Ontario selling Hydro for $5.5 billion

Paul Vieira with files from the Canadian Press
National Post
December 13, 2001

The Ontario government is embarking on the biggest privatization in Canada’s history, the sale of the monopoly responsible for the province’s electricity transmission and distribution.

Mike Harris, the Premier, announced yesterday that Hydro One Inc. will go on sale “as soon as possible” in an initial public share offering expected to bring $5.5-billion.

That figure would easily surpass the province’s $3.1-billion sale of Highway 407 and the federal privatization of Canadian National Railway, which brought $2.26-billion.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined … however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” Mr. Harris told reporters.

The privatization will also dwarf the country’s previous stock offerings. The largest initial public offering to date was for Manulife Financial Corp., which fetched $2.4-billion.

The money raised by the hydro sale will be earmarked to help pay down the $21-billion debt run up by the company’s predecessor, Ontario Hydro.

Ontario Hydro was broken up into five separate bodies in 1999.

“That debt needs to be paid down. It’s the responsible thing to do for a government, for the ratepayers and for the future of electricity growth and investment in the province,” Mr. Harris said.

The date of the offering has yet to be determined, but the move, announced in the provincial legislature, ends weeks of debate about the future of the utility. Industry watchers say it will go a long way to dispel uncertainty about the opening up to competition of the $10-billion electricity market, scheduled for next spring.

The Premier said the province, through the Ontario Energy Board, will continue to regulate the power market and electricity prices to ensure a fair and open market.

“This IPO will go hand in hand in providing more choice and more competitive energy prices for Ontario consumers,” Mr. Harris said.

“This move will encourage investment in Ontario, it will help stimulate economic growth and it will ensure the continued supply of safe, reliable power.”

Critics pointed to problems caused by utility privatizations in other jurisdictions, particularly the soaring prices and power shortages seen in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words ‘California’ written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of the watchdog group Energy Probe.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring.”

Mr. Adams said he would have preferred that the government split up Hydro One’s assets and sold them piece by piece, which he said would have raised more money.

However, he said the share offering could benefit consumers by reducing the time required to pay off the $21-billion Hydro debt – which costs consumers 0.7¢ per kilowatt hour to service.

Mr. Harris also said that the opening up of the electricity market will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November, 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1-billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Dalton McGuinty, leader of the opposition Liberals, said it is impossible to determine whether the deal is good or bad because there has been no debate of the issue in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

Howard Hampton, the NDP leader, said he fears electricity rates will skyrocket after the sale.

Eleanor Clitheroe, the president of Hydro One, said she welcomes the announcement. “Access to public [markets] will greatly enhance Hydro One’s ability to realize new growth opportunities,” she said in a statement.

Hydro One, one of the largest power transmitters in North America, delivers electricity through 30,000 kilometres of high-voltage lines and 115,000 kilometres of low-voltage lines.

It has $10-billion in assets and generated about $3-billion in revenue last year. It also owns 88 municipal utilities.

The privatization ends weeks of questions about Hydro One. It was assumed the government would privatize it until a few weeks ago, when it emerged that the province was considering a proposal to turn Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

Proponents of the idea – including major power customers and RBC Dominion Securities – said it would raise $3.8-billion more than a public share offering by setting up a $10-billion bond issue.

The not-for-profit company’s board would be made up largely of industrial firms, the province’s biggest power users. Manufacturers would have held five of the 12 seats on the board, but backers of the idea said they would have an interest in keeping rates down for consumers.

Gord Forstner, a spokesman for the Hamilton steelmaker Dofasco Inc., said the company – one of the largest power consumers in the province – wanted assurances that the money raised through the public offering would be used solely to pay down debt.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities. Hydro-Québec is now the largest.

 

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

EU to finance a nuclear power plant in Romania?

Friends of the Earth Europe
December 12, 2001

NO TO EURATOM LOAN FOR CERNAVODA II

Brussels, Rome: (Dec.12th 2001): Today a large international coalition of ca. 35 environmental organizations started the campaign “Stop Euratom loan for Cernavoda II”.

