Energy Probe

Supply and demand drives gas prices

Posted on February 16, 2001 by energyprbe

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

Posted on February 16, 2001 by Other News Sources

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.

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

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:

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.

– 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

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.).

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

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 nuclear costs | Leave a comment

CNSC Announces Decisions on the Pickering ‘A’ Environmental Assessment

Posted on February 16, 2001 by Other News Sources

CNSC News Release
CNSC News Release
February 16, 2001

Following public hearings held on October 5, 2000 and December 14-15, 2000, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) today announced its decisions on an environmental assessment of Ontario Power Generation’s proposed return to service of the four reactors at the Pickering ‘A’ Nuclear Generating Station. The environmental assessment was prepared in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

Environmental Assessment
The Commission, in making its decisions, considered the information contained in the environmental assessment Screening Report, in related submissions from CNSC staff, Ontario Power Generation, and intervenors at the public hearings held by the Commission, and in the comments received from the public throughout the year-long environmental assessment process.

The Commission decided that the proposed return to power operation of the four reactors, taking into account the mitigation measures described in the Screening Report, is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

The Commission also decided that public concerns expressed during the environmental assessment process do not warrant a referral of the project to the Minister of the Environment for further consideration by a mediator or review panel.

The above decisions on the environmental assessment do not permit the reactors to return to power operations. These decisions only permit the CNSC to proceed to consideration of the licence application under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The licence application will be considered under the CNSC’s normal public hearing process.

A Record of Proceedings, including the Reasons for Decision are 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 Plant Security | Leave a comment

Switchgrass

Posted on February 13, 2001 by energyprbe

Catherine Clark, Producer
CBC-TV Marketplace
February 13, 2001

The big chill this winter is the cost of heating your home. The prices of natural gas, oil, electricity and propane have all skyrocketed. The financial strain has some homeowners looking at new ways to heat their homes. And if agricultural scientists are right, all you need to reduce your home heating bills is an acre of land.

The way energy specialist Roger Samson sees it, a long, straw-like grass could be the home heating fuel of the future. Switchgrass has no has no other known commerical use.

“We wanted something that even a buffalo wouldn’t eat,” Samson told Marketplace.

Switchgrass is native to North America. It grew on the great plains with the buffalo and it has a proven track record as an energy source.

In Iowa, a generating station uses the grass to power its plant. In Ottawa, a company has been experimenting with switchgrass to produce ethanol.

Now, with the price of fossil fuels going through the roof, agricultural scientists see switchgrass as a new way to heat your home…for less.

Samson has been studying switchgrass as a home heating alternative for ten years.

“It’s a plant that likes to hang around when times are tough,” Samson explains. “This plant has root systems that are eight to ten feet deep. It’ll take a drought, it’ll take flood. And it doesn’t require a lot of nutrients to grow.”

The switchgrass is made into pellets that are burned in stoves and furnaces to produce heat.

The plant is easy to grow but it’s not easy to burn. Unlike wood, switchgrass creates a sticky residue when it burns that gets in the way of the combustion process. It can’t be burned in a regular wood stove or furnace.

Mark Drisdelle’s Montreal company has developed a stove that will burn switchgrass pellets. But it costs about $3,000. He suggests the stove would pay for itself in three or four years because heating your home with switchgrass should cost about a third of what you’d pay for gas, oil or electricity.

Scientists say an acre of switchgrass made into pellets will heat an average Canadian home for a whole year. They also say there’s available land to produce enough of the plant to make it a viable heating alternative.

Mark Drisdelle’s business partner, Claude LaPointe, admits switchgrass is not for everyone. LaPointe heats his house with wood and switchgrass pellets. His electric furnace sits idle in his basement. It used to heat his 2,000 square foot Montreal home for $1,200 a year. The pellets heat it for $400 for the whole year.

“There is more work,” LaPointe admits. “I have to bring in the bags and load up the furnace every day or every second day, so there is a little inconvenience. The savings are there, but there is a little bit of maintenance.”

