Energy Probe

Ontario must spend $40B fixing nuclear plants, $30B more on wind power, report declares

Posted on December 10, 2005 by energyprbe

Heather Sokoloff
National Post
December 10, 2005

Toronto: A provincially appointed body is recommending Ontario refurbish or replace its fleet of 12 nuclear power plants at a cost of $30 billion to $40 billion, according to a report released yesterday.

It also recommends transforming Ontario into a North American leader in the use of wind technology, bringing the total projected cost to about $70 billion.

The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) report warns Ontario will face a massive energy shortage when the government makes good on a promise to phase out Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by 2009. At the same time, existing nuclear plants will also have to be taken out of service if they are not upgraded in about 10 years, leaving Ontario with an energy gap of about 24,000 megawatts by 2025, equivalent to 80 per cent of the province’s current capacity.

“We take this report very seriously,” said Ontario Energy Minister Donna Cansfield. “We will carefully review the report’s advice and analysis as well as public input before making a decision on future supply mix.”

The government will have a long-term plan worked out by February, Ms. Cansfield said.

The full 1,100-page report will be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights and Ministry of Energy websites for 60 days so the public can provide input.

The Ontario Power Authority was created by the Liberal government to provide a long-term strategy for Ontario’s future energy supply as demand and population increase.

Critics said the report’s emphasis on nuclear energy was driven by political considerations stemming from the phasing out of coal. Several former Liberal staffers are currently employed as lobbyists for the nuclear industry, while former Liberal leader Lyn McLeod is on the OPA’s board of directors and party fundraiser Jan Carr is the chief executive.

“This is a crazy plan,” said Thomas Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a consumer watchdog group. “It’s completely driven by ideology. The decision to rule out Ontario’s least costly option is really what’s driving this.”

Provincial NDP leader Howard Hampton said Premier Dalton McGuinty has embraced nuclear power despite Ontario’s history of plants that have suffered massive cost overruns and delays in construction.

“This is going to mean very expensive electricity,” said Mr. Hampton. “Most of our electricity debt in Ontario is nuclear debt.”

A report commissioned by the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, an association of industries such as steel, pulp and paper and chemical producers, concludes Ontario power prices, already in the top quartile of prices in North America, will rise by 25 per cent by 2008.

“We are not satisfied that it’s appropriate to have a conversation when a large chunk of options are ruled out on the face of it,” said association president Adam White, adding he wants the government to investigate new technologies that enable coal plants to meet higher environmental standards.

But OPA vice-president Amir Shalaby said such technologies cannot remove all contaminants from coal and make it truly clean. Coal currently produces 19 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. The plan would mean nuclear would continue to satisfy half of Ontario’s electricity needs, with renewable forms of energy increasing to 43 per cent by 2025, up from 23 per cent today.

About half of the renewable part of the energy mix would come from installing 5,000 megawatts of wind power by 2025. The remainder would include imported hydro power and smaller solar and biomass procurements.

That much wind power would put Ontario on a par with the top wind-producing jurisdictions such as Germany, Denmark and California, said Mr. Shalaby.

Mr. Shalaby defended the plan’s $70-billion price tag, saying Ontario consumers should be prepared to invest between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in infrastructure for an electricity system that costs them $15 billion annually.

About half the cost could be paid within two decades, he said.

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Green talk

Posted on December 7, 2005 by energyprbe

Tom Adams, Letter to the Editor
Globe and Mail
December 7, 2005

Premiers Doer and Charest plead for meaningful action to cut greenhouse gas emissions (“Seize the climate-friendly day” December 7, see below). Both premiers preside over government-owned power utilities right now selling power to households at prices that deliver home heating at prices below those of natural gas heating, thereby encouraging customers to switch from gas to inefficient baseboard electric heaters. Meanwhile, both utilities rely on natural gas and coal or oil-fired generators to supply electricity demands at during the winter. Indirectly meeting heating needs with fossil-fired power multiplies emissions by a factor of three. The same anti-environmental power pricing situation exists in B.C. as well. If Doer and Charest want to implement their own environmental advice they will introduce seasonal pricing for electricity, so that winter electricity prices reflect the real costs.