Cernavoda II would be the second reactor of the only nuclear power plant in Romania. The Italian/Canadian consortium AECL Canada and ANSALDO is seeking to get a EURATOM loan from the European Commission. This second reactor is not needed for covering electricity demand in Romania and is only an increase of nuclear risk.

A coalition of all major Italian NGOs – among them Greenpeace Italy, Friends of the Earth Italy, WWF Italy – sent a letter of protest to the Italian government and the Italian export credit agency SACE against their financing of Cernavoda II. Today at 10.00 in the morning around 30 activists of Attac Italy and Campagna per la riforma della Banca mondiale started a demonstration “SACE out of Nukes” in front of the SACE office in Rome. It would be the Italian construction company Ansaldo receiving the state guarantee from SACE.

“Cernavoda II is the focus of our activities to stop the EU´s nuclear energy promotion – EURATOM. Its sole purpose is to support unwanted nuclear energy production, mainly outside the EU. Cernavoda is the only project in the pipeline that EURATOM is currently preparing. We will analyse the Environmental Impact Assessment, the Least cost study etc. and inform decision takers and the public about how the European Union is directly supporting the nuclear industry,” says Patricia Lorenz in the name of the FOE Europe network and several other environmental groups that joined the EURATOM campaign.

The first reactor at Cernavoda was put on the grid in 1996 and the second unit is between 20 – 30% complete. Since electricity consumption is steadily decreasing in Romania, the Cernavoda II reactor is superfluous. Moreover, Romania has a clear overcapacity installed and this new output is clearly intended for export, mainly EU market.

Although not yet officially, the European Commission seems to have decided that Cernavoda should be financed. Funding this project this would be clearly against the guidelines for EURATOM loans to non- EU countries. The 1994 Council regulation says that loans are to be used for safety upgrades, e.g. Soviet design reactors. The import of a Canadian CANDU reactor cannot be considered as falling into this category. Other safety problems occurring in Romania will not be solved by EU involvement, but will be further increased: Strikes of the NPP personnel, and a generally unreliable economic situation that also has a negative influence on nuclear safety.

Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen is scheduled to visit Romania on December 17th. “We ask Commissioner Verheugen not to give the nuclear industry a new reactor as a Christmas present that will leave the Romanians with more nuclear waste and more debts,” says Patricia Lorenz.

Posted in Nuclear Economics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Watchdog warns of inadequate nuclear security

Louis Charbonneau
Planet Ark
December 3, 2001

VIENNA (REUTERS) – The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) said last week recent cases of illicit nuclear material trafficking showed the urgent need for better protection and control of radioactive material.

In a report to an IAEA board of governors session attended by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, the United Nations’ atomic watchdog said that with nuclear material subject to national protection meausures, application of regulations remained uneven.

In recent years there have been 175 cases of illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, the report said.

“While only a few of these cases involved significant amounts of nuclear material, they demonstrate that security is still inadequate at certain locations and that there is an urgent need for improved protection and control,” it said.

Without mentioning any names, the IAEA report said there was lax security in some states, warning that an undetermined number of radioactive sources had become “orphaned” from regulatory control and their present location was unknown.

The robustness of nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities when faced with sabotage or acts of extreme violence varied from country to country and facility to facility.

“Agency assessments of facility design and operational measures can contribute to preventing and/or mitigating the impact of malicious acts,” the IAEA said, adding that it was revising standards on the construction of nuclear facilities.

The IAEA also plans to upgrade its international emergency response in the event of future radiological disasters. The agency has also offered to review national nuclear emergency response programmes to assess their effectiveness.

IDENTIFYING VULNERABLE LOCATIONS

“We need to urgently identify the most vulnerable locations and see they get the necessary security upgrades,” said IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei.

“In the long term, we need to ensure all countries have a stringent nuclear security framework in place – with high standards to abide by, state-of-the-art equipment, and people trained in security.”

