sent to utility headquarters for billing, Manners said.

In the meantime, each Horizon customer is paying 80 cents per month or about $10 per year to cover the cost of installing the new meters, Manners said.

That’s why St. Catharines Coun. Jeff Burch thinks the meters are "a huge waste of money."

The potential savings is small, Burch said, while the cost of collecting the data "is huge, and that is being passed on to the consumer.

"People have compared it to the federal gun registry, for the amount of money it is wasting," Burch said.

Burch accepts the need to reduce peak electricity demand, but prefers a system of rotating brownouts, which he says is working well in Florida.

"The way you reduce the peaks is to make people use less," Burch said.

Environmental organization Energy Probe is also skeptical about the smart meter program, saying the savings have to be big enough in order for consumers to want to change their habits.

"So far the difference between peak and off-peak is pretty slim," said Norm Rubin, a senior policy analyst. "It empowers consumers to make choices, but the problem is it’s an expensive way to do it, and whether we end up coming out ahead is yet to be seen."

Coun. Joe Kushner, who is a representative on the St. Catharines Hydro Board, which is part-owner of Horizon, said he supports the move to smart meters.

He agrees they’re expensive, "but I would hope the technology would improve to bring down the cost.

"If it’s effective, then rates will be less than they would have been without the smart meters," Kushner said.

Derek DeCloet
Globe and Mail
September 29, 2007

John Tory does not speak in sentences, even paragraphs. The man who wants to be Ontario’s next premier speaks in chapters. Ask him about health costs, and prepare for a dissertation on why emergency rooms are stuffed with people who shouldn’t be in them. Ask about his scheme to fund religious schools, and Mr. Tory will take you on a tour of history, back to 1867 and the Fathers of Confederation.

Ask him about nuclear power, and … on second thought, don’t ask him about nuclear power. The province’s creaking electrical grid is one of the hidden issues of the Oct. 10 election campaign. The leaders would rather talk about other things, and that goes even for the verbose chief of the Progressive Conservatives.

Naturally, he’s pleased to remind us all of Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty’s busted pledge to shut down all of Ontario’s coal-fired generators by 2007. "He wasted four years trying to cover up for what was a grossly irresponsible promise that he made," Mr. Tory said. All right, then, what would the Conservatives do? The answers aren’t reassuring.

That the province is heading toward a power crunch, with or without coal plants, is obvious. Norm Rubin of Energy Probe, an energy and utility watchdog, says the province can credit "dumb luck" for the fact blackouts are so rare. Government-owned Ontario Power Generation last year relied on nukes for 44 per cent of its power. Hydroelectric represented 32 per cent and dirty, rotten fossil fuels most of the rest. Renewables are still a marginal source of electricity in Ontario.

The problem is the nukes are getting old, and they’ve never been terribly reliable to begin with. Coal has become politically incorrect; natural gas is expensive and so is wind. By 2025, the gap between what the province will need and what its current generators can provide will be huge, perhaps 15,000 megawatts (MW). It’s going to take tens of billions of dollars to fill the need.

Who takes the risk, and how will it be built? Those are two huge questions but you’d never know it from reading the pap in the parties’ platforms. If wishful thinking built generators, Ontario’s politicians would have enough power to keep the Eastern Seaboard from freezing in the dark.

The New Democrats want "safe, green, renewable energy instead of nuclear mega-schemes." Well, don’t we all? The Liberals’ policy book doesn’t even mention the word nuclear. (It does talk about getting rid of coal – seven times in 42 pages.) Nuclear is a modest part of the Grit solution, once you get past all the rhetoric about "cleaner and greener."

Then there’s Mr. Tory’s plan, which in some respects is the bravest, or at least the most honest. It contains the usual nod to windmills and other renewable sources of energy. But it admits eliminating coal isn’t going to happen soon, so the Conservatives propose to install clean air technology at Nanticoke, OPG’s biggest coal-fired plant, to remove some of the nastier smog-producing stuff. As for nukes? We need new ones, says the PC leader, while keeping the details fuzzy.

"I will say this – Mr. McGuinty has suggested he thinks two reactors will be sufficient. I believe the number is in excess of that," Mr. Tory told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board this week. He says that if elected, he’d go to Jan Carr, head of the Ontario Power Authority, and ask for an opinion. "I am absolutely confident that the number that will come back, in terms of how much nuclear you have to invest in, will be more in the order of six or eight reactors, as opposed to two."

That’s quite a statement in a province where voters still remember Ontario Hydro’s nuclear-fuelled bankruptcy and the disastrous, multibillion-dollar effort to restart the Pickering reactors east of Toronto – even more so when Mr. Tory says he doesn’t really know how much it will cost. "If John Tory really thinks he’s going to make the [power] grid better by expanding nuclear power in Ontario, he and his genius advisers haven’t been paying attention," Mr. Rubin says.

