I’ve had quite the holiday from my blog (over a month, yikes!) and thought that I’d get back into the swing with a hot topic here in York Region, Part 2 of my story on the York Region Power Supply.
(see Part 1 here.)
This second part of the story is long overdue, and the local newspapers are filling up with all sorts of information about the proposed power plant for northern York Region. Some of that information is even accurate! Though there’s quite a lot that’s not.
In Part 1 I discussed three different types of natural gas fired plants. They all have different efficiency points inherent in their design and they all meet different purposes.
The plant being requested by the OPA for Northern York Region is a “peaking plant”, meaning that it will produce electricity only during times of peak demand. Typically this means that it needs to start producing electricity very quickly when it’s called upon, and will only run for about 10% of the hours (about 900) in a given year. The design of equipment that can meet the conditions is fairly inefficient as compared to other types of plants. There is a range of efficiencies available on the market (in the range of 35 to 43% for this class) and these are also reflected in the price with the more efficient equipment being generally more costly.
To understand why the OPA thinks we need a peaking plant (rather than a combined cycle (CC) or a combined heat and power (CHP) plant proposed by certain other people) you have to understand more about how the entire system works, where and how power is generated and used.
Strictly speaking, “demand” is the load on the system every time someone turns on an electrical device in the province. This could be a light, fridge, freezer, stove, vacuum, air conditioner, fans, pumps, motors, computers, etc. You name it. Every time you flick a switch (or something comes on automatically like your A/C or fridge) you are increasing demand.
Demand is typically higher at certain times of day and at certain times of year. The “peak” demand period usually occurs during the late afternoons on summer weekdays when there is a crossover between our programmable thermostats starting to cool the house down while some people are still at work since some businesses shut down later than others.
Of course, demand that rises and falls like this also implies that there is a minimum demand level which the industry calls “baseload”. This is the power demand that is pretty much there 24/7. It can vary by time of year, but typically day to day changes are not considered baseload changes.
There is some history to this call for a power plant in York Region, specifically two things that took place in parallel.
History #1 – The Supply Mix
In December 2005, the newly formed Ontario Power Authority wrote a document called the Supply Mix Advice and submitted it to the Minister of Energy. The Minister essentially relabeled this document and sent it back to the OPA, calling it the Supply Mix Directive. There were subtle changes, but the substance was essentially unchanged.
This Supply Mix Directive (SMD) is the document which lays out the vision for Ontario power supply 25 years down the road. It considers things like the coal plants closing, load growth with population growth and economic growth, and the old nuclear rectors which are coming to the end of their useful lives.
Based on these assumptions of increasing demand and supplies which are coming off line, the OPA sees a widening gap between the generation available and the demand. The SMD specifies what the mix of power supplies (nuclear, coal, wind, hydro, gas, biomass, solar, etc) will be in 25 years. It calls for maintaining nuclear to be approx 50% of our power supply, primarily for baseload power, and natural gas fired facilities for both peaking and intermediate use. It calls for a certain amount of renewables (win, hydro & biomass) and for a certain (some say modest, some say aggressive) amount to be addressed through conservation programs.
Fast forward to the fall of 2007. The OPA has now written a very large document called the Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP) which spells out in detail their proposed means of achieving the supply mix directive. In it, they identify 4 natural gas-fired peaking power plants to be built, the first of which will be in northern York Region. They want natural gas fired peaking to meet them SMD, and they have chosen the location based on a number of factors.
The IPSP was submitted to the Ontario Energy Board for consideration, and it will be having public hearsing during 2008. You can read all about that at http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca. I found it interesting that the opening commentary to this submission was a statement that the OEB’s role was to consider whether this was the most prudent plan to meet the SMD, NOT whether the Supply Mix was the proper goal in the first place.
I remember talking this over with a friend (who shall remain nameless) who works at the OPA. I asked, “Given this series of events, when was the public allowed to question and debate the wisdom of the Supply Mix?”
He said, “That would have been the provincial election.” You remember that one? The one where the two largest political parties basically agreed on the supply mix, so it was not even discussed? The one where we couldn’t talk about energy because the media were so intent on whether we funded faith based schools? Yeah, that one.
History #2 – York Region
In 2004, seeing a crossover between supply and demand growth, Hydro One proposed upgrading their transmission system between Markham and Aurora. Since transmission is all that Hydro One does, this solution is not surprising. The people fought back, and eventually Hydro One withdrew their proposal and turned the matter over to the newly formed OPA.
The OPA set up a working group made up of reps from each of the municipal councils and citizen members from each town. I applied for this working group but was turned down based on a perceived conflict of interest due to my employer at the time, a consulting firm that does work for the region.
The working group spent many volunteer Sunday’s locked up in a conference room getting information from all parties and considering the alternatives. They eventually issued a recommendation report to the OPA and, generally speaking, this report has been followed with some differences. This report called for local generation within the region. You can read all about this here, a website maintained by Richard Johnson of Aurora.
The other aspect of this that I have not mentioned as yet is System Reliability, something on which the OPA and the working group has placed a great deal of weight. It happens that the people who have built power generation, transmission, and distribution systems over the past century have also created some standards for the reliability of those systems. It works by modeling the impact of the loss of a generator, or key transmission line, or other component, and having enough redundancy built in so that the loss of one of these elements does not result in a power outage. Turns out one of the main drivers for the OPA locating this plant in York Region is the reliability of the local system.
So here I have my dilemma, where I can look at this one of three ways.
- As an engineer, I put a lot of stock in the reliability argument, and would certainly come to the same conclusion as the OPA in order to make sure we have power in the region in the event of an outage of some key component.
- As an employee of a developer, of course, there is the business opportunity in responding to the OPA’s Request for Proposal. But frankly the same companies would be lining up to do the job if the OPA was asking for a smaller or larger or combined cycle plant, or anything else. So I don’t really see that as an issue.
- But as a Green Party candidate, it is my firm position that this province is not doing anywhere near enough on the conservation front. Conservation is a fundamental necessity to address Climate Change, something which the McGuinty government claims to care about, their actions notwithstanding. Conservation is also the lowest cost alternative. Unfortunately, our old style politicians, who worry more about getting re-elected than good long term policy, don’t think that the policy necessary to drive a conservation culture will achieve that.
So where does all this leave me and how can I reconcile my conflict? Well, here’s what I think.
Based on the OPA’s mindset about their mandate, and their lack of any historical precedent of load decreasing while population increases, something will be built in York Region. It could be a power plant here, or it could be a transmission line with a power plant elsewhere, but something will be built.
As an engineer concerned about system reliability, I understand this conclusion.
As an employee, I’ll do my best to see that my company is successful over our competitors.
And as a Green Party candidate, let me say this.
This community has the power to set the precedent which does not yet exist, despite the lack of government policy on all levels to assist. We can lower demand, despite our growing population. We can do this with determination, with an examination of our lifestyles, a rethinking of our priorities. We can do this by pressuring our municipal governments to adopt the stongest building codes in the country. We can do this by investing, insulating our homes, changing our appliances, installing solar panels, etc. We can do this by making it socially unacceptable for the people and businesses in this region to waste energy.
As long as there are businesses with lights on when no one is working, or homes who have not signed onto the PeakSaver program, or parking lots lit up all night for nothing, or…, or…, or…, then we are not doing enough. Every light and electrical appliance running when it doesn’t need to is driving the need for this plant.
If we do this, we can look at the OPA and say, “See, we were right!”
If we do this, we’ll have set a precedent for every other community that will go through this same struggle.
If we don’t, we’ll have proven them right.
Glenn Hubbers Energy
