Power Switch

Lawrence Scanlan
Canadian Geographic
May 1, 2001

When Tom Touzel looks up on clear nights, he can sometimes spot a seemingly new star in the firmament — the International Space Station. And he feels a small tug, for the orbiting lab and his log house in rural Ontario are both powered by the brightest of heavenly bodies: the sun.

Last December, Canadian astronaut Marc Garneau helped install 74-metre-long solar panels to boost the station’s energy supply. In 1993, Touzel was among the first in Ontario to connect his solar panels to the hydro grid.

People far from utility lines have for decades used renewable energy — solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric — to power their homes. But Touzel’s was a rare arrangement, for it meant that on long, bright summer days, when the panels produced more electricity than he could use, “green” power was fed back into the grid.

Eight years later, traditional energy sources have never been more costly or uncertain. Going green, which has always made environmental sense, may soon make economic sense as well. Renewable energy has long promised a rosy future just around the corner. The rub has been cost and reliability; we Canadians like our power cheap and easy, and we balk at paying more for clean energy. Still, there are some encouraging signs that we are slowly moving in the right direction.

Touzel was born green. As a child in Sudbury, Ont., he remembers being gripped by the fear that some day, we would breathe up all the air. It was a great relief when he discovered the role of trees in replenishing the oxygen supply.

A family physician in Napanee, Ont., Touzel bicycles kilometres to work every day — in winter, along the frozen river that runs past his family’s parcel of land southwest of town. At 41, he is lean and tall and fit, with an easy, assured manner. “Electricity,” he says, “is pretty simple.”

It is fitting that a solar pioneer would live in a pioneer’s cabin. For Touzel, his wife Liz — also a family doctor — and their two young daughters, Lindey and Molly, home is an arranged marriage of two square-timbered log structures that date from the 1880s. One day last December, a brisk sunny morning outside, Touzel is inside sporting railwayman’s coveralls over a white T-shirt. Sprawling on the couch before the wood stove, he recalls his foray into sun power.

“At that time,” he says, “there were one or two others connected to the grid with solar power. A man at Ontario Hydro, called Per Drewes, smoothed the waters. He had solar panels installed in Toronto on the roof of The Hospital for Sick Children and at the Kortright Centre for Conservation (a showcase for alternative energy). The other thing that facilitated my hookup is that around here, I’m Dr. Tom. Everybody knows me, including the local hydro inspector.”

Touzel built the wood frame for his 12 linked solar panels (“a 600- watt array,” as he calls it) and set it between heavy cedar posts near the house. In his workshop, he installed the inverter that converts direct current from the panels into alternating current for the house. The entire system cost $12,000. Then he took measures to conserve energy: all lights in the house are compact fluorescent, and a solar collector on the roof supplies most of the Touzels’ hot water, with a propane tank as backup. The refrigerator draws minimal current, and wood alone provides heat. Backing up the wood stove, in a touch of supreme irony, is an almost never used electric furnace.

In summer, the solar panels provide 60 percent of the family’s energy needs; in winter, less than 10 percent. Touzel had consulted charts and determined exactly how many “peak hours” of sun his region receives through spring, summer, fall and winter. He knew that on overcast days, the solar panels would produce almost no energy and the family would depend entirely on the grid. But the mere act of tapping into the son issued daily reminders of the need to conserve. It’s like driving a car, he says, with the fuel guage always reading low.

“When Molly got an aquarium,” says Touzel, “it meant a pump. It felt like an extravagance, and we talked about that.” In this house, you leave a room at night, you turn off the light. Still, his lifestyle is less green than he would like it: “I had always thought I’d add more panels. I thought that by 1996, I’d be a net producer of energy. The kids came along, and I haven’t done it.”

If a committed environmentalist like Touzel is stalled on his solar course, what hope is there for the rest of us? Canadians – especially in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, with their wealth of hydroelectric power – have traditionally enjoyed some of the lowest energy prices in the world, but that has only helped make us what critics call “energy pigs” or, to be kinder, “old school.”

Other countries, meanwhile, are reporting spectacular gains in alternative energy. In Denmark, 13,000 people are employed in a wind industry that supplies 8 percent of that nation’s electricity. In the United States, a presidential campaign aims to install solar panels on one million rooftops by 2010. And India has built 2,000 wind turbines at one site – the second largest wind farm in the world.

The planet’s march toward renewable energy has quickened as conventional choices have become ever more problematic. Steadily rising greenhouse gases have forced governments to sign international agreements such as the one in Kyoto, Japan, which is aimed, in part, at lowering fossil-fuel-fired emissions. Burning coal to generate electricity is cheap but contributes to smog, which leads ultimately to premature deaths – 1,900 a year in Ontario alone, according to the Ontario Medical Association.

Using natural gas to produce electricity is cleaner, but increased demand this past winter sent the price of gas soaring. World oil reserves, some estimate, will start to decline before 2010. Amid worries over cost and safety, not one nuclear power plant has been built in North America in two decades. Even hydroelectric dams have come under severe scrutiny for the ecological carnage they wreak.

Enter oil companies, such as British Petroleum, Suncor and Shell, which have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in solar and wind power. BP expects to sell $1 billion in solar equipment by 2007 and Shell predicts renewable energy will produce half of the world’s power by 2050. Big business, then, has bought into solar, and futurists believe that one day, residential energy needs will be met by solar panels on the roof and a fuel cell in the basement.

What has sparked new hope among solar and wind advocates is the deregulation of hydro monopolies around the world. An open hydro market has worked well in the United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden, Australia and New Zealand, although when introduced last year in California, it lead to blackouts and price increases of several hundred percent. Soaring electricity rates are also hitting Albertans hard in the aftermath of that province’s deregulation program. And Ontario is now struggling to avoid similar cost hikes with its electricity restructuring scheme.

“I’ve been chastened by the California experience,” says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a national environmental and consumer think-tank based in Toronto. “I am convinced that an open electricity market is the way to go. But I had not appreciated the delicacy and brittleness of the reform process.”

Many clean-energy retailers also believe the open market holds more promise than the old debt-ridden autocratic monopolies. Chuck Gobeil, a partner with Renewable Energy of Plum Hollow in Kingston, Ont., has been in the solar business for 10 years. “The first house we did, it took us three months to get approval from hydro inspectors,” he says. “There was real antipathy between Ontario Hydro and alternative-energy types. We were going to take away their business. Things have improved 100 percent.”

Deregulation may make it easier to plug rooftop solar panels into the grid and do what Touzel did – make his hydro meter run backwards. This so-called net metering is now permitted in Alberta, some 30 American states and Germany. In Ontario, Toronto Hydro allows it; utilities elsewhere in the province vary in their enthusiasm for solar links. The public relations value in pumping green power into their grids is not lost on governments or their utilities, says Ian Mondro, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in energy matters. Mondrow cites two other factors that may foster more grid links with alternative energy producers. “The technical problems – grids can be thrown out of whack – have been resolved. It’s also become clear to utilities that some people are willing to pay a premium for green power that lets them sleep better at night, to say, ‘I did something about it.'”

Among the new products creating burgeoning interest around the world is a Canadian one called Solarwall that heats and ventilates buildings. It involves fronting the south side of a building with perforated galvanized steel or aluminum, which is set out anywhere from 10 to 30 centimetres and closed in. Customers include Ford, General Motors, Bombardier, the American military, NASA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

John Hollick, the founder of Conserval Engineering Inc., which developed the Solarwall, points to another use: agriculture. “A few dozen companies are using it to dry coffee, tea, spices, rice and fruit,” says Hollick. “In the past, they’ve used oil or wood to produce the heat, so the environmental gain in terms of reduced emissions could become significant.”

Slowly, builders and architects are discovering that there is something new under the sun. “Integrated” solar describes a wide range of building materials that produce heat or electricity – or both. Contractors can now buy solar roof shingles and tiles, as well as glass etched imperceptibly with photovoltaic collectors.

The Canadian Coast Guard deploys about 5,000 solar-powered units, from navigational buoys to lighthouses. And yachts and recreational vehicles increasingly rely on energy from the sun. Other sun-powered items run the gamut from lanterns, radios, water pumps and street lights to telecom- munications towers, railway switching devices, oil-pipeline flow meters and even parking meters.

On the Trans-Canada Highway and other major roadways across the country, the blinking-dot signs warning of lane closures are solar-powered. Their light-emitting diodes boast a life of 100,000 hours and an energy draw one-tenth that of traditional bulbs.

In Kingston, Gobeil might even get a contract to power a brewery-store sign because the only other option is to rip up the parking lot for underground lines. Solar power, it might seem, will have truly arrived in this country when it illuminates beer signs.

This should be the golden age of alternative energy: a solar panel on every roof, tall turbines on every wind-tossed hill and coastline. The truth is that since people off the grid tend to live in remote areas, solar and wind power have both suffered from the same problem: out of sight, out of mind.

“Become a solar pioneer,” a headline in a Greenpeace advertorial urged in October 1998. “The technology that powers space missions,” it read, “can now be affordably installed on your home rooftop.” Affordably? Readers were invited to sign on, and about 50 did. But their $3,000 got them a small 200-watt solar array that provided a mere 5 to 10 percent of their electricity needs. Last December, Cim Nunn, then Greenpeace’s ommunications director in Toronto, said the solar-pioneer program had been suspended: “It was an idea that only a few can afford to indulge in. Maybe it will take an odious thing like marketing.”