Tom Adams, Executive Director, Energy Probe

Seize the climate-friendly day

by Gary Doer and Jean Charest, Globe and Mail, December 7, 2005

As the season turns to winter and Canadians prepare for several months of shovelling snow, it can be tough to convince people that global warming is a problem.

As a northern country, however, Canada is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Every day, we are presented with scientific studies that outline the impact of climate change on Canada, and already we are seeing profound changes in many of our provinces and territories.

Churchill, Man., is famous as the polar bear capital. Today, those same bears that draw tourists from all over the world are gaining notoriety as the canaries in the climate-change coal mine. The bears are among the first species to show the stress of shorter, warmer winters, and scientists fear for their future.

In northern Quebec, there has been a noticeable warming of the permafrost layer since 1992. In 1957, a peat bog east of Hudson Bay had 8,900 square metres of permafrost. By 2003, the permafrost had shrunk to 75 square metres. In addition to forever altering our landscape, these changes are affecting animal activity, movement and safety.

As citizens, business people, politicians and environmentalists meet in Montreal this week for the United Nations Climate Change Conference and a series of parallel events, it is time for us to reflect on the next steps in the international effort to address climate change.

We must continue to gather scientific evidence – to educate the public and spur individuals, organizations, businesses and governments to action. We must unite behind well-established and fledging efforts that are under way to better protect our wild lands and wildlife, and develop “green” technologies that address the challenge head-on.

A key step is shifting the public discourse on climate change from being a matter of environmental concern to one that includes the social and economic merits of taking concrete action. As premiers, we don’t want to lose the beauty of our lakes and forests. Or find ourselves telling our great-grandchildren about the once-majestic white bear that hunted and fished on enormous Arctic ice floes. We also cannot ignore the impact on the health of our citizens and our economic prosperity.

In Manitoba, climate change is shortening our winter-roads season, which has a direct impact on the economic and social well-being of isolated northern communities. In Quebec, scientists are concerned that climate change will affect both the economic viability and sensitive ecosystem of the mighty St. Lawrence Seaway.

It was only a few short years ago that some predicted economic doom for Canada if it signed the Kyoto Protocol. Today, a group of prominent Canadian CEOs is joining the call for action: “We believe that all governments, corporations, consumers and citizens have responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol.” Indeed, many individuals and organizations are turning the debate over climate change into concrete action. The focus of the climate leaders summit that we are hosting this week is to highlight just this – and demonstrate that out of great challenge often rises great economic opportunity.

It is easy to be daunted by the enormity of the task that lies ahead. But we don’t have to look far to find positive, creative actions that are already under way. Throughout North America, cities such as Montreal are showing leadership and setting ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

In provinces such as Manitoba and Quebec, climate-change plans have sparked emerging industries, economic development and new jobs. Both provinces benefit from an abundance of renewable hydroelectric resources, and will continue to develop these resources. But the strategic development of alternative energies such as wind, geothermal, ethanol and hydrogen is creating new industries and markets and fuelling economic growth. In just a few short years, Manitoba’s fledgling geothermal industry has grown to where it now provides 30 per cent of Canada’s heat pumps, and trains more than 50 per cent of the country’s installers. Public- and private-sector efforts – a low-interest loan program offered by Manitoba Hydro and the “can do” attitude of companies such as Manitoba’s Ice Kube Systems – have combined to ignite a new industry. Lower energy costs for consumers and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions are the long-term benefits for Canadians.

For its part, Quebec has been developing wind energy since the late 1990s. Today, it boasts a capacity of 400 megawatts. But this energy system is only just beginning to show what it can do. By the end of 2013, an extra 3,100 MW will have been installed in Quebec. Wind is also boosting regional economic development as windmill parts and assembly plants are now under construction in the Gaspé region. This will create more than 120 permanent jobs.