The IAEA said past efforts had focused largely on diversion of nuclear material by states for non-peaceful purposes, with much less attention given to the activities of sub-national groups, such as Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

ElBaradei said the increased security would not come free-of-charge and called on countries to come up with the funds necessary to help the agency be an effective atomic watchdog.

“We have the solutions,” said ElBaradei. “Now governments have to come up with the resources.”

The IAEA report estimates that the proposed programme upgrades will cost $30-50 million, which would mean an initial 10-15 percent increase in the IAEA’s total available resources.

ElBaradei said the agency’s budget was underfunded by $40 million due to years of “zero real growth” of the IAEA budget. But funds needed to fight the nuclear terrorist threat would not stop at the $70-90 million the IAEA needed for its own budget.

The necessary global upgrades to meet the full range of possible threats would be in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars and would have to be carried out by individual states and through bilateral and multilateral assistance.

If states come up with the necessary funds, ElBaradei said the enhanced and additional activities proposed in his report should lead to a powerful national and international security framework for nuclear facilities and material.

“If we can establish international standards, effective security systems and oversight in all states, and better monitoring of borders, then we can provide a guarantee that the world will be a much safer place,” said ElBaradei.

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

New Sellafield terror warning

BBC
December 3, 2001

Terrorists deliberately flying an aircraft into the Sellafield nuclear repocessing plant could “wipe out the north of England”, a pressure group has told MPs.

Campaigners from Friends of the Earth (FoE) told the Commons’ environment committee’s inquiry into radioactive waste policy an 11 September-type atrocity could kill 2 million people.

The US terror attacks has led the group to rethink its long-standing insistence that waste must be stored above ground at the Cumbrian plant so it can be constantly monitored.

Both FoE and Greenpeace argue the UK’s nuclear power programme must halt to prevent production of more waste while no safe and permanent method of disposing of it is available.

Liquid solution

Charles Secrett, FoE’s executive director, told MPs bunkers may have to be built to keep the waste safe from terrorists.

Waste at Sellafield is held in a liquid solution, which campaigners warn could be widely dispersed in the case of a deliberate or accidental plane crash.

Dr Rachel Western, FoE’s nuclear research officer, told MPs: “If somebody was to make the decision to drop a plane on Sellafield, it would be disastrous – it would wipe out the north of England.”

Mr Secrett stressed that the new threat did not lead FoE to accept the solution preferred by many in the nuclear industry, of sealing the waste in deep burial sites far beneath the surface of the earth.

Sellafield has been the target of protesters

Studies had shown it would be impossible to rule out leaks of radioactive material into the environment from such sites, he said.

Environment minister Michael Meacher launched a consultation process on 12 September – the day after the US tragedy.

He was seeking opinion on the options for long-term handling of nuclear waste, including deep burial.

Greenpeace UK executive director Stephen Tindale told the MPs: “We don’t believe there is any way of disposing of nuclear waste.

“You can bury it – out of sight and out of mind – but the radioactivity will come back to haunt you. We are opposed on principle to deep burial.”

Similar terrorist warnings have been made since 11 September by the Green Party and the Irish Government.

International tribunal

The Commons committee hearing came on the day a United Nations maritime tribunal rejected a bid by Ireland to block plans to expand operations at Britain’s Sellafield nuclear plant.

The Irish Government had tried to challenge the decision to allow the controversial plant to start producing mixed plutonium and uranium oxide (Mox) fuel.

It argued that theA3470m development, on the Cumbrian coast opposite Ireland, broke international laws on sea pollution and posed safety and security concerns.

Dublin wanted Britain to be ordered to suspend Mox operations until an international arbitration tribunal was established to resolve the dispute.

But judges at the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg rejected the legal challenge on Monday.

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

Tories privatize Hydro One

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
December 1, 2001

In what promises to be the largest privatization in Canadian history, Ontario will sell its monolithic electricity transmitter and open its $10-billion electricity market to competition.