Tom Adams of Energy Probe understands why Greenpeace’s solar-pioneer program failed: too few Canadians think like Tom Touzel. “There is limited idealism in the world,” says Adams. When it comes to hydro bills, Canadians ask basic questions: What will a few solar panels cost? How much will I save on my bill? What’s my payback time? Those who sell solar equipment say the hard answers – “a lot,” “not much” and “decades” – disappoint otherwise eager customers. Kim MacMullin and her husband George Wright have sold and installed wind and solar systems in the Ottawa Valley for 10 years but are now considering folding their business, Metcalfe Wind Electric.

MacMullin is disillusioned. “There used to be 10 dealers in the Ottawa area,” she says. “There’s not one left. There’s no money in it whatsoever. Most dealers are doing it part-time. I used to put in 60-hour weeks, my husband 30 to 80 hours. The one Canadian manufacturer of solar panels, CanRon, has moved to the U.S., where there’s more demand.” The litany of despair continues until, at one point, she stops, laughs, and asks, “Am I bitter enough for you?”

MacMullin’s family has been living off the grid for almost a decade and got into the renewables business out of idealism. By using high-efficiency appliances and radiant floor heating linked to a wood stove, their energy needs are modest. Though MacMullin keeps her hand in (and is now writing a solar guide), she shakes her head over people who would rather pay $20,000 to run power lines to their cottage than $15,000 for renewables and wave goodbye to hydro bills.

The best year for Metcalfe Wind Electric was 1999, because of the Y2K scare. Ten families fearing meltdown in-stalled alternative-energy systems worth about $12,000 each. “We’ve kept in touch, MacMullin reports. “These are conservative people, not rabid environmentalists or survivalists. And they love it. They’re off the grid for life.” It’s hard to describe, she says, the delight that comes with independence.

In the early days of the space program, the Americans used photovoltaic cells to power their satellites, at the dizzying cost of $3,000 a watt. Today, the cost is $10 a watt and edging toward $5. “If they could crack a dollar a watt, that would be something,” says Bill Kemp, an electronics wizard near Ottawa who designs power stations in the developing world and lives off the grid.

Until costs come down or the cost of traditional energy sources rises sufficiently, wind and solar will remain minor players, says Adams. Different subsidies could change that. In Canada, the argument goes, the government flings billions of dollars at oil (the tar sands and Hibernia projects), then tosses coins to sun and wind power. Why not offer incentives to homeowners, as many European governments do?

“Solar is practically free in Germany,” says Brian Wilkinson, president of a Montreal solar company called Matrix Energy. Why not make coal-burning hydro producers pay for fouling the air, as tobacco companies now pay for fouling lungs? If governments made dirty power costly, clean power would start to look good. Sounding like forensic accountants, renewable-energy proponents also argue that the true cost of oil should include the billions spent to keep American aircraft carriers plying Middle Eastern waters to safeguard the supply.

Even with financial incentives, though, using renewable energy is not easy. Living off the grid requires foresight, capital, technical savvy and energy mindfulness – along with solar panels, large battery banks to store the energy, an inverter, a generator and possibly a wind turbine as backup. With solar, you must also factor in climate: parts of Saskatchewan get more sun than, say, Newfoundland. Still, off-grid people seem keen on their systems.

Doing what Tom Touzel – linking sun power and the grid – is a middle option far easier than shunning the grid entirely. Touzel’s idea of winter maintenance is taking a broom out in the morning and brushing snow off the panels. His one adjustment to optimize solar gain is to change the angle of the array three times a year: in April, August and November. His system is remarkably simple and effortless. Still, putting up solar panels feels like a bold environmental gesture.

“Our backs are not quite against the wall yet,” says Per Drewes, the research engineer who left Ontario Hydro [now Ontario Power Generation] last summer to start up his own business, SolSource Engineering. On the roof of Hydro’s old corporate headquarters in Toronto, he’s installing a small solar array – a sign of progress, to be sure, but one that gives him only small satisfaction. “It’s too bad,” he says, “that people are not more interested.”

One beleaguered solar dealer, who works full-time at a beer store to make ends meet, wonders whether renewable energy will one day take off in the way that bottled water did, from fad to billion-dollar industry. Alex Waters knows better. He has worked since 1984 as a public education coordinator at the Kortright Centre north of Toronto. Although solar power has grown 24 percent a year over the past decade, Waters sees no radical shift ahead. “People ask, ‘When is there going to be a breakthrough?’ It won’t be like that,” he says. “It will be slow and steady. People will put up solar panels the way they now put insulation in their attics.”

The Calgary electrical utility, Enmax, runs a television ad showing a Canadian Olympic sprinter setting up under a wind turbine before dashing across the prairie, and everywhere in his wake, the lights come on. It is an arresting image that can also be taken literally: going the way of renewable energy involves some legwork.

Touzel must know the feeling as he bikes alone alongside the frozen Napanee River, legs pumping in the afternoon dark, heading for home and the light in his cabin.

Lawrence Scanlan is a writer based in Kingston, Ont.

To comment on this article, e-mail scanlan@canadiangeographic.ca.
For related information, visit http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/resources.

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Collapse of telecom suppliers troubling

Mark McNeil
Hamilton Spectator
August 18, 2001

  One senses a new harshness in the deregulated world after a Hamilton Spectator story this week about a lawyer representing Union Energy firing off a letter to a customer abruptly demanding $1.53.

The letter said: “My instructions are to file a lien against your home … garnish (sic) your wages … seize your banks accounts.” And it turns out the the owed money was a mistake. It had already been paid.

 

Deregulation is supposed to bring lower prices, efficiencies and more innovative products to the marketplace. But it can sometimes leave consumers without essential services and suffering unforeseen costs. That’s what happened this month when about 40,000 customers learned their upstart communications supplier had gone into receivership.

The collapse of Axxent Corp. and Norigen Communications Inc. forced thousands of business customers to search for alternative telecommunications suppliers, who in turn were overwhelmed by the demand.

As it stands now many of the displaced clients – mostly in the Toronto area, although Norigen had a small operation in Hamilton – will be unable to re-establish telephone and other communications services by the time they are cut off next week. And this could be devastating for many of the businesses.

“I was never, frankly, happy with the (Bell) monopoly situation before,” said Jack Chute of John Chute and Associates, one of the Toronto companies affected by the failure of Norigen. “But you certainly become aware of the problems that deregulation can bring to the forefront. We have certainly seen a few of them here.

“When you deregulate an industry, there has to be some sort of oversight to make sure the players … are watched from an ability-to-deliver-the-services perspective … you can’t just turn the sharks loose at the beach.”

But one wonders whether the Axxent-Norigen experience should be viewed as yet another major setback in the deregulation movement in Canada.

Over the past several years, Canadians have experienced deregulation in the airline, natural gas, telecommunications and hydro industries.

And not everyone is happy about the results.

“I would expect that most people who are informed would be highly skeptical and suspicious about deregulation given the experience over the past decade in Canada,” said Philippa Lawson, counsel with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The nonprofit group provides legal representation and research on issues that involve utilities, government programs and services.

“I think we are seeing what many of us have known all along – it is not that simple. You can’t simply deregulate a monopoly industry that supplies an essential service that everyone gets and expect to have competition and expect consumers to be well-served.

“Effective regulation is better than ineffective competition. The problem is there has been too much ideology and far too much enthusiasm around the whole deregulatory agenda, almost a religious zeal.”

But proponents of deregulation and increased competition argue it is necessary in a global marketplace. David Colville, the interim chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, says that competition for long-distance telephone service in Canada has led to cheaper rates in this country compared with the U.S.

He says some Canadian cities are starting to see competition for residential local telephone service leading to less expensive charges for consumers. In some areas cable companies are offering telephone service.

A CRTC steering committee, he said, is studying ways to protect customers in future failures.

“(With the Axxent-Norigen failures) we didn’t have a set of guidelines and rules that would handle a quick and smooth transition of the customers from a failed company to other existing stronger companies,” he said.

“When you open any new market to competition, you are bound to have many new players come into market. The market will stabilize. Some will succeed and some won’t.”

Asked whether he sees parallels between the telecommunications deregulation and the experience with deregulation by Canada’s airlines, he said: “We certainly don’t want to see that happen in the telecommunications business and I am confident that it won’t. I think strong major players will emerge and some strong niche players as well.”

The airline industry in Canada was deregulated in 1988 and it led to the cut-throat competition through the ’90s. It drove down air ticket prices for a time but eventually led to Air Canada swallowing its main competitor, Canadian Airlines, and higher prices. WestJet and some other smaller carriers have since arrived on the scene, and are taking a run at the Air Canada dominance.

Others are worried about how deregulation in hydro will play out, whether the province will end up with California-style power disruptions. The provincial restructuring effort has been evolving in stages and competition will be introduced in the sector next May.

In the new system, businesses and consumers will be free to buy electricity from any of a number of suppliers, at unregulated prices. Previously the only choice, generally, was municipal utilities.

Is there a possibility that a Norigen-style failure in the hydro sector could leave people, or businesses, without electricity?

Experts say no.

Art Leitch, president and CEO of Hamilton Utilities Corp., says “the way it is being set up is that Hamilton Hydro will always be what is called the default supplier so that no matter what happens customers can be assured that there is always going to be someone supplying them with power.”