Across our country, investments in wind power and biofuels such as ethanol are not only cutting emissions but proving to be the crops of the future – providing new sources of revenue for agricultural producers and helping to diversify the rural economy. Whether it’s green-building technology, hydrogen research and development, hybrid public transportation or new energy efficiencies, the economic opportunities are as wide open as a Prairie sky.

This is why it is important that we recommit ourselves to meaningful actions and targets for addressing climate change beyond the 2012 time frame set out in the Kyoto treaty. We need to continue to motivate consumers, businesses and government, while providing new and emerging industries with the certainty they need to continue making investments in technologies that make a difference.

The time has come for us to seize the economic opportunities that are unfolding before us, to innovate and encourage ideas, and build our economy in a way that brings prosperity, health and social well-being, and sustainability. As Canadians, we have a long line of achievements to our credit. Let’s work together and add a prosperous, sustainable economy to our list.

Gary Doer is Premier of Manitoba, and Jean Charest is Premier of Quebec.

Posted in Costs, Benefits and Risks | Leave a comment

Green talk

Posted on December 7, 2005 by energyprbe

Tom Adams

December 7, 2005

Letter to the Editor

If Doer and Charest want to implement their own environmental advice they will introduce seasonal pricing for electricity, so that winter electricity prices reflect the real costs.

Tom Adams, Executive Director, Energy Probe

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

Alternative Energy: Greasing The Wheels

Posted on December 5, 2005 by energyprbe

Peter Evans
Canadian Business Online
December 5, 2005

Hurricane Katrina’s destructive swath may have caused a spike in oil prices, but it also spiked interest in alternative energy technology.

Take Maple Leaf Foods Inc. Though they earn their bread in the food business, the company recently announced it is set to open Canada’s first large-scale biodiesel plant.

Biodiesel, made from excess food oils and rendered fats, can be blended with diesel fuel to make it environmentally friendlier. The fuel is considered “greener” because it allows engines to use less diesel; it also produces less carbon dioxide than conventional petroleum, and uses materials that might otherwise be wasted.

Maple Leaf’s facility in Rothsay, Ont., won’t be at full capacity until 2006, but there are already high-profile markets for its product.

For example, from Nov. 28 to Dec. 9, Montreal hosts delegates from 157 countries who signed the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gases, at the first United Nations conference on climate change since Kyoto took effect in February 2005. Charged with establishing the next round of environmental targets, the federal government has pledged to make even the staging of the event green-friendly; 10,000 delegates will be ferried through the city on biodiesel vehicles.

The exhaust fumes generated by biodiesel supposedly smell like french fries, which may or may not be a good thing. Likewise, the scientific jury on biodiesel is out ─ but skeptics maintain biodiesel’s hype is a lot of hot air.

The main problem, says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, is its energy efficiency. He cites a Cornell University study that found biodiesel can sometimes require 27% more energy to produce than the resulting fuel is worth. Yet other studies (including one co-sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture) claim a net energy gain.

“[Biodiesel] is a step in the right direction, but in terms of energy for meeting transportation requirements, it’s really not a viable option,” Adams maintains. “There really is no such thing as a free lunch.” Even when you’re feeding the remains of lunch to your car.

From the December 5-25, 2005 issue of Canadian Business Magazine

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Manitoba wastes electricity, and now gas, too

Posted on November 6, 2005 by energyprbe

Tom Adams
November 6, 2005

Winnipeg Free Press

Already overseeing the world’s most inefficient electricity consuming economy, Manitoba’s NDP government’s speech from the Throne sets a course to promote natural gas wastage as well.

Kicking off this session of the legislature on October 27th, the government committed to introduce legislation to end Manitoba’s longstanding and wise practice of offering natural gas to distribution customers of Centra Gas Manitoba at floating market rates. Instead, the legislation will allow the provincially-owned gas utility to defer rate increases it would otherwise implement to capture increases in the commodity cost of natural gas in the continental market.

The government’s policy follows a recent decision on the Manitoba Public Utilities Board. In deciding the most recent rate adjustment to reflect rising continental gas prices, the Board created a complex shell game to temporarily shield residential consumers from the full effect of higher costs. Other classes of customers like businesses will continue to pay the real cost.