After months of intense speculation by political and industry insiders, Premier Mike Harris announced today his government will take the controversial plunge “as soon as possible” to sell Hydro One – a public remnant of the old Ontario Hydro utility – in an initial public offering.

The dollar figure attached to the deal will surpass the sale of Highway 407 and the Canadian National Railway, and will help pay down the province’s $38-billion hydro debt, Harris told reporters.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined by SuperBuild (an agency of the Finance Ministry) and its financial advisors, however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” he said.

Harris insisted the move won’t mean soaring costs for consumers, despitedisastrous initial results in Alberta and other jurisdictions that have deregulated power industries and sold public utilities.

“Our goal is to not only privatize and sell Hydro One … it’s also to do so in such a way that we believe will give the biggest incentive to have the lowest price for consumers,” he said.

While the province has retained control of its generators for now through Ontario Power Generation, deregulation will allow private companies to enter into the generating and selling business alongside the Crown corporation.

Some critics said Wednesday that selling off Hydro One and opening the market could very well mean soaring prices similar to those in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words California written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of Energy Probe, the province’s energy watchdog.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring. But the good news is our problems in our power restructuring haven’t gotten worse.”

Breaking up Hydro One into smaller companies and selling them off piecemeal would have been a better option, Adams added.

“By pursuing an (initial public offering) of the existing business rather than breaking the business into pieces and auctioning the pieces, we get stuck with the existing management at Hydro One,” he said.

Liberal energy critic Sean Conway said the public is still largely in the dark on the deal.

“Are there going to be limits, for example, on who can bid on this very important public asset? Is there going to be any constraint around foreign ownership? Is there any limit to how much any group or individual can own? Most especially, how is this going to be designed to protect the consumer interest?” he asked.

Harris said bidding options would be determined by SuperBuild.

But Conway argued that while “hundreds of millions” of dollars in fees and services were in the offing through the sale, the average consumer did not necessarily stand to benefit.

“Bay Street is going to be delighted, Main Street is going to be very worried because they will be looking for protections and the (previous sale of Highway 407) indicates that those protections are not always there.”

Major wholesale electricity users such as auto makers and steel plants had lobbied for an alternative plan which would have turned Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

They argued the plan would stop taxes from flowing to the federal government, helping to pay off the debt and keep wholesale electricity costs down.

A spring deregulation date will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas, Harris said.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said privatizing the company was the right move, but should have been done following an open debate in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1 billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities – Hydro One, which manages the distribution of electricity through the hydro grid, Ontario Power Generation, which produces the province’s electricity, and the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

Hydro Quebec is now the largest public utility in Canada, and British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba still run Crown corporations in the electrical industry.

Several other provinces already have private companies operating power transmission or production companies, including Atco, Transalta and the TransCanada Pipelines power generation division in Alberta.

 

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

Tories privatize Hydro One

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
December 1, 2001

In what promises to be the largest privatization in Canadian history, Ontario will sell its monolithic electricity transmitter and open its $10-billion electricity market to competition.

After months of intense speculation by political and industry insiders, Premier Mike Harris announced today his government will take the controversial plunge “as soon as possible” to sell Hydro One – a public remnant of the old Ontario Hydro utility – in an initial public offering.

The dollar figure attached to the deal will surpass the sale of Highway 407 and the Canadian National Railway, and will help pay down the province’s $38-billion hydro debt, Harris told reporters.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined by SuperBuild (an agency of the Finance Ministry) and its financial advisors, however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” he said.

Harris insisted the move won’t mean soaring costs for consumers, despitedisastrous initial results in Alberta and other jurisdictions that have deregulated power industries and sold public utilities.

“Our goal is to not only privatize and sell Hydro One … it’s also to do so in such a way that we believe will give the biggest incentive to have the lowest price for consumers,” he said.

While the province has retained control of its generators for now through Ontario Power Generation, deregulation will allow private companies to enter into the generating and selling business alongside the Crown corporation.

Some critics said Wednesday that selling off Hydro One and opening the market could very well mean soaring prices similar to those in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words California written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of Energy Probe, the province’s energy watchdog.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring. But the good news is our problems in our power restructuring haven’t gotten worse.”

Breaking up Hydro One into smaller companies and selling them off piecemeal would have been a better option, Adams added.

“By pursuing an (initial public offering) of the existing business rather than breaking the business into pieces and auctioning the pieces, we get stuck with the existing management at Hydro One,” he said.

Liberal energy critic Sean Conway said the public is still largely in the dark on the deal.

“Are there going to be limits, for example, on who can bid on this very important public asset? Is there going to be any constraint around foreign ownership? Is there any limit to how much any group or individual can own? Most especially, how is this going to be designed to protect the consumer interest?” he asked.

Harris said bidding options would be determined by SuperBuild.

But Conway argued that while “hundreds of millions” of dollars in fees and services were in the offing through the sale, the average consumer did not necessarily stand to benefit.

“Bay Street is going to be delighted, Main Street is going to be very worried because they will be looking for protections and the (previous sale of Highway 407) indicates that those protections are not always there.”

Major wholesale electricity users such as auto makers and steel plants had lobbied for an alternative plan which would have turned Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

They argued the plan would stop taxes from flowing to the federal government, helping to pay off the debt and keep wholesale electricity costs down.

A spring deregulation date will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas, Harris said.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said privatizing the company was the right move, but should have been done following an open debate in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1 billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities – Hydro One, which manages the distribution of electricity through the hydro grid, Ontario Power Generation, which produces the province’s electricity, and the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

Hydro Quebec is now the largest public utility in Canada, and British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba still run Crown corporations in the electrical industry.

Several other provinces already have private companies operating power transmission or production companies, including Atco, Transalta and the TransCanada Pipelines power generation division in Alberta.

 

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

Tories privatize Hydro One

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
December 1, 2001

In what promises to be the largest privatization in Canadian history, Ontario will sell its monolithic electricity transmitter and open its $10-billion electricity market to competition.

After months of intense speculation by political and industry insiders, Premier Mike Harris announced today his government will take the controversial plunge “as soon as possible” to sell Hydro One – a public remnant of the old Ontario Hydro utility – in an initial public offering.

The dollar figure attached to the deal will surpass the sale of Highway 407 and the Canadian National Railway, and will help pay down the province’s $38-billion hydro debt, Harris told reporters.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined by SuperBuild (an agency of the Finance Ministry) and its financial advisors, however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” he said.

Harris insisted the move won’t mean soaring costs for consumers, despitedisastrous initial results in Alberta and other jurisdictions that have deregulated power industries and sold public utilities.

“Our goal is to not only privatize and sell Hydro One … it’s also to do so in such a way that we believe will give the biggest incentive to have the lowest price for consumers,” he said.

While the province has retained control of its generators for now through Ontario Power Generation, deregulation will allow private companies to enter into the generating and selling business alongside the Crown corporation.

Some critics said Wednesday that selling off Hydro One and opening the market could very well mean soaring prices similar to those in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words California written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of Energy Probe, the province’s energy watchdog.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring. But the good news is our problems in our power restructuring haven’t gotten worse.”

Breaking up Hydro One into smaller companies and selling them off piecemeal would have been a better option, Adams added.

“By pursuing an (initial public offering) of the existing business rather than breaking the business into pieces and auctioning the pieces, we get stuck with the existing management at Hydro One,” he said.

Liberal energy critic Sean Conway said the public is still largely in the dark on the deal.

“Are there going to be limits, for example, on who can bid on this very important public asset? Is there going to be any constraint around foreign ownership? Is there any limit to how much any group or individual can own? Most especially, how is this going to be designed to protect the consumer interest?” he asked.

Harris said bidding options would be determined by SuperBuild.