In other words, if the direct marketing company you bought hydro from went bankrupt, Hamilton Hydro would be obligated to take you back as a customer. And there wouldn’t be the administrative complications that happened with Norigen.

Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, says : “I am concerned about many problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring, but I don’t believe that marketer failure is one of those problems.

“If there is a danger to our security of supply, it is because of our high reliance on the nuclear plants that historically have been very unreliable.”

Asked to summarize Energy Probe’s view of deregulation and restructuring in the hydro industry, he said: “The old electricity system we had was fundamentally screwed up and we absolutely have to come up with a better system. Initially, we had a lot of confidence in the new electricity market but now we have become quite alarmed about where several of the key issues have drifted. We think that consumers are now headed for some major financial impacts both from the point of view of taxpayers, ordinary electricity consumers, but also from an environmental perspective.”

Asked about increased costs, Leitch said: “I’m hard pressed to see how it would be any different than the former situation where utility commissions used to run the hydro utility on behalf of the municipalities. I don’t see any more risk or exposure to the taxpayers.”

Adams believes competition in the natural gas industry has been good for the consumer.

“Natural gas was a huge win for consumers. It gave customers a lot of options in terms of how to purchase gas and people in Ontario saved money in the continent-wide gas shortage last winter,” he said.

Ontario’s gas consumers suffered the least of any consumers in North America, he said, because the province has more clients hooked up to long-term fixed price contracts.

But one senses a new harshness in the deregulated world after a Hamilton Spectator story this week about a lawyer representing Union Energy firing off a letter to a customer abruptly demanding $1.53.

The letter said: “My instructions are to file a lien against your home … garnish (sic) your wages … seize your banks accounts.” And it turns out the the owed money was a mistake. It had already been paid.

 

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

Licences renewed for nuclear stations

Martin Mittelstaedt
Globe and Mail
April 3, 2001

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has renewed the operating licences for the Pickering A and B Nuclear Generating stations for a term expiring on June 30, 2003.

In approving the renewal, the commission dismissed environmentalists’ concerns over Pickering A, the country’s oldest nuclear station. The station has been closed for four years.

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

CNSC announces decisions on Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering facilities

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
News Release
March 30, 2001

Following hearings on January 18 and March 8, 2001, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) today announced the following decisions:

WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
The Commission approved the renewal of the operating licence for Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Radioactive Waste Management Facility for a term of 2 years, ending March 31, 2003.

POWER REACTORS
The Commission approved the renewal of the operating licence for Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A for a term of 27 months, ending June 30, 2003.

The Commission approved the renewal of the operating licence for Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station B for a term of 27 months, ending June 30, 2003.

During the public hearings, the Commission considered written material and presentations from Ontario Power Generation, CNSC staff, and intervenors. It concluded that Ontario Power Generation is qualified to operate these facilities and will make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons, and the maintenance of national security and measures required to implement Canada’s international obligations.

Records of Proceedings, including the Reasons for Decisions, will be available on the CNSC web-site at http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca or by contacting the CNSC.

The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

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

Grass Biofuel Pellets: Assessing the potential to respond to North America’s energy concerns

R.Samson, R. Jannascha and T. Adams

March 23, 2001

Introduction
Unprecedented opportunities for biofuel development are occurring as a result of a combination of factors including: rising oil, natural gas and electricity costs, energy security concerns in the US, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 1.1 billion acres of farmland in North America could help mitigate these concerns if currently viable biofuel production systems were expanded.

In most agricultural regions, warm season grasses such as switchgrass can be successfully grown at a cost of USD $2-$3/GJ. Much of this farmland can collect 100-250 GJ of energy per hectare with existing production technology and plant materials. Efforts have been made to produce power and liquid fuels from this material, but the development strategies demonstrated so far appear to be sustainable only with subsidies. Converting this feedstock into a viable energy option suitable for widespread application requires an energetically efficient, economical, and convenient energy transformation pathway to meet consumer energy needs.

Finding Energy Farming’s Comparative Advantage
The recent development of a “close coupled” gasifier pellet stove capable of burning moderately high ash pelleted agricultural fuels provides a completely new fuel cycle for energy farming development [1]. When burned in the gasifier stove, pelleted switchgrass provides fuel conversion efficiencies and particulate emissions in the same range as modern oil furnaces. Each GJ of grass pellet energy delivered to consumers thus directly substitutes for one GJ of delivered oil and can be utilized on a large scale without significant air pollution. The pelletized grass biofuel systems builds on, and is likely to overtake, the existing wood pellet heating industry, which is rapidly developing without any significant level of government intervention.

Pelletized grass biofuel is poised to become a major fuel source because this fuel pathway is capable of meeting some heating requirements at less cost than all available alternatives. The cost-effectiveness of pelletized grass as a fuel results from:

    * efficient use of low cost marginal farmland for solar energy collection
    * minimal fossil fuel input use in field production and energy conversion
    * minimal biomass quality upgrading which limits energy loss from the feedstock
    * efficient combustion in advanced yet modestly priced and simple to use devices
    * replacement of expensive high-grade energy forms in space and water heating

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will raise societal energy costs, pelletized biofuels can provide consumers with lower and more stable heating costs while dramatically cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Given that agricultural commodity prices are declining in real dollars, pellet fuels are likely to become cheaper over time. By contrast, wood-based pellets have been rising in cost due to ongoing improvement in industrial wood utilization which is reducing the waste fraction of delivered roundwood. Furthermore, the development of a grass pellet biofuel industry has great potential to revitalize the rural economy of North America by absorbing the surplus production capacity of the agricultural sector and cutting on-farm fuel costs in heating intensive sectors like green houses.

The Potential for Energy Farming with Grasses
Of the farmland in North America (932 million acres in the US and 168 million acres in Canada), we estimate that 150 million acres could be dedicated to energy farming without appreciably affecting North America’s food production capacity. Assuming biomass energy crop yields are 50% higher than the current harvested hay yields, harvested perennial grass yields of 5.9 and 8.1 tonnes/ha in Canada and the US respectively can be expected.

By energy farming 130 million acres in the US and 23.4 million acres in Canada, a total production capacity of 424 and 55 million tonnes could be achieved in the two respective countries. Assuming grass fuel pellets contain 18.5 GJ of energy/tonne, 8.9 billion GJ (an energy equivalent of 1.5 billion barrels of oil) could be produced each year from energy crop production on 14% of North American farmland. With U.S. crude oil imports of approximately 3.4 billion barrels per year, the U.S. could displace the equivalent of 39% of its oil imports by growing biofuels on 14% of its farmland.

The Economics of Pelleted Biofuels
The most promising regions to develop a grass pellet fuel industry are those where hay production costs are low (generally indicated by low land rent) and heating costs are high due to a long winter heating period and high fossil fuel costs. Based on hay prices, land costs and switchgrass performance data in North America, and the relative winter heat costs of the various regions of North America, the best regions are the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

An ideal location for a biofuel pellet industry is the province of Manitoba. This largely agricultural region has amongst the lowest hay prices in North America and no indigenous fossil energy reserves. The spread between delivered heat costs of conventional energy sources and hay costs is rapidly growing. In real dollars, long-term hay prices remain flat at USD$2/GJ (USD35$/tonne) while delivered heat costs for natural gas, oil and electricity are rising and are now in the USD$10-$13/GJ range.

With current pellet production costs estimated to be $2/GJ (USD$35/tonne) and a conversion efficiency of 80%, delivered heat costs for on-farm and residential grass pellet fuels are projected to be in the USD$5-$7.50/GJ range. There are major opportunities for Manitoba households to switch from electrical heating (used by 32% of households) to biofuel heating systems. Widespread implementation of this energy substitution strategy would enable hydro-rich regions such as Manitoba and Quebec to expand electricity exports into the US market.

Summary
This paper makes the case that the easiest way to move biomass energy ahead in North America in the future is to focus on the development of pelletized grass biofuels as a substitute for high-grade energy forms such as oil, natural gas and electricity in heat related energy applications. North American energy markets could be profoundly transformed by the development of a large scale, pelletized grass biofuel industry. As prices continue to rise for high grade energy forms, low priced farm derived biofuel pellets will increasingly become the heating fuel of choice for many North American energy consumers.

References
[1]Samson R, Drisdelle M, Mulkins L, Lapointe C, Duxbury P. The use of Switchgrass Biofuel Pellets as a Greenhouse Gas Offset Strategy. Bioenergy 2000 Conference, Buffalo, New York, October 15-19, 2000.

Authors
Roger Samson

R. Jannascha Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada, Box 125, Ste Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada J7V 7P2, www.reap-canada.com , Tel (514) 398-7743 Fax (514) 398-7972;

 

T. Adams Energy Probe, 225 Brunswick Ave. Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2M6, www.energyprobe.org, tel: 416-964-9223 Fax: 416-964-8239

 

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Ontario industry pushing for deregulation date

Energy Analects

March 19, 2001

Electricity deregulation may be haunting words to political officials and consumers, but industry insiders see the process as a necessary fact of life that will soon encompass all of North America and the world – and much of the Ontario energy sector wants to join in on it.

Just as the Toronto Board of Trade recently urged, representatives of the businesses, that will be directly involved in providing electricity under the new deregulated structure in Ontario, told the recent Enerdata Ltd. GasFair Power 2001 conference they want a firm date for market opening – sooner rather than later.

“They have to give us a date,” said Arthur Dickenson, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario (AMPCO).