Noting the hardship energy bills represent for low income households, the Board decided to confer rate relief upon all households, including the well to do. At best, this is an inefficient method of protecting the poor.

Selecting one rate class over others for relief sends the regulatory process down a slippery slope. Having established the precedent of considering the relative degree of hardship, the Board may in future find itself inundated with businesses making their own pleas of special need.

The utility’s losses associated with residential underpayment will be paid by borrowing. Business customers not benefiting from subsidized rates might be at risk when payback time rolls around because, if market prices don’t plunge, payback time will be painful for vote-rich households. Interest costs on the borrowing to cover unpaid amounts will make the pain worse.

Until Wednesday, Saskatchewan, whose government has historically encouraged wasteful consumption by underpricing natural gas by its Crown gas utility SaskEnergy, often with disastrous consequences for the provincial government budgets, appeared to be on the verge waking up to the problems this creates.

SaskEnergy, the Crown gas utility, has been underpricing gas most of the time this decade. SaskEnergy’s loses on commodity sales to distribution customers in the period 2001-2003 alone totaled $430 per customer. On Wednesday, the government decided to up this amount by a further $400 per customer.

Ironically, the gas rate subsidization initiative of the Manitoba regulator and the government mitigates slightly the negative economic and environmental implications of Manitoba’s current waste-encouraging electricity pricing policies. This winter it will be cheaper for Manitoba households to turn off their furnaces and plug in electric baseboard heaters. Without subsidized gas rates, the urge to switch from gas to electricity would be even greater.

Power usage in Manitoba, identified in a 2003 study by Energy Probe for Winnipeg’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy as the highest electricity consumption in the world per unit of economic output, is likely to soar to new records.

Manitoba and all the jurisdictions around it rely on coal and gas to supply electricity during the winter. Gas furnaces are typically three times as efficient as gas-fired electricity in delivering home heat. Through their baseboard heaters, Manitobans will be throwing away a fortune this winter that the province and its citizens could be earning by charging all customers market prices for electricity, drastically cutting power usage, eliminating Manitoba Hydro’s gas and coal usage, and selling the surplus power to neighbors.

Prices reflecting the real value of Manitoba’s electricity would be higher in winter to reflect expensive fossil-fired power and would also reflect the costs of forgone electricity export sales

Efficiently pricing electricity and gas, particularly when the competing sources are becoming more expensive, provides Manitoba with an opportunity to leave behind its status as an economic “have not” region.

Without subsidizing conventional fuels, the province would be well placed to develop renewable heating options. Manitoba has some of the lowest hay prices in North America, reflecting vast agricultural capacity to produce crops suitable for low cost home heating, such as switchgrass and other prairie grass species. Combined with Manitoba’s large demand for heating fuels, the province could be leading a transition away from conventional heating fuels.

Manitoba’s NDP government appears to be cribbing its gas pricing policy from Ontario’s former Tory premier, Ernie Eves, who slashed and froze electricity rates three years ago. The Eves policy is not only a financial disaster but now threatens Ontario consumers with blackouts.

Manitoba has the potential to make vast economic and environmental gains by charging customers energy prices that reflect real costs. The government’s Throne speech sets a course in the opposite direction.

Tom Adams is Executive Director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based think tank.

Posted in Manitoba, Utility Reform | 9 Comments

The Marketplace: Is it really an advantage to lock into a natural gas contract?

Posted on November 2, 2005 by energyprbe

Michael Prentice
Ottawa Business Journal
November 2, 2005

Lately I have been a two-time loser when it came to selecting a mortgage and deciding how to pay my natural gas bill. I made the wrong choice – or so some would argue – on both over the past five years.

I chose a five-year fixed-rate mortgage, as usual, thereby paying substantially more in interest than I would have paid if I had opted for the bank’s floating interest rates or short-term rates over the five-year period.

Conversely, I chose to pay floating rates to cool and heat my home, and ended up paying higher prices for natural gas than I would have paid with some fixed-rate plans.

We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, but I don’t think I made any here.