Roger Samsonsays switchgrass is for people who are concerned about their household budgets and are concerned about out of control energy costs. He calls it a new energy option that will become more efficient and more economical in time.

Visit the Marketplace website for more information, links, and video clips.

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Conservation best way to save on heating bill

Posted on January 31, 2001 by energyprbe

Ellen Roseman
Toronto Star
January 31, 2001

The cost of heating your home is going up sharply because of a shortage of natural gas.

Instead of paying $175 in January, the average household will pay $225, says Ian MacLellan, vice-president of Energyshop.com, an Internet-based information and comparison service.

You will see an increase in your next bill even if you opted for equal monthly payments. Enbridge Consumers Gas is passing on the higher cost now rather than making a one- time adjustment at the end of the heating season.

Only those who signed long-term gas contracts will avoid the hit.

About 1 million out of 2.5 million Ontario households are covered by long-term contracts. Most are paying in the range of 15 cents a cubic metre, MacLellan says.

Enbridge raised its price to 24.4 cents on Jan. 1. Last week, it notified the Ontario Energy Board that it will apply for another rate increase for all customers not on a fixed-price contract.

Should you sign up for a long-term contract today? It depends on how long you think gas prices will stay high.

If you expect the shortage to ease soon, Sunoco Inc. is your best bet with a three-year fixed rate of 26.9 cents.

Otherwise, you can lock in a five-year rate with Enbridge Home Services at 26.7 cents, Direct Energy Marketing Ltd. at 28.9 cents or Ontario Energy Savings Corp. at 30.5 cents.

“My recommendation is don’t sign now,” says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, speaking at a seminar this week sponsored by Enbridge.

“Gas is a highly cyclical commodity and we’re at a historical peak. According to the current futures market, traders are expecting a 50 per cent drop within the next 15 months.”

Rather than going out on a limb to guess where gas prices are heading, there are cheaper and easier ways to save money.

I’m not talking about high-cost solutions, such as replacing your furnace or installing energy-efficient windows, but things you can do for $100 or less.

Here are top tips from Mac- Lellan and Enbridge vice- president Janet Holder:

Set back the thermostat at night or when away from home. By lowering the temperature just 1 degree, you save 2 per cent of your annual heating bill. That’s an average $80 a year.
Buy a programmable thermostat this winter and you can get a $15 rebate from Enbridge or Union Gas. These devices cost $50 to $100. With the rebate, your payback is about 1 year.
Open the drapes when it’s sunny and close them at night.
Check for air leakage, which can cause 30 to 40 per cent of your home’s heat to be lost. Use a candle or feather to check for drafts around windows, doors and baseboards. Caulk or weatherstrip the cracks.
Seal electrical outlets and switches with foam gaskets.
Heating hot water makes up 30 per cent of your bill. Lower the temperature setting on the hot water tank. It’s probably higher than you need anyway.
Install low-flow shower heads and aerators on faucets.
Put new washers in dripping taps.
Insulate pipes leading from the hot water tank. Pipe insulation is precut and snaps into place. Put an insulating blanket on your hot water tank.
Wait till you have a full load of clothes or dishes to wash before starting the machines. Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible.
Clean or replace the furnace filter every three months during the heating season. Keep a log so you’ll know when it’s time.
Buy an alarm that lets you know when the filter needs replacing. You can order one for $9.99 (U.S.) from www.improvementscatalog.com. Search for FilterTone.

Enbridge has an energy-saving kit with 4.9 metres of weatherstripping, light switch and electric receptacle gaskets, the rebate coupon for a programmable thermostat and a candle to help you find air leaks and drafts.

The kits are available free from Enbridge stores and municipal offices.

Finally, the federal government will send out $250 cheques to households and $125 cheques to singles, starting this week. It’s part of the promised relief for heating expenses announced last fall.

You’ll get help if you’re eligible for the January, 2001, goods and services tax credit. Make sure the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has your current mailing address so you get your cheque as quickly as possible.

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

Energy policy stymies $200-M project

Posted on January 31, 2001 by Other News Sources

Mac Trueman
St. John Times Globe
January 31, 2001

J.D. Irving Ltd. may place a $200-million Saint John construction project on hold because it looks like New Brunswick’s new energy policy doesn’t go far enough in deregulating electricity, says the company.