He indicated continued delays for market opening could discourage the entrance of new players, with new power projects, from making a move into the Ontario market.

Dickenson also said his association would have preferred an earlier market opening, noting the late October/early November start proposed by the Independent Electricity Market Operator (IMO) and Ontario Energy Board (OEB) is too close to the winter heating season and potentially volatile spot prices.

Jake Brooks, executive director of the Independent Power Producers’ Society of Ontario (IPPSO), and Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, also urged setting of a firm date for a market opening.

“If the provincial government fails to proceed with opening Ontario’s electricity market by November 1, 2001, many investors and their jobs will move to Ontario’s economic competitors,” said Elyse Allan, president and chief executive officer of the Toronto Board of Trade.

“Although the Premier (Mike Harris) and Energy (Science and Technology) Minister (Jim Wilson) have both indicated that market opening will proceed, to date we have not been provided the necessary commitment to succeed,” Allan said.

“A firm opening date is essential for businesses to plan. Without a firm date, current pricing and supply arrangements could be jeopardized and new, innovative and environmentally desirable electricity supply will go elsewhere.”

The Toronto Board of Trade noted Ontario has a comfortable 18% generating reserve, greater power supply flexibility and the potential for new generation – assuming an immediate government commitment to a firm Nov. 1, 2001 market opening date.

“To further delay market opening, would be to risk this advantageous supply/demand balance. It would perpetuate a monopoly that has left Ontarians with $20 billion in stranded debt,” Allan said.

“A November 1 first market opening brings greater consumer choice, reliable electricity supply, environmentally desirable options, competitive pricing, jobs and investment,” said Allan.

“That’s much preferred to the current uncertainty consumers, investors and businesses now face as they plan for the future. To provide certainty in the marketplace, the provincial government must proceed with opening Ontario’s electricity market by Nov. 1, 2001,” Allan said.

The Toronto Board of Trade urged the Ontario government to:
– Set Nov. 1 as the open market date;
– Accelerate decontrol of Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s assets;
– Streamline approvals and recognize the value of environmentally desirable projects; and
– Foster a customer-friendly retail market.

The Toronto Board of Trade pointed out the IMO and OEB have indicated they will be ready for an October/November 2001 opening and it supports a world-class made-in-Ontario open market model.

For their part, the IMO and the OEB – organizers of a joint task force set up to prepare the wholesale and retail electricity market – have been receiving the feedback from industry and are anxious to get the process started under the right circumstances.

“Consultation (with industry as part of the task force) has helped us enormously,” said Floyd Laughren, chairman of the OEB.

Although the OEB is anxious to move towards market opening, it faces other problems.

“When we try to speed up the process, we get accused of not providing due process,” Laughren said.

Once the market opening process begins, the IMO, OEB and industry participants all believe the same thing – there’s no turning back.

Bruce Campbell, vice-president of corporate and legal affairs for the IMO, said all operational systems for the electricity market will be ready by the end of May.

However, task force meetings have determined the preference is for the wholesale and retail markets be opened together in the fall, when they anticipate all potential participants will be ready.

But even before the market opens officially, there will be a “coupled operational dry run” in which all industry and market players will have to participate, said Campbell.

He noted this will be a major structural stage for market opening because once the dry run starts “we will not want to go back.”

The dry run will cover about four weeks and “will lead to market opening and then a stability period,” he said.

Political types, anxious to keep potential voters happy, and consumers, grappling with higher power costs in areas that have already moved ahead with an open market, may feel deregulation is the wrong move, but few in the industry see it that way.

“Deregulation is not something we can go back from,” said David Pope, the president of Dynegy Canada Inc. “It’s apparent there are large benefits to open markets.”

As the newly appointed president for the Canadian division of a major North American energy provider, marketer and distributor, Pope sees the deregulation process as more of an overall trend.

“This is a story of convergence really,” he said, noting the importance natural-gas fired facilities will have on the electricity-generation market.

Despite the existence of some electricity competition, “true open access does not really exist yet,” Pope said, noting power markets will need closely connected wholesale and retail sectors, an easing of environmental restrictions and a mix of contract terms to manage price fluctuations more effectively.

As the Toronto Board of Trade indicated, Ontario Power Generation’s market dominance in Ontario continues to be a serious concern within the industry.

OPG has a government-dictated responsibility to reduce to 35% from 85% its generating capacity in the province within 10 years, but that’s not soon enough for many.

OPG also has a huge debt load, which despite the premier’s recent assertion, has been increasing rather than decreasing, industry representatives noted.

“Ontario’s electricity debt is actually rising,” noted Energy Probe’s Adams. “Electricity debt is not under control, contrary to what Mr. Harris said (at the recent public appearance in Toronto).”

He also said he was worried about full disclosure of OPG activity and what might be contributing to the increasing electricity debt.

Dickenson of AMPCO supported the comments by Adams on the increasing OPG debt and the activities of part of the former Crown corporation. “There’s a lack of transparency about what’s going on,” he said.

Ontario’s political officials continue to emphasize they have a clear understanding of what they want to do in opening the province’s electricity market.

“Ontario is fully committed to opening its electricity market to competition,” Energy Minister Wilson recently told the annual meeting of the Municipal Electrical Association in Ontario.

“The circumstances have to be right for Ontario before the starting pistol sounds,” he said.

Wilson said there are four principles that guide the government’s vision for opening the electricity market and they include: protecting consumers and offering more choice; creating a strong business climate, with a reliable supply of electricity; protecting the environment; and encouraging new ways of doing business and supporting the search for alternative sources of power.

“Protecting consumers is first and foremost,” Wilson said.

“A competitive market will, over the long term, offer the lowest possible costs and lead to better service and value for consumers. That means giving consumers the power to choose their own electricity supplier, with the information they need to make intelligent decisions. It also means protecting them from sharp price increases or interruptions in their power,” he said.

Wilson also said a key condition of the province’s strategy is OPG’s decontrol strategy.

“It’s very key, because we have to make room for new entrants in generation,” he said.

The second principle complements the first, Wilson said, noting the government wants to create a strong business climate for investors and consumers, one that ensures a reliable supply of safe, affordable electricity.

“We won’t open a market, like California and Alberta did, where generation capacity was fully stretched to meet existing demand, let alone provide for future growth,” he said. “Clearly, Ontario’s overall supply/demand fundamentals put us in a much more favourable position than either California or Alberta.”

Wilson would not commit to a market opening date, noting only that “we won’t move forward until the government is satisfied we can bring in a market that consumers will benefit from.”

Wilson said Ontario has been learning from those than have already opened markets to competition.

“We’ve been closely monitoring all jurisdictions which have introduced electricity deregulation, from the success stories to those struggling under tight supply/demand balances,” he said.

And although, California and Alberta have been getting the headlines, Wilson said “that’s unfortunate, because competitive electricity markets have been successful more often than not and yet we don’t seem to hear about the success stories.”

The energy minister indicated Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom and the State of Victoria in Australia are places where consumers have benefited from competition.

Wilson likened Ontario’s situation to that of Pennsylvania, which introduced competition with adequate supply and a low reliance on gas as a fuel source.

However, there was some concern expressed at the Enerdata conference about the lack of documented evidence on the IMO’s study of the supply potential for Ontario.

Energy Probe’s Adams and AMPCO’s Dickenson said they were disturbed by the lack of documented data on supply sources, which could enable independent varification of the IMO study’s assertions.

Pointing out Ontario residents benefited from a seven-year price freeze, which has kept prices artificially low, Energy Minister Wilson said new requirements for protecting the environment have added additional costs to the mix, totalling almost $2 billion over the last decade.

“Additionally, energy prices – including electricity prices – are under upward pressure globally and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future,” Wilson said.

“Ontario cannot isolate itself from these broader global trends,” he said.

“Even Alberta, Canada’s energy producing province, is experiencing these same price pressures. The key for Ontario is to make sure that supply remains safe and reliable, prices remain competitive and consumers get the best deal possible. A competitive market, once we have worked off the excesses of the past, will produce this result,” Wilson said.

All the speakers in one session of the conference referred to the California power crisis and how energy convergence is having an influence on prices.

Perhaps Brian Frank, president of BP Gas & Power Canada, did the best in summing up the situation for California and Alberta pricing woes.

“Electricity is the dog and gas is the tail,” he said, pointing out higher spot gas prices combined with a lack of generating capacity to push up the costs of other commodities.

 

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

King Coal is back on throne for electricity generators

Scott Haggett
Calgary Herald
March 10, 2001

Alberta-based companies such as Enmax Corp., TransAlta Corp., and Epcor have announced plans for new coal-fired plants with enough power to light more than a million homes.

Other companies that once relied on natural gas for industrial uses, such as lumber kilns or generating steam, are returning to coal as well.

With natural gas hitting record highs this winter and promising to stay expensive for the next few years, utilities are turning back in increasing number to coal as a reasonably priced alternative to gas-fired plants.

“It’s the beginning of a new era,” says Alan Johnson, president of the Coal Association of Canada, an coal-industry lobby group.

“If we have to go to the Arctic to get natural gas, then there’s a whole range of opportunities for coal.”

As almost everyone who heats their home with gas knows, the fuel has become expensive this year. Gas prices are double where they were a year ago and new gas supplies are getting increasingly tough to find.

By some forecasts, gas demand in North America is growing by as much as three per cent a year, while gas reserves are falling and new supplies, such as those from Alaska and Canada’s Arctic, are years away from coming to the market, if at all – meaning gas prices are expected to remain high for some time to come.