When interest rates are low, it makes sense to me to go for a fixed rate, five-year mortgage, with a monthly payment that’s within my means. If interest rates shoot up during the five-year period, I’m protected. If they don’t, I don’t mind paying the extra interest required on a five-year loan. I see it as the cost of peace of mind.

With natural gas and now also electricity, it’s different. Despite soaring energy costs, I can stand the risk of a continuing price surge in natural gas and electricity. By not locking into a fixed price for future energy supplies, I shall be a winner unless future price hikes are steeper than expected.

Businesses offering fixed rates for future supplies of natural gas for home or office are making much of the fact that many of their customers have saved money over the past five years.

Direct Energy Essential Home Services, one of the most successful and aggressive marketers of fixed-price energy, has been running ads stating that its typical Ontario residential customer saved $848 on natural gas between 2000 and 2005.

That sum represents the difference between what the Direct Energy customer paid for natural gas and what the average home owner paid at the floating rate charged by the local utility, which is Enbridge Gas Distribution in the case of Ottawa customers.

No one can foretell the future, but consumers should be wary of locking into fixed prices for natural gas and electricity, says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, an Ontario-based consumer advocacy group.

Marketers of fixed-price natural gas and electricity are middlemen, operating much like banks, he says. A bank offers a five-year fixed-rate mortgage loan with money borrowed from customers who bought five-year guaranteed investment certificates, or GICs. The bank’s profit is the difference between the interest rate charged to the borrower, who obtains a mortgage, and the interest paid to the lender, who invests savings in a GIC.

Similarly, says Mr. Adams, energy marketers take little or no risk in offering fixed prices for future delivery of natural gas and, increasingly, electricity. Their retail prices are based on contracts they have already made with natural gas and electricity producers, for delivery as much as five years ahead.

“My criticism of marketers (of natural gas and electricity) is that their mark-ups are quite steep,” says Mr. Adams. “The mark-up is typically around 20 per cent.”

Purchasers of fixed-price contracts are gambling that future prices of natural gas and electricity will rise faster than expected, says Mr. Adams. Even if prices do rise faster than expected, he says, the increase must exceed the marketer’s mark-up in order for the customer to come out ahead of those paying floating rates for energy.

Utilities like Enbridge and Hydro Ottawa make their money by delivering the product, not on the sale of the product itself.

Energyshop.com is a good website to review prices and options for the purchase of energy. It notes: “If you choose to buy from a gas marketer, your gas delivery won’t change. You will still get a bill from your distribution utility. (This) will indicate a regulated delivery and transportation charge – about one-third of your bill – that goes to the utility, and a gas supply charge (price of the gas). The remaining two-thirds – that goes to the competitive supplier you chose.”

Energyshop.com estimates that, by the start of 2006, Enbridge’s price of the natural gas itself is likely to be above 38 cents a cubic metre. Direct Energy recently offered a five-year contract at 42.7 cents a cubic metre for the first year, and 43.7 cents thereafter.

You make your pick and pay your money.

Posted in Natural Gas | Leave a comment

Haldimand County : Coal Fired Plant in Ontario Not As Dirty As Reported

Posted on October 7, 2005 by energyprbe

CD 98.9 FM
October 7, 2005

A report by Energy Probe says coal-fired power stations such as Nanticoke’s aren’t as big a polluter as originally thought. The report says two of the units at the Lambton generating station near Sarnia rank in the top 10 cleanest in North America. Energy Probe executive director Tom Adams says it makes no sense to shut down Ontario plants and import large amounts of power from dirtier coal-fired stations in the U-S.

Posted in Coal | Leave a comment

Ontario to mothball two CANDU reactors

Posted on August 26, 2005 by Other News Sources

Paul Webster
Science Magazine, Vol. 309
August 26, 2005

Only months after Canadian-made reactors were rejected in U.S. and Chinese markets, Canada’s 60-year-old civilian nuclear industry has suffered a potentially mortal blow at home. Facing a $1.6-billion repair bill, the government of Ontario decided this month to mothball two 540-megawatt Canada Deuterium-Uranium (CANDU) nuclear reactors more than a decade before their projected retirement date.