At first glance, the Irving company’s plan to build a 250-megawatt generating station on Bayside Drive seemed to have been made possible by the energy strategy Natural Resources and Energy Minister Jeannot Volpé unveiled yesterday.

The proposed natural gas-fired plant would supply electricity to the Irving Paper Mill, which company spokeswoman Mary Keith says uses more energy than all Prince Edward Island.

But to bring its energy costs below what the company is paying now to NB Power, Irving would have to build its plant 33 per cent larger than what the paper mill needs. The company would then have to sell its surplus power on the open market in the United States.

The good news for Irving is that Mr. Volpé’s new regulations will for the first time allow private companies in New Brunswick to generate electricity and sell it to other companies – and early news stories about that part of the policy had Ms. Keith expressing cautious optimism yesterday. Until now, companies had to consume their own generated power or else sell it to NB Power for a price equal to the power corporation’s own estimated cost in generating the same amount of electricity.

But buried in the 93 pages of Mr. Volpé’s document is a catch that has Ms. Keith’s company concerned, if not downright frustrated.

The transmission lines linking New Brunswick to neighbouring states and provinces may not be big enough to serve many of the customers and suppliers in this province who may want access to the open energy market, the paper suggests.

These lines are big enough only to let municipal power utilities in Saint John, Perth-Andover and Edmundston buy from the competitive market, it says.

“Making competition available to more customers is likely to be problematic until additional intertie capacity is built,” the document states. It goes on to say the province will direct NB Power to seek ways of expanding the capacity.

If that’s the case, Ms. Keith argues, then her company has permission to generate surplus electricity and sell it on the open market. It just can’t ship it.

“Under these circumstances, it’s very difficult to confirm to you at this point that we would in fact be in a position to build the proposed $200-million power plant, or to make long-term commitments to natural gas, which would fire that power plant,” she said.

“Permission to generate without the ability to transmit excess power to market is only half the solution,” Bob Youden, the J. D. Irving vice-president, added later in a press statement.

Closer to home than the U.S. eastern seaboard, Saint John Energy may be interested in buying some of Irving’s surplus power, power commission manager Richard Burpee said yesterday. But just how interested he becomes will depend on NB Power’s transmission fees, its contract-termination fees and what arrangements can be made for backup in case the Irving plant went down, he said. And many of these issues will be decided by the Public Utilities Board, not by the new policy, he said.

Energy Probe denounced Mr. Volpé’s paper yesterday as “loosey-goosey jargon” that doesn’t solve any of the province’s problems with its power needs or with NB Power.

“There is no sign that the government is even aware of the problems that NB Power faces financially and operationally,” said Tom Adams, executive director of the watchdog group.

“This is a corporation with massive, crippling debt load, that is fully intending to go out and increase its debt. It wants to repower Colson Cove, it wants to re-tube Lepreau, it wants to add transmission lines.

“All that stuff is going to cost a billion, maybe more. Where are they going to come up with the money? And while they’re at it, they’ve got Mactaquac falling apart. The concrete’s chemically unstable.

“This utility’s got a lot of issues. But instead of grappling with the issues, the government said we’re going to take all the hard questions and leave it up to the [Public Utilities Board] to talk about.”

He said that if Mr. Volpé had serious intentions, his first step would have been to “come clean on exactly what NB Power’s current situation is,” including a report on its liabilities and an assessment of its assets, so his new policy could “be grounded in a sense of reality about what we’re dealing with.”

Mr. Volpé’s plan states that all of the power corporation’s future capital expenditures must first pass “a market test.” That’s easy when a private company wants to test the strength of a new project it wants to develop. It makes an initial public offering, and the financial market decides the value. But Crown corporations like NB Power don’t do things like that.

He warned that Mr. Volpé’s plan to cap power rates will not control the power corporation’s spending, because a Crown corporation can make up for reduced earnings by simply borrowing more. Banks hold private corporations responsible for the money they lend them, he said. But with a Crown corporation, “lenders never ask what you are going to do with the money, because they know the taxpayer is good for it.”