Those high prices are providing a window of opportunity for coal.

Because a coal-fired plant requires expensive technology to clean its emissions, it can’t compete with cheap, clean-burning natural gas as a fuel for generators. However, with natural gas getting pricey, coal is again starting to appear as the inexpensive option for the electricity industry.

“When gas was $1 or $2 (per thousand cubic feet) it was difficult for coal,” Johnson says. “But anytime gas is more than $3 then coal power is going to be cheaper.”

Gas is currently trading in the range of US$5 per million British Thermal Units.

And nowhere in North America should coal be cheaper than in Alberta. The province is Canada’s biggest coal producer, as well as the biggest consumer.

In 1999, the latest available figures, Alberta produced 34.2 million tonnes of coal, nearly half of all Canadian production, from 10 mines in the province. However, that barely taps Alberta’s coal reserves. At current rates of consumption, the province has enough coal in the ground to last 800 years.

The province’s coal consumption also leads the nation. Coal use in Alberta, mostly for existing coal-fired generating plants, accounts for 43 per cent of the national total.

Most of the province’s coal is already used for power generation, but its share of the market is shrinking. In 1997, coal generated 66.4 per cent of the province’s electricity while natural gas was used for 10.6 per cent.

By the end of last year, coal produced just 56.1 per cent of the province’s power while gas accounted for 24.4 per cent. That slipping share of the market is about to change.

Coal-fired power plants are making a comeback. In Northern Alberta, TransAlta is expanding its Keephills coal-fired plant, a $1.8-billion project that will add 900 megawatts of new power. Epcor, which supplies power to Edmonton, is boosting its existing Genesee power plant, southwest of the city, with a $500-million unit that will add 400 megawatts of power.

Enmax, which supplies electricity to Calgary, is in the early stages of planning a 400-megawatt generating plant in southern Alberta. The city-owned utility and partner Fording Coal Ltd. see the coal reserves around Brooks as a way to quench Calgary’s growing thirst for electricity.

“Coal is a low-cost fuel and Alberta needs power,” says Enmax spokesman Tony McCallum.

“With huge reserves in the province, it’s an attractive alternative and it’s fair to say that the technology has come a long way towards making coal plants more efficient and environmentally friendly.”

Indeed, much of the new investment is coming not just because coal is inexpensive, but because new technology has made it much more environmentally benign than it was in the past.

Coal producers such as David Slater, chief executive of Hillsborough Resources Ltd., a Vancouver-based coal-mining company, believes many people associate coal with Dickensian London, when coal soot blanketed the city.

“Everyone thinks of coal as a dirty fuel,” said Slater. “It’s not. I think it’s just some kind of memories of Victorian London, when everyone heated their home with coal.”

New technologies like supercritical boilers, high-efficiency turbines, flue scrubbers and others have come a long-way towards levelling the environmental playing field for coal.

“Existing technologies go a long way to mitigating acid gas emission and sulfur dioxide,” says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based think-tank. “While there are still some nitrogen oxide emissions, there really isn’t a big smog problem in that part of the world.”

The last coal-fired plant built in Canada was the SaskPower’s Shand facility, outside Estevan, Sask.

The nine-year-old 300-megawatt plant was near state-of-the-art when it was built, however, even it has become outmoded.

“By the standards of the day, this plant was clean,” said Rick Patrick, SaskPower’s vice-president of power production.

“But it was designed in the 1980s and you would not be allowed to build one like it today.”

With coal the new fashion, coal prices are again on the rise. U.S. spot prices for coal have nearly doubled in recent months and coal producers worldwide have been able to make price increases stick after years of having little in the way of bargaining power with customers happy to use gas instead.

And while their new leverage is appreciated, not everyone is yet convinced that there’s a boom underway.

“I’m not spending my children’s inheritance just yet,” Slater says. “I believe higher prices are going to be sustained but I’m not betting the house on it.”

 

Posted in Alberta Power Industry | Leave a comment

Warning on gas pain fix

Dick Chapman
Toronto Sun
March 2, 2001

Want a hedge against rising natural gas prices? Don’t sign that fixed-price contract, says the non-profit research group Energy Probe.

Energy Probe spokesman Tom Adams said yesterday consumers should be wary of long-term contracts like one offered by the newest natural gas player, Toronto Hydro Energy Services.

It’s like trying to decide if a five- or three-year mortgage on your house is wiser than a one-year deal, he said. Energy suppliers like to have some insurance when they lock in long-term buying gas supplies.

Hydro’s current 26.5 cents-per-cubic metre offer – open until March 12 – may look good compared to yesterday’s new spot market price of 32.2 cents, which is a 6 cents hike.

Adams cautioned Hydro and competitors Enbridge, Sunoco and Direct Energy Marketing likely are betting that natural gas prices will drop.

A supplier’s portion of monthly gas bills only concerns the “commodity” price, amounting to two-thirds its total. The other third is costs for transporting the gas through pipelines and other charges. Those are regulated by government agencies.

Adams figures natural gas will fall back to 25-30 cents per cubic metre by spring. Prices peaked in December and then fell “significantly,” he noted.

To buffer gas price hikes, says Adams, consumers might consider buying energy stocks. If gas goes up, they could make money on rising stocks.

 

Posted in Natural Gas Utility Regulation and Commodity Deregulation | Leave a comment

Supply and demand drives gas prices

Link (Enbridge employees’ magazine)
February 16, 2001

“What impact is the rising price of natural gas having on the energy industry and on consumers? To get an outside perspective, Link recently talked to two industry experts, John Kinsey, portfolio manager and an oil and gas analyst, Caldwell Securities Ltd. and Tom Adams, executive director, Energy Probe.”

“Something we have to remember is that natural gas prices have historically been cyclical,” says Tom. “The current commodity price for gas reflects an imbalance in supply and demand. We expect that in a year or so the balance will be restored, and we’ll see more normal prices.”

“Not necessarily,” says John. He notes that the U.S. natural gas industry is relatively mature, and in a natural decline from a supply standpoint. Canadian gas has helped to keep the supply constant, but now companies have to move their exploration farther and farther north to find new sources. While John says things look promising, in the Northwest Territories, for instance, “It will still be three to five years before the gas is flowing south.” In the meantime? “I think natural gas prices will remain relatively high,” John says.

For energy pipeline and distribution entities, Tom says the current gas price experience and the experience now playing itself out in California’s electricity sector offers a critical lesson protect yourself from exposure to risk.

“The primary mechanism for doing that is to ensure that commodity prices are a flow through exposure only,” says Tom.

An upside of high gas prices, he says, is a heightened consumer awareness of the value of energy conservation. “We’ve had a long period of relatively low gas prices. This price shock has reminded people of the need to tighten up,” says Tom. “We’re seeing a conservation impulse across all sectors, including a renewed interest in home conservation upgrades. High gas prices are good for conservation but there is a down side. Many heavy energy users from cement plants to greenhouses are looking at conversion to less environmentally attractive fuels like coal. The dramatic effect of dual fuel users switching from gas to oil can be seen in the current premium for distillate over gasoline.”

Tom notes that energy conservation is a tough sell in a robust economy “People care more about what kind of Jacuzzi they’ll install than about what kind of attic insulation.” But he says utilities, like Enbridge Consumers Gas, are wise to keep passing on the conservation message.

“Giving customers more knowledge about conservation opportunities pays off. I’m sure lots of people are staring at their gas bill now and wondering what to do. But if they’ve received information on energy conservation, whether through bill stuffers or the company’s website, they are more likely to see the company as believable and more trustworthy.”

“Another message that entities like Enbridge should be getting out,” says John, “is that rising prices are not the company’s fault. In your business, you’re just a conduit from the well to the ultimate destination. Or to put it another way,” he says, “as you gaze upon an eye-opening bill, don’t shoot the messenger.”

 

Posted in Natural Gas Utility Regulation and Commodity Deregulation | Leave a comment

Record of Proceedings, including Reasons for Decisions

CNSC
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
February 16, 2001

In the Matter of Environmental Assessment under the Canadian  Environmental Assessment Act of the Proposed return to service of the Pickering ‘A’ Nuclear Generating Station.

Proponent Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Date February 16, 2001

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Proponent: Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Address/Location: 700 University Avenue, H15, G1

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6

Purpose: Pickering ‘A’ Nuclear Generating Station Environmental Assessment

Application received: November 24, 1999

Date(s) of hearing: Day 1: October 5, 2000 Day 2 and 3: December 14 and 15, 2000

Day 1:

Date: October 5, 2000

Location: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Public Hearing Room,

280 Slater St., 14th. Fl, Ottawa, Ontario

Members present: A.J. Bishop, Chair

C.R. Barnes

Y.M. Giroux

A.R. Graham

Counsel: A. Nowack

Secretary: G.C. Jack

Recording Secretary: B. Gerestein

Applicant Represented By Document Number

C G. Preston* CMD 00-H29.1

CNSC Staff Document Number

C J. Waddington

C C. Taylor

CMD 00-H29

Intervenor Document Number

C Nuclear Awareness Project, represented by I. Kock*

C Energy Probe Research Foundation*

C A.A. Mohajer*

CMD 00-H29.2

CMD 00-H29.3

CMD 00-H29.4

* Submissions adjourned to December 14, 2000 for consideration.