But the bigger mystery is why all of the parties leaders seem to believe that, having failed dismally with a centrally planned power system, the solution is even more central planning, with Queen’s Park demanding windmills here, nukes there and solar panels over there. Oh, and don’t forget the price caps. Even if you own the most ancient, juice-sucking appliances, and run them on the hottest day of July when the power grid is groaning, you can’t be forced to pay more than 6.2 cents per kilowatt-hour under the province’s price rules. Smart meters, which allow utilities to charge more for electricity at peak times, are being rolled out, but even those prices are fixes.

Some have estimated the cost of rebuilding Ontario’s power supply at $40-billion or more. Private money would come in handy, but most of it’s going to be invested in places that no longer use Soviet-style utility policy. The McGuinty Liberals, it seems, don’t understand this and the New Democrats have never understood it. The Conservatives could have distinguished themselves with a plan to bring market economics back to the power grid, but they missed it.

The Agenda (TVO)

October 1, 2007

Energy Probe‘s Norm Rubin made a strong appearance as a guest on this episode of TVO’s The Agenda, which aired on October 1, and can be viewed in full at: www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=43.

The following points summarize Norm’s main arguments in regard to the energy policies of the various parties, in the lead-up to Ontario’s provincial elections (Norm appears a third of the way through the video):

Teviah Moro
The Orillia Packet & Times
October 2, 2007

Is it a money saver, environmental safeguard, or a profit generator?

One expert calls it a "wonderful" idea that may not pay off in the end.

Whatever the case, Orillia city councillors aren’t yet sold on the province’s plan to install 800,000 Smart Meters across Ontario by year end.

"I want to know that Ontario is getting the best bang for their buck," Coun. Michael Fogarty said after Monday’s council meeting.

He estimated with a $200 installation cost per household, and 12,000 in Orillia, it will cost $2.4 million in capital costs. "Is that $2.4 million better spent elsewhere?"

And one councillor, at least, believes the $1-billion plan is just a profit-driven scam that will drive up prices.

"It’s a target on the people and they brought the big guns out to sell it," Coun. Maurice McMillan bristled on Tuesday.

By Dec. 31, 2010, all consumers are to have one of the gizmos in place which discourage electricity consumption during peak times by tracking how much power is used and at what time of day.

Consumers will pay higher prices for electricity during periods of high demand, and lower prices during periods of low demand.

"The way they’re marketing it, there will be savings, if you can do this, if you can change your life, and I don’t know if there’s going to be a savings," Coun. Tim Lauer said after Monday night’s council meeting after a presentation about Ontario’s electricity sector.

Terry Young, director of external relations and communications for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) fielded questions about the smart meter from councillors.

"Hopefully, with the right education, customers will be shifting their use of electricity," Young said.

Currently, residential users pay rates set by the Ontario Energy Board according to the Regulated Price Plan. This year, it hovered around 5 cents per kilowatt hour.

With Smart Meters, the rate will be 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour on weekdays 7-11 a.m., 9.2 cents, 11 a.m. – 5 p.m., 7.2 cents, 10 p.m.- 7 a.m., 3.2 cents, 10 p.m. – 7 a.m. and 3.2 cents on weekends.

Lauer questioned how Smart Meter rates would average out on any given day for conscientious consumers, compared with the current regulated rate. "When you average that all out, on an average kilowatt hour a day, I’m wondering how much saving it is?"

Fogarty asked if it makes sense to invest in more generation rather than installing Smart Meters.

Young suggested that it may not, environmentally or fiscally.

"It’s one less plant that you have that has an impact on the environment; it’s one less plant that you’re paying for."

As it stands, Ontario has 31,000 megawatts of installed capacity. The consumption peak set last year was 27,005 megawatts between 4 and 5 p.m. on Aug.1.

During only 32 of 9,000 hours, demand exceeded 25,000 megawatts, Young said. "But we have to have that 2,000 megawatts available for just 32 hours of the year," he said, explaining why shifting demand to different times can reduce the need at peaks.

Still, the province has 7,000 more megawatts of generation planned for installation by 2011. It plans to take coal plants off line.

Norm Rubin, a senior policy analyst with Energy Probe, a consumer and environmental research group, said the Smart Meter is a "wonderful" idea that empowers consumers.

"The problem is that they do it at a fairly high cost," Rubin said.

And it’s questionable if the average customer’s actions will translate into any significant savings, he said.

Moreover, "keeners" who hang their laundry up to dry instead of throwing it in the dryer won’t necessarily benefit but still have to pay for the meter’s data collection, Rubin said.

McMillan believes the gizmos are bad for the consumer, but great for bottom lines in a profit-hungry sector.

"This is a great tool to increase profits for the city," McMillan said, referring to revenue generated by the Orillia Power Corporation.

"If it costs $200 million for that (multi-use recreation facility), we’re going to raise it through your hydro bill."