“Ontario’s decision to write off two reactors early could signal the end of the road for CANDU,” says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a nonprof it nuclear watchdog group based in Toronto. In January, the reactor company’s U.S. partner, Dominion Resources of Richmond, Virginia, decided to abandon plans to seek a U.S. license for its next-generation CANDU. And in May, Chinese authorities announced that they weren’t interested in buying any units beyond the two 700-megawatt units already operating near Shanghai.

Canadian officials have long touted the CANDU reactors, manufactured by the government-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), as an example of the country’s technological prowess. A descendant of the Manhattan project, CANDU’s first forebear went on line at Chalk River, Ontario, in 1945. Since then some 34 large commercial versions have been built and installed around the world, including 20 in Ontario. But their complex cooling systems, which allow the reactor to be refueled without going off line, have proven very costly to maintain.

The reactors to be mothballed are two of eight at the Pickering Nuclear Station in the Toronto area. Built in the 1970s, they’ve been idle since 1997 largely because of thinning in the hundreds of pipes carrying heavy water coolant from the reactor core. Two years ago, three other laid-up Ontario reactors were restarted after refurbishments costing billions of dollars, and their operators now say more repairs are not far off. Adams says that CANDU reactors of various vintages in Argentina, India, Pakistan, Romania, China, and Korea will require extensive repairs sooner than planned.

Experts point to the corrosive effect of the heavy water coolant as a major culprit, with the reactor’s design contributing to the large repair bills. “Just getting at the pipes is fantastically difficult, dangerous, and expensive,” says Frank Greening, former head of nuclear cooling systems analysis at Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the government utility that owns all of Ontario’s CANDUs. Even for reactors in which the coolant feeder pipes haven’t yet deteriorated, says John Luxat, president of the Canadian Nuclear Society and OPG’s former head of nuclear safety, “the costs of demonstrating [their safety] are becoming a problem.”

Ken Petrunik, AECL’s chief operating officer, says the CANDUs, which cost about $1.5 billion new, “perform well in their early years” and that their ability to refuel on line has yielded “better performance results than any other reactor type in the world.” He downplays the impact of Ontario’s decision to mothball two reactors by noting that AECL is only weeks away from launching a sales campaign for an advanced version of the CANDU reactor that will compete with new designs from other countries. Petrunik also discounted the recent bad news from the United States and China. “We remain conf ident we’ll secure a reasonable share of the world market,” says Petrunik.

Posted in Towards Shutdown | Leave a comment

Ontarians haven’t learned the need to conserve since 2003 blackout: experts

Posted on August 12, 2005 by energyprbe

Gillian Livingston
Maclean’s Magazine
August 12, 2005

In the two years since the great blackout of 2003, Ontarians haven’t learned the valuable lesson of conservation and energy experts warn that rolling blackouts could become a reality if the province’s power supply crunch worsens.

The good news since the blackout is that electricity transmission facilities, their maintenance standards and emergency measures have improved, said Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe.

“But the bad news is on the consumption side we have continued to hit records . . . and are on track to just continue” doing that, he said.

With weeks of sweltering weather this summer, Ontarians cranked up their air conditioners, which led to record-breaking demand for power and four pleading calls to conserve from the agency that monitors the province’s power system.

In an effort to avoid rolling blackouts, voltage across the province was cut by five per cent over two consecutive days – a measure that causes brownouts and keeps some equipment from working.

“On the consumption side, we have not turned the corner yet and there’s no sign of it,” Adams said.

With demand nearly outstripping supply at times, “there’s no question that it’s just a matter of time before another blackout happens,” said Dave Martin, energy coordinator with Greenpeace Canada.

“The electricity system in Ontario is stressed to the max.”

It was 4:15 p.m. EDT on a sweaty Aug. 14, 2003 when a fault on a transmission line in Ohio led to a cascading blackout that cut power to the eastern Unites States and all of Ontario.