But Conway argued that while “hundreds of millions” of dollars in fees and services were in the offing through the sale, the average consumer did not necessarily stand to benefit.

“Bay Street is going to be delighted, Main Street is going to be very worried because they will be looking for protections and the (previous sale of Highway 407) indicates that those protections are not always there.”

Major wholesale electricity users such as auto makers and steel plants had lobbied for an alternative plan which would have turned Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

They argued the plan would stop taxes from flowing to the federal government, helping to pay off the debt and keep wholesale electricity costs down.

A spring deregulation date will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas, Harris said.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said privatizing the company was the right move, but should have been done following an open debate in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1 billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities – Hydro One, which manages the distribution of electricity through the hydro grid, Ontario Power Generation, which produces the province’s electricity, and the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

Hydro Quebec is now the largest public utility in Canada, and British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba still run Crown corporations in the electrical industry.

Several other provinces already have private companies operating power transmission or production companies, including Atco, Transalta and the TransCanada Pipelines power generation division in Alberta.

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

EDITORIAL: Blocking progress

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 28, 2001

 

Why does nuclear power industry still need special liability protection?

Why do motorcycles have carburetors?

The earliest machines used open pans of gasoline — the vapors rising from the open fuel source were vacuumed into the cylinder and ignited by the spark plug, powering the engine. But of course this was dangerous — the fuel sloshed about, fires were common, and the likelihood that any insurer would have issued a policy underwriting the rider’s safety was far-fetched.

Manufacturers knew they had to come up with a safer and more reliable arrangement — and the race to develop the enclosed carburetor was on.

Today, exploding motorcycle engines are not a big problem.

But imagine for a moment that Congress had intervened. After all, motorcycles are useful to the military. If the early motorcycle manufacturers had enjoyed better political connections, they might have asked Congress to pass a law sharply limiting their liability in the case of fires from those primitive engines. Should anyone suffer a truly serious injury, Congress would step in and pay the bill. The manufacturers would have been able to continue making their bikes the old-fashioned way — and they’d still be blowing up with regularity.

The problem isn’t just theoretical. Government interventions really do distort the free market. The Price-Anderson Act was enacted in 1957 and has been renewed three times since — it will expire Aug. 1 unless the Senate joins in renewing it again, as the House voted to do Tuesday.

The law was specifically created to help the fledgling nuclear power industry bypass private insurers who wanted prohibitively high premiums to indemnify manufacturers and operators against liability claims that might result from a meltdown — assuming they’d insure them at all. The odds of such an event were extremely difficult to calculate, given that no one had a baseline of experience with commercial reactors.

So Congress simply waved its magic wand, and said any damages above $9.5 billion would be paid by Congress, which is to say the taxpayers. The way was cleared to build commercial reactors.

With the insurers thus indemnified, no one bothered to investigate the potential liability should all the spent fuel rods end up stored “on site” for the next 100,000 years. The precedent having been set, it was simply assumed Congress could and would step in to wave its magic wand yet again … as it soon will, mandating that all nuclear waste be buried in Nevada, whether the locals like it or not.

The Price-Anderson renewal was brought to the House floor Tuesday under guidelines more commonly used to speed through non-controversial measures “like renaming post offices and federal buildings,” points out Jill Lancelot, legislative director for the watchdog group Common Sense. Yet, “There is nothing more controversial than limiting liability protection for a politically powerful industry at the expense of taxpayers.”

Wouldn’t this be a good time for the Congress to subpoena witnesses from the insurance industry and ask them — given the track record of the past 40 years — whether this warping of the market is still required?

One need not be “against” nuclear power to say it should stand on its own two feet in competition with other methods of power generation — with the final arbiter being the independent insurance actuaries setting their liability rates, absent any federal “bailout.”

That’s how the free market works.

 

Posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown | Tagged | Leave a comment

Trade group rebuts effort to shut NY nuke plants

Planet Ark
November 22, 2001

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Arguing that customer costs would increase, an electric trade association in New York opposed a recent effort by environmental groups and local elected officials to shut nuclear power plants due to security concerns, the group said in a statement this week.