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Energy policy jumbled, contains no logic

Posted on January 31, 2001 by Other News Sources

Dave Francis
Moncton Times & Transcript
January 31, 2001

An expert on the Canadian electric power industry says New Brunswick’s new energy policy is a hodgepodge of ideas without a common thread of logic to tie them together.

“This is not a plan, this is just a grouping of ideas,” said Tom Adams, executive director of the Ontario-based electric industry watchdog group Energy Probe.

Adams spent much of yesterday reading the 100-page energy policy, and told the Times & Transcript it is one of the most confusing documents on energy he’s yet to come across.

“This is just jargon without the ideas behind them,” he said.

Adams’ biggest complaint about the provincial government’s new energy policy is that it contains no mention of NB Power, nor what the province intends to do with the Crown corporation or its $3-billion debt.

“It’s not a statement of policy,” he said. “It’s a list of questions.

“There are way too many unanswered questions.”

Adams has long said he was concerned upon hearing the government would release an energy policy that did not identify its future plans for NB Power.

“If this is a serious document it needs to have an assessment of NB Power’s position,” he said. “New Brunswick’s biggest problem (in the energy sector) is that NB Power is bankrupt. It’s not acting in a financially-responsible fashion.”

Premier Bernard Lord and Energy Minister Jeannot Volpe said yesterday they will reveal their plans for NB Power within the next year, but that the energy policy sets out a game plan to begin allowing competition in New Brunswick’s energy sector.

Adams, however, said that aside from failing to deal with NB Power, the energy policy is like a game plan without rules. It suggests that some large industrial companies in the province will be allowed to start generating their own electricity beginning in 2003, and even selling power if they can find a buyer. The problem, Adams said, is there are no concrete answers as to what fees NB Power will charge for use of its transmission lines, or what penalties companies will pay for opting out of the Crown corporation’s system.

It appears that many of the regulations and fees will be established either by a “market design committee” yet to be created by government, or by the provincial Public Utilities Board. But Adams said those details should have been included in the policy released yesterday, because for the PUB to come up with all of that by 2003 will be an almost impossible job.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Natural gas heating bills to rise by $55 a month

Posted on January 29, 2001 by energyprbe

Michael Friscolanti
National Post
January 29, 2001

The cost to heat a home in Ontario with natural gas will jump by an average of $55 a month — and the increase could last from three to five years, an energy analyst says.

“That’s going to be a big shock to a lot of people,” said Ian MacLellan, the vice-president of marketing at energyshop.com, an independent information service for energy consumers, who added that about 500,000 consumers, including 250,000 in Toronto, will see the increase on their February bill.

“That’s a big chunk.”

Mr. MacLellan, one of seven speakers at a forum presented yesterday by Enbridge Consumers Gas, said other providers, such as Union Gas, will soon be forced to raise their prices, too.

The looming increase comes only days after provincial regulators in gas-rich Alberta approved a 50% fee hike.

Panellists at yesterday’s forum said the main reason for escalating gas prices is simple: high demand versus a depleting supply.

Natural gas prices have risen 63% during the past six months and Enbridge has had to shift that cost to consumers, said Stephen Letwin, the company’s vice- president of energy, distribution and services.

“One of the reasons natural gas prices have increased so dramatically is that more and more businesses and families are making natural gas their energy source, putting a strain on supply and driving costs up,” Mr. Letwin said.

However, unlike Mr. MacLellan, Enbridge officials would not speculate on what the increase might be.

A particularly cold winter has not helped to keep prices down either, said Marie Rounding, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Gas Association, which represents the country’s major gas distributors.

“Increases for the rest of the winter will be dictated by weather,” she said, adding that a vicious cold spell could push prices higher.

But Ms. Rounding said natural gas prices tend to be cyclical, and that they should start to dip as companies increase natural gas production. But when that dip will begin is still questionable.