3

Day 2 and 3:

Dates: December 14 and 15, 2000

Location: Pickering City Council Chambers, One The Esplanade, Pickering,

Ontario

Members present: A.J. Bishop, Chair

C.R. Barnes

Y.M. Giroux

A.R. Graham

L.J. Keen

Counsel: A. Nowack

Secretary: G.C. Jack

Recording Secretary: B. Gerestein

Applicant Represented By Document Number

C See Appendix A

CNSC Staff Document Number

C See Appendix B

Intervenors Document Number

C See Appendix C

4

1) Introduction:

The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and

the environment and to respect Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear

energy.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has requested approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety

Commission (CNSC) to return to service the four reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generation

Station ‘A’ (PNGS-A) east of Toronto. The reactors were placed in a shutdown state in late

1997. A condition of the licence requires CNSC approval to operate the reactors at power.

Prior to making a licensing decision on the proposed return to service of PNGS-A, the

Commission is required to make a decision on the results of a screening environmental

assessment of that project prepared pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act(CEAA). The “project” referred to in this document is defined in section 3.1 of Volume 1 of the

Screening Report and includes the activities directly related to the return to service of PNGS-A.

Key purposes of the CEAA are to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive

careful consideration before responsible authorities, such as the CNSC, take actions in connection

with them, and to ensure there is opportunity for public participation in the environmental

assessment process.

2) Decisions:

The Commission, in making its decisions, considered the information contained in the

environmental assessment Screening Report, in related submissions from CNSC staff, OPG and

intervenors at a public hearing held by the Commission, and in comments received from the

public throughout the assessment process. Based on its consideration of the matter, as described

in the sections below :

The Commission decides that the project, taking into account the mitigation measures described

in the Screening Report, is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

The Commission decides that public concerns do not warrant a referral to the Minister of the

Environment for referral of the project to a mediator or review panel.

Therefore, the Commission concludes that it will not refer the project to the Minister for a

referral to a mediator or a review panel.

3) The Environmental Assessment Process

The environmental assessment process undertaken by the CNSC consisted of the following steps,

consistent with CEAA requirements:

5

C CNSC staff established and maintained a Public Registry for the assessment, in

accordance with the CEAA.

– The Public Registry provides public access to all documents related to the assessment.

C CNSC staff notified the other expert federal and provincial government authorities of

the environmental assessment and coordinated their input throughout the assessment.

– CNSC staff sought and coordinated the input of the relevant federal authorities,

including Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, and

Department of Fisheries and Oceans in compliance with the CEAA Federal Coordination Regulations. The input of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment was

also sought and obtained.

C CNSC staff prepared a Scope of Assessment document in consultation with the public

and government departments.

– The CEAA provides the CNSC with the discretion and authority to establish the scope

of the project and assessment. CNSC staff notified the public of, and widely circulated

(including on the CNSC web-site), a draft Scope of Assessment document. CNSC

staff sought public comments during a 30-day review period between November 2,

1999 and December 2, 1999. A final Scope of Assessment was available to the public

on January 31, 2000.

C CNSC staff delegated the conduct of technical studies and some of the public

consultation activities which were specified in the Scope of Assessment to the

proponent (OPG).

– The delegation of parts of an environmental assessment to other parties, including the

proponent of the project, is permitted under subsection 17(1) of the CEAA.

C CNSC staff consulted with the public and government departments on a draft

Environmental Assessment Report prepared by OPG.

– CNSC staff widely circulated the draft Environmental Assessment Report for a

60-day public and government review, beginning on May 1, 2000 and ending on

June 30, 2000. The request for comments was widely communicated and copies of the

report were placed in convenient locations throughout the community. Copies of the

environmental assessment documents, and other related documents maintained in the

Public Registry, were provided to key stakeholders and to others on request. In all, 12

written submissions were received on the draft report, containing 584 specific

comments.

C CNSC staff completed the final environmental assessment Screening Report by adding

a comprehensive addendum to the earlier draft Environmental Assessment Report.

6

– CNSC staff reviewed the technical studies and took into consideration all the

comments received on the draft report. A detailed list of how each comment was

considered was added as an appendix to the Screening Report. CNSC staff then

submitted the final Screening Report with its recommendations to the Commission on

September 5, 2000. At the same time, CNSC staff made the final environmental

assessment Screening Report available to the public. This provided the public with

over two months to review the final report and prepare submissions to the Commission

hearing. The final day for receipt of submissions to the hearing was November 14,

2000.

C The Commission conducted a public hearing on the environmental assessment

Screening Report.

– The public hearing was conducted in accordance with hearing procedures under the

Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The hearing began on October 5, 2000 in Ottawa and

continued on December 14, 2000 in the City of Pickering. In order to consider all

submissions, the hearing was extended an extra day, concluding on December 15,

2000. During the public hearing the Commission heard 19 oral presentations and

considered 216 written submissions. The submissions addressed a wide range of topics

and positions, both for and against the project.

The Commission is satisfied that the process described above met the requirements and the intent

of the CEAA, and that there was ample opportunity for public input throughout that process. The

Commission is satisfied that the body of information provided throughout the environmental

assessment process provided an appropriate basis for drawing conclusions with respect to the

likelihood and significance of the environmental effects of the proposed project.

4) Reasons for Decisions

Subsection 20(1) of the CEAA requires that the Commission, after considering the environmental

assessment Screening Report and the related comments from the public, make decisions as to a)

whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into

account implementation of appropriate mitigation measures; and b) whether the public concerns

about the project warrant a referral of the project to a mediator or review panel under the CEAA.

The decisions of the Commission, and the reasons for those decisions, are presented below.

4.1) Environmental Effects of the Project

In considering the environmental effects of the project, the Commission examined the

information contained in the three-volume environmental assessment Screening Report, and the

information obtained during the public hearing. As elaborated further below, the Commission

considers that that body of information provides the Commission with an adequate basis for

making its decisions under the CEAA for this project.

The Commission examined how the project is likely to affect each of the principal components of

the environment as defined in the CEAA and as addressed in the Screening Report. This includes

7

consideration of effects on air, surface water, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, groundwater,

human health and land resources, and changes those effects would have on socio-economic

conditions.

The Commission reviewed how the various components of the environment could be adversely

affected during planned normal operation of the PNGS-A, during malfunctions and accidents that

may occur in relation to those operations, and from future decommissioning activities. The

effects considered by the Commission are those that may be caused by radiation, and other

physical and chemical agents and processes.

The Commission examined how the environment itself may impact on the project, such as from

severe weather events and seismic activities. The Commission also considered how the effects of

the project may combine with the effects of other projects and activities in the area to create

cumulative effects on the surrounding environment and resulting changes to socio-economic

conditions.

In all instances, the Commission considered how, and to what extent, the existing physical and

operational characteristics of the facility, the planned improvements to the plant, and the

additional specific measures identified during the environmental assessment, would mitigate the

likely environmental effects of the proposed operations. The Commission also considered the

adequacy of the criteria applied in evaluating the significance of the residual effects.

During the course of the public hearing, the Commission sought a deeper understanding of

specific technical issues through direct discussion and questioning with hearing participants. The

principal issues explored include airborne releases of tritium, tritium in groundwater,

environmental monitoring of tritium, potential effects of earthquakes and component aging on

plant safety, emergency response planning, sediment contamination in Lake Ontario, the

adequacy of supporting data, and the assessment of effects on people’s sense of personal security

and community satisfaction.

With respect to releases of tritium to air and groundwater, based on data from operational

experience, the Commission considers that the resulting doses to members of the public, taking

into account the mitigation measures, would be well below regulatory limits and, therefore, that

residual adverse environmental effects would be minor and not significant. The Commission

notes that, if the project proceeds, the monitoring of tritium in air and water would form part of

the environmental monitoring program.

With respect to earthquake effects, the Commission explored this issue at the public hearing with

appropriate representatives of its own staff and the Geological Survey of Canada, among others.

Based on the documentation presented in the Screening Report and the additional information

provided during the hearing that summarized extensive recent research work and its results, the

Commission considers that seismic activity is not likely to cause effects on the project that would

result in significant adverse environmental effects.

The Commission also sought specific information about the general safety of the plant as a result

of aging components, unresolved Generic Action Items relating to CANDU reactors, and the

need for improvements in the plant systems and operations. The Commission notes that, for the

purpose of this environmental assessment, the upgrades and improvements necessary for the

1 Alberta Wilderness Association v. Express Pipelines Ltd. (1996), 137 D.L.R. (4th) 177

(F.C.A.).

8

return to service were assumed to have been completed. The Commission notes that, if the

licensing process proceeds, it would need to include a mechanism to require these upgrades and

improvements to be put in place; otherwise, the conclusions of the environmental assessment

would not be valid for the purposes of a licensing decision.

With respect to emergency response, the Commission heard concerns about whether the current

three kilometre zone set by the Province of Ontario’s emergency response plan would adequately

protect the public. After questioning a representative of Emergency Measures Ontario, the

responsible provincial authority, the Commission is satisfied that these concerns are being

addressed by the responsible provincial authority.

With respect to contamination of sediments in Lake Ontario, the Commission sought clarification

of the relevance of the sampling program results presented in the Screening Report to the effects

of proposed future operations on lake sediments. Despite the limitations in the sediment

sampling data, the Commission concludes, from other evidence presented in the Screening

Report and at the public hearing, that the effects of the project on lake sediments are not likely to

be significant.