The Independent Power Producers of New York Inc. (IPPNY), which represents electric generators and marketers in New York, said shutting the plants would “immediately increase the cost of electricity to consumers, cost thousands of jobs, and threaten the reliability of New York’s electric system.

“While we understand the issue of plant security is on the minds of everyone who lives and works near a nuclear power plant, prudent steps have been taken to ensure the security of nuclear facilities in New York,” IPPNY Executive Director Gavin Donohue said in response to a petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to close the Indian Point power plant indefinitely.

About two weeks ago, Riverkeeper, an environmental group that seeks to protect the Hudson River, filed a petition with the NRC calling on the federal nuclear watchdog to immediately shut the Indian Point facility pending a full review of the plant’s vulnerabilities and safety systems.

Indian Point’s two operating nuclear reactors are located on the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., about 40 miles north of New York City.

The facility, owned by a unit of energy giant Entergy Corp. of New Orleans, provides about 10 percent of the city’s power supply.

The petition by Riverkeeper, which is represented by environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated that the events of Sept. 11, “clearly demonstrate that the plant’s status needs to be reexamined.”

Pointing out that 20 million people live within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point, Riverkeeper warned an attack on the facility could have devastating consequences, rendering much of the Hudson River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable.

IPPNY RESPONSE

The environmental groups are, “taking advantage of recent national security concerns,” said IPPNY.

“The NRC already has strict security standards that must be met by nuclear facilities across the country and is currently reviewing those standards to determine if there is room for improvement.”

“Calling for plants to shut down is the sort of knee-jerk reaction that won’t help security and will certainly have a negative impact on electricity markets and the economy,” IPPNY’s Donohue said.

Officials at the NRC said they have a well established process for handling petitions and will form a panel to look at the Riverkeeper’s filing.

“We just got it, so we are not even close to giving them a response yet,” said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman at the NRC.

Utilities depend on nuclear power to maintain a reliable, inexpensive supply of electricity.

There are more than 80 nuclear facilities in the U.S.

In New York, nuclear power supplies about 20 percent of the electricity consumed.

“If nuclear plants are shut down, electricity prices will increase significantly,” said IPPNY’s Donohue.

“This campaign is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to take advantage of the tragedies of Sept. 11 to permanently shut down these facilities,” Donohue said.

CLINTON INVOLVEMENT

Earlier this week, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at Indian Point about a plan to improve the safety of the nation’s nuclear power plants.

Last week, Sens. Clinton and Assistant Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced plans for legislation that would station federal agents at nuclear power plants to guard against security threats. The NRC said the bill would also likely seek the expansion of the emergency planning zone from 10 miles to 50 miles.

The emergency planning zone is the area surrounding a nuclear plant where most of the emergency response drilling and radiation testing occurs.

Increasing the zone around Indian Point to 50 miles would be very costly since it would include New York City.

Senators Clinton and Reid said they intend to introduce the bill after the Thanksgiving recess.

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

Winter energy savers

November 21, 2001

For consumers vexed by fixed-price, long-term gas and electricity prices, spooked by variable rates and the uncertainty of an open electricity market, the prospect of another winter is bound to test the pocket even further. So what better time than now to share with you a list of helpful resources offering ideas on energy efficiency and wallet conservation? After all, fair weather is the best time to prepare for foul.

Canadian sites are highlighted

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide

Take energy use into account in your household purchasing and maintenance decisions with help from ACEEE’s publications Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings, US$8.95, and The Most Energy-Efficient Appliances 2001, US$4.00 (available for order online). The site also features ACEEE’s backlist of consumer guides and reports on energy efficiency. On the freebie front, ACEEE offers click-on tips for saving energy in the home, although information is geared toward the U.S. market.