Ms. Rounding believes it will take between 12 and 24 months, while Tom Adams, the executive director of Energy Probe, a group that promotes resource conservation, said it could drop by 50% in the next 15 months.

In the meantime, Enbridge is trying to encourage customers to cut costs by offering a $15 rebate on the purchase of any programmable thermostat and a $100 rebate for people who switch to high-efficiency heating systems.

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

Food banks across Canada brace for impact of soaring natural gas prices

Posted on January 21, 2001 by energyprbe

James McCarten
Canadian Press
January 21, 2001

Food banks across Canada are bracing for an increase in the number of people on fixed incomes looking for help as a result of the soaring price of heating fuel. Seniors, the disabled and people living on social assistance are among those expected to feel the brunt of a doubling in home heating bills over the last two years.

“We have heard some anecdotal stories from food bank users who have expressed concern about the increase in fuel costs,” said Chris Slosser of Toronto’s Daily Bread Food Bank.

“The general increase in prices has been on people’s minds and certainly has affected their pocketbooks.”

It’s still too early to say just how many more people are being forced to turn to food banks as a result of the increased cost of heating their homes, Slosser said.

But it’s a well-documented fact that when people are forced in winter to choose between heat and food, they will typically sacrifice sustenance in order to stay warm.

Some 125,000 people were visiting Daily Bread during the first three months of 2000, but by the end of the year that number had climbed to 140,000, Slosser said.

“Often, people who are on fixed incomes have a choice to make: they either spend their money on housing costs or on food,” he said.

“Anything that is increasing the cost of housing is going to cut into the money that’s allocated for food.”

It’s much the same story in Winnipeg, where an anticipated increase has yet to manifest itself, said Susan Swatek, the local food bank’s assistant executive director.

“We know there will be an impact; there can’t possibly not be one,” Swatek said.

“We’re talking seniors, we’re talking people on social assistance, and everybody who’s currently using a food bank would also be experiencing those sorts of problems.”

The concerns are especially troubling for senior citizens, who can be more susceptible to the ill effects of a poor diet, said Shirley Dmytruk, president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario.

Older people also have additional expenses such as regular medication which can also become too expensive when the cost of heat increases, Dmytruk said.

“It’s impacting on me right now,” said Dmytruk, who’s currently paying 62 cents a litre for heating oil, up from 51 cents last year, an increase that translates into $100 more per month on her bill.

“It’s just gone wild; it’s gone beyond belief.”

In Ontario, natural gas rates have increased 58 per cent since Sept. 1999, according to Enbridge Consumers Gas, the province’s largest natural gas supplier.

The increase is primarily the result of higher demand for natural gas across North America as burgeoning industries use the clean-burning fuel for manufacturing and the generation of electrical power, which is also in short supply.

The recent opening of the Alliance export pipeline has also depleted the Western Canadian supply of gas by shipping it to the U.S., removing a bottleneck that has historically kept the bulk of Canada’s supply north of the border.

Happily, there are early indications that natural gas prices will be back to more reasonable levels by next year’s heating season, said Tom Adams of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based energy watchdog.

“The futures market is throwing up an expectation that prices will drop by about 50 per cent in the next 15 months,” Adams said.

“That is not a guarantee that prices are in for a big plunge, but it certainly is a good indication.”

It stands to reason, then, that now is not the time for homeowners to lock into a fixed-rate contract, Adams added. Instead, stopping drafts, installing a programmable thermostat and donning a sweater are probably the most sensible tactics.

In general, the high cost of fuels of all kinds, including gasoline, have made life difficult for retired people who have moved out of the big cities, said Dmytruk, who lives north of Toronto, near Orillia.

“I moved up to the country because it’s not as expensive to live here,” she said.

“But then comes the $100 increase on my heating bill, which I thought I was going to be able to get by on by living up here.”

Governments are offering some relief. Ontario, for example, is offering its low-income residents $200 in energy subsidies, all Alberta taxpayers are getting $300 and the federal government has promised $200 to cover heating costs for people who now get the GST rebate.

Those kinds of breaks, while small, can make a major difference to the seniors living in cramped apartments who can’t afford such basic amenities as telephone service, Dmytruk said.