The Commission sought clarification during the hearing on the methods used to evaluate the

effects on personal security and community satisfaction. The Commission did not see evidence

of a trend towards widespread concern despite the increased recent publicity concerning the

nuclear station. Taking this and other factors into consideration, including OPG’s commitment

to continued public information and consultation programs, the Commission concludes that the

project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the community.

The Commission explored public concerns about the completeness of some of the data presented.

The Commission recognizes that an environmental assessment, as a planning tool, involves both

information and the exercise of judgement. It is a process in which information may be sufficient

although not complete, as recognized by the Federal Court1. In this case, for certain projectenvironment

interactions, additional specific information of the nature typically received for the

purposes of the regulatory licensing process would assist in developing a more precise prediction

of the environmental effects. However, the Commission considers that the body of information

available in the environmental assessment Screening Report, and as obtained through the hearing

process, provides an appropriate basis for drawing conclusions with respect to the likelihood and

significance of the environmental effects of the proposed project.

If the Commission approves the proposed return to service of PNGS-A, the follow-up program

outlined in the Screening Report would be further detailed and integrated into the CNSC

licensing and compliance process. The follow-up program is designed to evaluate the accuracy

of impact predictions and determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Based on consideration of above information:

The Commission decides that the project, taking into account the mitigation measures

9

described in the Screening Report, is not likely to cause significant adverse

environmental effects.

4.2) Public Concerns

The Commission also considered, under subparagraph 20(1)(c)(iii) of the CEAA whether the

public concerns expressed during the environmental assessment process warranted a reference to

a mediator or review panel appointed by the federal Minister of the Environment.

The other bases on which a responsible authority shall refer a project to the Minister for

mediation or review panel do not apply in this case. If the Commission had concluded that it is

uncertain whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; or if the

Commission had concluded that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental

effects that are justified in the circumstances, the Commission would have been required to refer

the project to the Minister for referral to a mediator or review panel.

The Commission considers that public concerns raised during the environmental assessment,

including the public hearings, do not warrant reference to the Minister for referral to a mediator

or a review panel. Several reasons contribute to this conclusion, with none of the reasons being

so important that it alone dominates. The reasons include the following:

i) Some of the concerns relate to matters that are outside the scope of this project-specific

assessment.

ii) Some of the concerns relate to matters that can be effectively addressed in the follow up

programs under the CNSC’s licensing and compliance processes.

iii) Some of the concerns seemed to lack a supporting factual basis, and therefore, the

Commission does not consider that a review panel would be more effective at allaying these

concerns than the Commission’s hearing process.

iv) The Commission considers that a number of technical concerns were adequately

addressed by the additional analyses carried out in the completion of the environmental

assessment Screening Report, and in the information presented at the public hearing.

v) Some of the concerns related to technical matters on which sufficient scientific and

technical material has been presented to persuade the Commission that the concerns are not

well founded or would not be resolved by further review by a mediator or a panel.

The Commission considered several areas of concern expressed by the public during the course

of the environmental assessment. These are found both in the summaries of information

submitted at steps preceding the public hearing and at the public hearing itself. The principal

concerns expressed and the Commission’s views are summarized below.

A major area of public concern was that the scope of the assessment was too narrow and should

have been expanded to include a consideration of the need for the project and alternatives to it,

such as non-nuclear alternatives to generating electricity. The Commission does not consider that

the matters of need and energy generation alternatives are appropriate for inclusion in this

project-specific environmental assessment. While it is within the discretion of the Commission

to consider such things as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, it is relevant to

also take into account the CNSC mandate and the environmental information presented. It is

possible in an environmental assessment, that severe adverse environmental consequences

2 Sharp v. Canada [1999] 4 F.C. 363 (C.A.)

3 Inverhuron & District Ratepayer’s Association v. Canada (2000), 34 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1

(F.C.T.D.)

10

indicate that the proponent should consider alternatives to the project. The information before

the Commission does not lead in that direction. Consideration of need for and alternatives to the

project should not become an indirect means of the CNSC going into areas such as energy policy

or economic regulation which are not part of its mandate2.

In the context of this project-specific assessment, the Commission concludes that public concerns

about the issues of need and alternatives to the project do not warrant a reference to a mediator or

review panel.

The nuclear accident scenario that was considered in the environmental assessment was a set of

accident sequences leading to severe core damage and subsequent release of radioactive material

to containment, followed by controlled discharge of the containment atmosphere. Some members

of the public expressed the view that the scope of the assessment should be expanded to include

consideration of the effects of a nuclear accident involving severe core damage with

simultaneous loss of containment. The Commission considers that such a hypothetical accident

event does not have a reasonable probability of occurring and therefore is not appropriate for this

environmental assessment. The CEAA does not require the Commission to consider all

conceivable accident events3. The type of event considered was appropriate for the purposes of

the environmental assessment and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the CEAA. The

Commission therefore does not consider that a referral to a mediator or review panel is warranted

to further examine this issue.

The Commission also heard concerns from the public about the following: general safety of the

plant as a result of aging components, unresolved Generic Action Items relating to CANDU

reactors, and the need for improvements in the plant systems and operations; earthquake risk;

public feelings of security and satisfaction; and data gaps in the assessment. As discussed in

section 3.1 above, the Commission considers that these issues were adequately addressed through

the scientific and technical information submitted, the answers given to the detailed questions

asked by the Commission members during the public hearing, and in the technical studies

undertaken as part of the assessment. The Commission therefore does not consider that a referral

to a mediator or review panel is warranted to further examine these issues.

The public also expressed concern over OPG’s public consultation programs undertaken as part

of this environmental assessment and in the composition and conduct of OPG’s Community

Advisory Council. During the environmental assessment process, as directed by CNSC staff,

OPG employed a variety of public consultation tools and methods, including newsletters,

notification letters, stakeholder briefings/interviews, open houses, mail-back postcards,

committee meetings, workshops, mall displays, community centre/library displays and the

Internet. The Commission recognizes the importance of sustained, effective and meaningful

public consultation between major facility operators and the public and also OPG’s commitment

to continue to improve its public involvement program. CNSC will continue to follow-up with

OPG on this issue as part of the CNSC licensing and compliance process. The Commission notes

11

that this is an issue that can be addressed without the need for referral to a mediator or review

panel.

Some members of the public expressed the view that a review panel would be more independent

and objective than the Commission. Members of the Commission are appointed by the Governor

in Council and constitute an independent regulatory body. All members are fully independent

and serve on a fixed-term basis. They are therefore as free from bias as potential members of a

review panel would be. The Commission rejects any suggestion of a lack of impartiality.

Based on consideration of the above:

The Commission decides that public concerns do not warrant a referral to the Minister

of the Environment for referral of the project to a mediator or review panel.

5) Course of Action Under the CEAA

Given the above decisions, the Commission therefore concludes that it will not refer the project

to the Minister for a referral to a mediator or a review panel. The Commission may therefore

proceed with a course of action consistent with paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act; that is, the Commission may now proceed with consideration ofthe licence application under the

Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The above decisions on the

environmental assessment do not permit the reactors to return to power operations. The licence

application will be considered under the CNSC’s normal public hearing process.

___________________________

George C. Jack

Secretary,

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Date of release of Record of Proceedings: February 16, 2001

Appendix A

12

Applicant Represented By Document Number

C B. Strickert, Site Vice-President, Pickering A

C G. Preston, Executive Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Officer

C P. Charlebois, Senior Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Engineer

C K. Johansen, Project Manager for the Environmental Assessment

C J. Tennyson, Special Projects Manager for Public Affairs for the

Environmental Assessment

C M. Williams, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Pickering

C J. Ryan, Manager of Environment, Safety and Health, Pickering

C K. Dinnie, Manager of Probabilistic Risk Assessment

C J. de Wilde

C D. McFarland, Director of Public Affairs Organization

C D. Chambers

C D. Moffett

C M. Alexander, Corporate Engineering Group

C P. O’Brien, Public Affairs Manager

CMD 00-H29.1

CMD 00-H29.1A

CMD 00-H29.1B

CMD 00-H29.1C

13

Appendix B

CNSC Staff Document Number

C J. Waddington, Director General, Directorate of Environmental

and Human Performance Assessment

C J. Harvie, Director General, Directorate of Reactor Regulation

C P. Elder, Power Reaction Evaluation Division

C C. Taylor, Radiation and Environmental Protection Division

C R. Leblanc, Director of the Power Reactor Operation Division

C P. Wigfull, Director of the Safety Evaluation Division Analysis

C P. Thompson, Head, Environmental Protection Section

Radiation & Environmental protection Division

C J. Blyth, Director, Safety Evaluation Division – Engineering

C M. Measures, Director, Radiation and Environmental

Protection Division

CMD 00-H29

CMD 00-H29.A

14

Appendix C

Intervenors Document Number

Nuclear Awareness Project, represented by I. Kock 00-H29.2, 00-H29.5 and 00-H29.5A

Energy Probe Research Foundation, represented by N. Rubin 00-H29.3 and 00-H29.3A

Power Workers’ Union, represented by D. MacKinnon, T.