Cal Consultants Ltd./Canadian Gas Association http://www.cal.ca/climate/index_e_txt.html

This Web site on behalf of the Canadian Gas Association, offers consumers a Canada-wide “Home Tune-up”; a quick list of ways Canadians can reduce their share of greenhouse gas emissions, and save money at the same time. Cal’s site also lists contact details for further information and free publications on climate change and energy efficiency.

Center for a New American Dream http://www.newdream.org/turnthetide/

A new online program called “Turn the Tide,” demonstrates the powerful impact of small behavioural changes by offering consumers a novel way to protect the environment. A project of the Center for a New American Dream, participants are given nine simple, ecologically smart ways to change their lives, from cutting car trips to cancelling junk mail. Each member fills in a personal online log so the site can calculate how many resources the member saves. According to a Washington Post interview with Eric Brown, communications director at the Center for a New American Dream, 1,700 people have signed up for the initiative so far and current participants will save “over 5 million gallons of water, and prevent the release of over three-quarter million pounds of carbon dioxide over the course of a year.” Turn the Tide is open to Canadian residents (participants must fill out an online form and some questions, for instance, “Did you vote in the last three presidential elections?” are obviously not applicable). There is no cost to join, save time and effort (but think of the millions of gallons of water and pounds and pounds of carbon dioxide you’ll save).

Energy Ideas Clearinghouse http://www.energyideas.org/library/residtips.cfm

Energy Ideas Clearinghouse is a Washington State University energy program and its Web site, Energyideas.org, offers consumers a useful guide-at-a-glance to saving home energy. The site also features a Tip of the Day and a search-by-topic option for information on a variety of energy subjects, including appliances, electrical systems, heat recovery, lighting, water heating, and more. Energyideas.org provides help with specific energy problems, to boot.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
http://www.iclei.org/audit/

ICLEI is an international agency for local governments, aimed at achieving tangible improvements in global environmental and sustainable development conditions through cumulative local actions. That aside, consumers will be intrigued by the organization’s audit Web site, which boasts a “fun” element with its Online Home Energy Audit. Just fill out the online form and submit. Behold! A customized online report giving information about your current energy use and the potential costs and savings associated with the installation of various energy-saving measures in your home should be forthcoming. A major bonus for Ontarian consumers is that the ICLEI audit assumes that the user lives in the province and uses weather data and energy prices specific to Ontario. Subject to funding constraints, ICLEI will endeavour to expand the audit for use in other parts of the world and, the rest of Canada, presumably.

Natural Resources Canada: Office of Energy Efficiency http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english

Billed as Canada’s one-stop service for energy efficiency, this extensive government Web site is designed to assist both consumers and business. On offer is a guide to help consumers calculate home-heating costs, a guide for manufacturers and dealers on promoting the efficiency rating of heating and cooling equipment, and information about appliances (note, the type of appliance you choose says something about the life you lead).

Other options of interest include information on vehicles. Natural Resources Canada has developed an Auto$mart Program to provide Canadian motorists with helpful tips on buying, driving, and maintaining vehicles with a view to reducing fuel consumption and saving money. Browsers can use the site’s Tip of the Week to sharpen their knowledge of energy trivia (i.e., force yourself to take public transport; a single city bus is the transportation equivalent of 40 vehicles, saves 70,000 litres of fuel, and keeps 9 tonnes of pollutants out of the atmosphere each year). The Office of Energy Efficiency can also be contacted at 1-800-387-2000 for more information along the lines of searching out air leaks in the outer shell of the house; insulating, caulking and weather-stripping, and; getting the most out of a furnace.

U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/energy_savers/

This colourful U.S. Department of Energy site is devoted to tips for saving energy and money in the home, topics include insulation and weatherization, heating and cooling, water heating, windows, landscaping, lighting, and appliances. The information given is for the U.S. market and, in some cases, of limited use, but the site’s overall design and usability makes it fun to navigate and prompters such as “Is a wind turbine right for you?” are hard to resist. The site also offers an Energy Tip of the Month feature.

Posted in Electricity | Leave a comment