“A five-dollar bill saved for a senior is a lot of money sometimes.”

Many welfare recipients in Canada, most notably in Ontario, have seen their benefits cut in recent years without subsequent increases to offset the rising cost of living, said Julia Bass, executive director of the Canadian Association of Food Banks.

“In a large number of provinces, social assistance recipients in particular have not had a cost of living increase in a number of years.”

Some tips on how to make a home more energy efficient, from Enbridge Consumers Gas:

Upgrade your furnace: A furnace more than 10 years old is likely only 55 per cent efficient, which means it’s wasting nearly half of every heating dollar you spend.

Add a humidifier: Humid air is better at retaining heat than dry air.

Regular maintenance: Clean or replace the furnace filter at least once every three months throughout the heating season.

Lower the thermostat: Turning down the heat by three degrees C at bedtime and before the house is left empty all day can cut heating fuel use by as much as seven per cent. Programmable thermostats can make these adjustments automatically.

Clean house: Stop air leaks and drafts, improve air circulation by ensuring vents are not blocked by furniture or curtains, and clean heat register and cold air grills. Also close the chimney damper when not using the fireplace.

Fans: Ceiling fans keep the house cool in summer and push rising warm air away from the ceiling in winter.

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

Ontario warned of energy crisis

Posted on January 19, 2001 by energyprbe

Tom Blackwell
Ottawa Citizen
January 19, 2001

Toronto – Ontario is heading toward the kind of blackout calamity that’s hobbled California if the province doesn’t fix its flawed plan to deregulate electricity, a prominent analyst warned yesterday.

Government decisions have discouraged the kind of investment in new generation plants that’s needed to meet future demand from a booming economy, said Tom Adams of the consumer group Energy Probe.

“The lights aren’t going to go out in Ontario tomorrow,” he said, “but we need to make some important changes to our electricity deregulation to maintain our security. If we continue on the same path, we are going to be in trouble. We won’t have enough juice.”

Not everyone agrees.

The Ontario government and at least one other analyst insist the province is making progress to avoid the kind of mistakes the Golden State made with its deregulation program and has nothing to worry about.

“This is not California,” said Mike Krizanc, spokesman for Energy Minister Jim Wilson.

“Mr. Adams can say that we are discouraging investment, but the thing is there are people who are coming here (to invest) and there are people looking at coming here.”

Mr. Krizanc said the province already has enough capacity to meet demand over the next 10 years. At the same time, companies have promised $3 billion in new generating facilities.

He also argued that other places, such as Pennsylvania and the United Kingdom, have had great success with deregulation, bringing consumers cheaper power prices and ample supply.

In California yesterday, another wave of rolling blackouts swept across the state as authorities struggled to contain their power supply disaster.

Gov. Gray Davis declared a state of emergency a day earlier. The crisis stems in part from the state’s four-year-old experiment with electricity deregulation.

By freeing wholesale prices but keeping caps on the price utilities can charge to consumers, the changes forced California’s two main electricity companies to near bankruptcy, leaving them without enough credit to buy the needed power.

The state has also suffered from a lack of new investment in generation, even as the demand has skyrocketed, Mr. Adams noted.

The investment climate in Ontario has also suffered because of government actions that include extending for four years the subsidized rates charged to several major power users.

The first new private power plant, in Sarnia, had to be scaled back because three of its proposed customers continued to get the discounted rates and had no incentive to buy from the new plant, said Mr. Adams.

Legislation that allows the government to roll back some electricity price increases, confusion about exactly when the market will be officially opened to competition and a moratorium on the sale of government-owned coal-fired plants have also dampened the investment climate, he claimed.

But California faced a number of unique problems, said David Drinkwalter, a consultant and former chief economist at Ontario Hydro.

As power demand exploded, several of its plants were taken off line for various reasons and few were added, partly because of environmental restrictions, he said.

“It is unlikely for us to experience the California problems,” said Mr. Drinkwalter.

“This province has sufficient generation plants today to cover demand for the immediate future and there are additional plants under construction.”

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