Pigeau and C. Gill

00-H29.6

C. Hunt 00-H29.7 and 00-H29.7A

Town of Ajax, represented by S. Parish

Acres & Associated Environmental Limited, represented by

B. Bennett

Town of Ajax, represented by J. McMaster, Regional

Councillor and Deputy Mayor, C. Hart

00-H29.8 and 00-H29.8A

S. Farlinger 00-H29.9

City of Pickering, represented by W. Arthurs, Mayor 00-H29.10

J. Dempsey 00-H29.11

E. Marczak 00-H29.12

M. Moles 00-H29.13 and 00-H29.13A

Canadian Nuclear Association, represented by W. Clarke 00-H29.14

Green Party of Canada, represented by C. Pennington 00-H29.15

The Society of Energy Professionnals, represented by J. Blair 00-H29.16

Citizens for Renewable Energy, represented by S. Kleinau 00-H29.17

D. Tomlinson 00-H29.18

Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, represented by K. Ostling 00-H29.19

Waterfront Task Force and Pickering Ajax Citizens for the

Environment, represented by D. Steele

PACT, represented by D. Home, Director

00-H29.20 and 00-H29.20A

Research and Development Advisory Panel to Board of

Directors of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, represented by

D.J Burns and J.T. Rogers

00-H29.234

Great Lakes United, represented by M. Wooster and

M. Maybee

00-H29.197

A.A. Mohajer 00-H29.4

Intervenors Document Number

15

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, represented by

A. Kilpatrick

00-H29.21

R. Lorenzin 00-H29.22

M. Vojin 00-H29.23

K. Russell 00-H29.24

R. M. Ahrens 00-H29.25

D. Kulczynski 00-H29.26

N. Crellin 00-H29.27

J. Bredin 00-H29.28

V. LaHaye 00-H29.29

J.V. and E.B. Marczak 00-H29.30

Z. Gorski 00-H29.31

T. And E. Martin 00-H29.32

J. Chalmers 00-H29.33

S. Zabana 00-H29.34

D. Kulczynska 00-H29.35

M. Inouye 00-H29.36

P. Salter 00-H29.37

R.T. Chiam 00-H29.38

E. Wheeler 00-H29.39

J. Millman 00-H29.40

B. Gamble 00-H29.41

N. Idvorian 00-H29.42

J. Shaw 00-H29.43

M. and G. Firth 00-H29.44

V. Golabek 00-H29.45

P. Mistry 00-H29.46

J. Viscomi 00-H29.47

M. Li 00-H29.48

Intervenors Document Number

16

R. Fitchett 00-H29.49

M. Fishley 00-H29.50

T. Bell 00-H29.51

K. Lake 00-H29.52

C. MacDonald 00-H29.53

H. Break 00-H29.54

H. and R. Hansen 00-H29.55

T. Burgess 00-H29.56

D. Hubble 00-H29.57

D. Link 00-H29.58

W.J. Langer 00-H29.59

N.A. Hicks 00-H29.60

G. Aunger 00-H29.61

P. Leveille 00-H29.62

M. Murray and M. Lundrigan 00-H29.63

R. Ojanpera 00-H29.64

M. and D. Kelly 00-H29.65

A. Holt 00-H29.66

G. Shikaze 00-H29.67

T. Griffith 00-H29.68

L. Robinson 00-H29.69

R. A. Charron 00-H29.70

J. Rajotte 00-H29.71

M.I. Cleland 00-H29.72

R.M. Dimen 00-H29.73

C. Gladwell 00-H29.74

W.B. Stewart 00-H29.75

L.W. Green 00-H29.76

Intervenors Document Number

17

M. Joe 00-H29.77

D. Terry 00-H29.78

G. Wieckowski 00-H29.79

G. Lauzon 00-H29.80

P.A. Walsh 00-H29.81

M. Rudolf 00-H29.82

B. Burnett 00-H29.83

Power Workers’ Union, represented by C. Gill 00-H29.84

D. Capson 00-H29.85

W. Taylor 00-H29.86

A. Khan 00-H29.87

D. Mason 00-H29.88

P. Leduc 00-H29.89

L. Segatti 00-H29.90

J. Payne 00-H29.91

P. Alpajaro 00-H29.92

P. Stevens 00-H29.93

A.R. Lees 00-H29.94

J. S. Schaefer 00-H29.95

W. Luchford 00-H29.96

J. O’Brien 00-H29.97

M. Zawadski 00-H29.98

J.P. van Langen 00-H29.99

B. Plummer 00-H29.100

P.Tomlinson 00-H29.101

J. D.G. Dewar 00-H29.102

C. Smith 00-H29.103

T. Besharat 00-H29.104

Intervenors Document Number

18

S. Ballagh 00-H29.105

F. Lee 00-H29.106

T. Ahmed 00-H29.107

P. Varga 00-H29.108

F.R. Vodden 00-H29.109

E. Varga 00-H29.110

Canadian Nuclear Society, represented by K.L. Smith and

D.P. Jackson

00-H29.111

J. Osier 00-H29.112

D. Lloyd 00-H29.113

C. Morris 00-H29.114

L. Nasri 00-H29.115

F. Wyke 00-H29.116

M. Paulasma 00-H29.117

K. Dinnie 00-H29.118

P. Azavedo 00-H29.119

H. Schmeing 00-H29.120

T.A. Price 00-H29.121

M. Jibb 00-H29.122

N. Sion 00-H29.123

K.J. Nadeau 00-H29.124

R.V. Latimer 00-H29.125

N. Facey 00-H29.126

P. Cheng 00-H29.127

G. Wissborn 00-H29.128

D. Knight 00-H29.129

S. Kumar 00-H29.130

G.G. Vachon 00-H29.131

J. Tomayer 00-H29.132

Intervenors Document Number

19

J.F. Richardson 00-H29.133

B. Babson 00-H29.134

C. Van Drunen 00-H29.135

D. Cameron 00-H29.136

V.G. Snell 00-H29.137

S. Merrell 00-H29.138

J. Scurr 00-H29.139

K. Gventer 00-H29.140

M. Brett 00-H29.141

P. Liu 00-H29.142

E.L. Williams 00-H29.143

A. Sonderer 00-H29.144

A. Trimble 00-H29.145

D.J. Garrett 00-H29.146

T. and J. Williams 00-H29.147

D. Topping 00-H29.148

J.D. Beattie 00-H29.149

M. Zawadzki 00-H29.150

W. MacArthur 00-H29.151

J. Van Dam 00-H29.152

C.I. Marsh 00-H29.153

L. Carter 00-H29.154

J.W. Weitz 00-H29.155

F. Gray 00-H29.156

S. Berry 00-H29.157

V. De Guzman 00-H29.158

E. Dewar 00-H29.159

M. Ramirez 00-H29.160

Intervenors Document Number

20

Liverpool West Community Association, represented by

M. Herzog

00-H29.161 and 00-H29.161A

M-E. Rice 00-H29.162

J. Alalasuntharam 00-H29.163

J. Lenarduzzi 00-H29.164

S. Stoyanovich 00-H29.165

V. Carter 00-H29.166

F. G. Fuirguis 00-H29.167

J. Gregoire 00-H29.168

K. Brothers 00-H29.169

M. Douglas 00-H29.170

M. Calder 00-H29.171

S.J. Cochrane 00-H29.172

R. Bradley 00-H29.173

A. Côté 00-H29.174

D. Swami 00-H29.175

K. Pryor 00-H29.176

C-M. Tseng 00-H29.177

A. Maxim 00-H29.178

F.J. Lanzon 00-H29.179

K. Charette 00-H29.180

D. Storey 00-H29.181

S. Strickland 00-H29.182

C. Hildred 00-H29.183

M. Cherry 00-H29.184

D. Kozelenko 00-H29.185

A. Goel 00-H29.186

M. Eves 00-H29.187

T. Nasri 00-H29.188

Intervenors Document Number

21

H. Ferrazza 00-H29.189

R. Paessler and B. Thompson 00-H29.190

Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, represented by D. Taylor 00-H29.191

Austin Family 00-H29.192

C. Riehl 00-H29.193

F. Williams 00-H29.194

R. Wettlaufer 00-H29.195

C. Draesner 00-H29.196

S. Austin 00-H29.198

B. Hanson 00-H29.199

T. Spanjer 00-H29.200

Canadian Auto Workers Durham Regional Environment

Council, represented by J. Brackett

00-H29.201

A. Rycroft 00-H29.202

R. Worner 00-H29.203

H. Kock 00-H29.204

A. Hansen 00-H29.205

S. Jamieson 00-H29.206

J. Vag 00-H29.207

P. Mitchell 00-H29.208

P. Kiameh 00-H29.209

N.G. Brown 00-H29.210

J.J. Cairns 00-H29.211

A. Zayouna 00-H29.212

T. Greenfield 00-H29.213

H. S. Irvine 00-H29.214

J. Lepka 00-H29.215

D. Somaru 00-H29.216

D. Zivkovic 00-H29.217

Intervenors Document Number

22

B. M. Crisp 00-H29.218

S. Bailey 00-H29.219

G. Restivo 00-H29.220

J. Hyatt 00-H29.221

J. Wight 00-H29.222

I. Khondaker 00-H29.223

V. Chacinski 00-H29.224

D. Merrifield 00-H29.225

Lethbridge Network for Peace, represented by A. Williams 00-H29.226

V. Hugues 00-H29.227

C.D. McFarlane 00-H29.228

P. Creighton 00-H29.229

B. Carr 00-H29.230

Sierra Club of Canada, represented by E. May 00-H29.231

L. Stoyanovich 00-H29.232

M. Stoyanovich 00-H29.233

Emergency Measures Ontario, represented by G. Taylor,

Manager of Provincial Preparedness

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