It ground air and public transportation to a halt. Traffic lights stopped. Cities went dark. Businesses closed for days and workers walked home in the oppressive heat of the summer.

Although the transmission problem was blamed for the blackout, it highlighted the interconnectedness of the power grids between the United States and Ontario and the stress the system faced from ever-rising demand.

Since then Ontario’s hydro maintenance practices have been held up as the standard, said Hydro One spokesman Peter Gregg. Recent audits of utilities in Ontario and the eastern United States have made the entire electricity grid more reliable, he added.

The blackout drove home to people and businesses just how valuable electricity is in our digital world, and how we can’t get along without it.

In the days following, businesses and residents were asked to severely curtail their use of electricity as hydro officials restored power to the strained system.

And people heeded the call, cutting back by about 20 per cent, said Fiona Oliver-Glasford, director of operations with the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance.

But several weeks later people went back to their usual habits of blasting the air conditioner and leaving lights and electronics on, and those habits are hard to break, Oliver-Glasford said.

“To change that takes a long time,” but slowly people are starting to make conservation part of their daily lives, she said.

But change requires more government incentives and higher efficiency standards on new appliances and buildings, added Oliver-Glasford.

The province has faced criticism for being slow to act on conservation, the cheapest way to get more power. In May, the government named Peter Love as its chief conservation officer to lead its charge.

Love said he’s working with local hydro utilities on their conservation plans, and this fall will outline other provincewide programs to spur changes to energy consumption habits.

Love said he will also issue a formal call for proposals from big industry to cut 250 megawatts of demand.

The four warnings from the Independent Electricity System Operator, which manages the power system, has kept conservation at the forefront this summer, said Terry Young, the agency’s spokesman.

“The situation we’ve been in this summer has certainly reinforced that thinking (that) we need to change the way we use electricity, we need to improve our efficiency,” Young said. This summer’s electricity bills will emphasize that fact, he added.

“We need to understand that there’s not a limitless supply at times,” he said.

Although Adams doesn’t expect a blackout in the magnitude of 2003, he said he thinks Ontario could face California’s dilemma in 2000 where rolling blackouts become the norm. That’s where power to one region is cut temporarily because demand outstrips supply.

“That the scenario I fear,” Adams said.

Ontario has taken steps to get 9,000 megawatts of new power built in the province, but it will be years before new generating plants are up and running. In the meantime, the government is going ahead with closing its polluting coal plants, which provide about 20 per cent of Ontario’s power.

The province has to move on conservation, improve transmission and get more supply, Adams said. The government needs to get out of regulating prices so that people pay the real cost of electricity, and that will spur companies to come into the market and build more generating capacity, he added.

Posted in Electricity | Leave a comment

N.B. Power faces costs of aging plant

Posted on July 29, 2005 by Other News Sources

Kevin Bisset
Globe and Mail
July 29, 2005

Fredericton: The New Brunswick government is expected to announce today its plans for a $1.4-billion refurbishing of its aging Point Lepreau nuclear power plant near Saint John.

The question is: How will the province do it without jolting consumers and businesses with hefty rate increases.

Earlier this month, the federal government rejected the province’s request for a $400-million contribution to the project, saying such a grant would set an expensive precedent that would prompt other provinces to seek a similar deal.

Premier Bernard Lord said the federal government misled and betrayed the province.

With Ottawa out of the picture, the province will need a partner with deep pockets to get the job done. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Bruce Power of Ontario have said they could help.

In a deal with Bruce Power, the company would shoulder most of the refurbishment risk in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the plant and sell its electricity back to New Brunswick Power Corp.

With AECL, the province would take on most of the risk while the Crown corporation would be contracted to do the retrofit, extending the use of the plant 25 years beyond its projected lifespan.

Point Lepreau came on-line in 1983, and it generates one-third of the province’s power. It was to be pulled from service in 2008.

Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, says if N.B. Power sticks to its business philosophy, it won’t take on a money-hungry project like the retrofit of Lepreau.

“The project is not economic. It doesn’t stand on its own, and can’t pay for itself. . . . New Brunswickers simply can’t afford it.”

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment