The Ontario Clean Air Alliance sends out email bulletins on air quality and energy issues two to three times a month. Read our latest bulletins below or browse the archive. You can also add your own thoughts on the issues raised in our bulletins by clicking the "Add Comment" link below each posting.
High cost jobs
The nuclear industry likes to point out that spending billions of dollars re-building reactors will create and retain jobs. This is, of course, true. Nuclear plants need everything from reactor operators to heavily armed security forces. But what the nuclear industry doesn’t talk about is the cost of retaining nuclear plant jobs for taxpayers.
Ontario Power Generation expects the Ontario Government to provide 100% of the financing for its Darlington Rebuild project. This puts the government on the hook for the whole $12.9 billion cost of this project. Of course, when the project runs over budget, the government – and therefore taxpayers – will have to absorb that cost too, which could run up to $32.25 billion.
That means that every job at a rebuilt Darlington Nuclear Plant will cost taxpayers somewhere between $5.8 and $14.4 million per job.
Let’s compare that to the cost of creating jobs at the Ford auto assembly plant in Oakville. In September 2013, the government invested $70.9 million in a plant that employs 2,800 workers – about 500 more workers than can currently be found at Darlington. The cost per job secured at Ford was $25,000.
That is, the cost to Ontario taxpayers of creating jobs at Darlington will be 232 to 576 times more expensive than creating jobs at the Ford plant.
Clearly, when it comes to using tax dollars to create jobs, nuclear is a costly way to achieve results.
For more, see our recent factsheet: Cost to Ontario taxpayer of securing jobs at Ford Oakville Plant and Darlington Nuclear Station
- Angela Bischoff
Ontario cannot import low-cost water power from Quebec to replace more costly power from a re-built Darlington Nuclear Station if Darlington continues to operate. That is the bizarre conclusion of a report issued Tuesday by Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and the Ontario Power Authority (OPA).
Rather than actually address whether it was feasible to use Quebec power instead of re-building Darlington, the two agencies simply assumed that the province would proceed with the Darlington Re-Build no matter what. They then found that with Darlington fully operational, there would not be enough capacity on the provincial electricity grid to import more than a fraction of the power needed to replace Darlington. Not really following the logic? Neither are we.
And it only gets stranger from there. The agencies then insist that power from Quebec will cost 7 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh) or more. This will come as a surprise to our American neighbours who paid an average price of 4.7 cents per kWh for electricity imports from Quebec last year. And it will also come as a surprise to Quebec’s Energy Commission that reported that the province will be exporting the bulk of its power at about three cents a kWh for the foreseeable future.
According to the IESO-OPA, Quebec would need to build new water power facilities to export base-load electricity to Ontario. Again this will likely puzzle the Quebec Energy Commission which was established to consider what to do with the province’s growing electricity surplus!
That the report also predicts that electricity demand in the Ottawa region is going to skyrocket (and therefore restrict grid capacity) over the next six years is yet another head scratcher. We don’t know if everyone in Ottawa is planning to buy an electric car in the next six years or if Ottawa residents are simply going to leave the lights on for the next 72 months, but this conclusion once again flies in the face of reality. Electricity demand has been dropping in Ontario since 2005. Last year we used 10% less electricity province-wide than in 2005.
It’s all very Alice in Wonderland and certainly not the kind of clear and honest analysis Premier Wynne has promised from her government. Apparently, in the IESO-OPA view, made-in-Ontario electricity is so much better than the imported stuff that we should be happy to pay twice as much for it.
Clearly, we need a more objective and honest approach to striking a deal with Quebec. It is time for Premier Wynne to appoint an unbiased, independent special negotiator to pursue a deal with Quebec. Please send a letter to the Premier right now urging her to take control of this issue and put the wheels in motion to strike a deal with Quebec.
This graph explains in one image why Ontario should be pursuing water power imports from Quebec instead of re-building our aging nuclear reactors. Combined with energy efficiency, Quebec imports are far cheaper than nuclear electricity, even under Ontario Power Generation’s most optimistic estimates. Even if we lock into a long-term contract at double the spot market price for Quebec water power, we will still come out ahead by billions of dollars. It really is that simple.
- Angela Bischoff
Premier Kathleen Wynne has asked TD Bank President Ed Clark how the province can “optimize” assets like the LCBO and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in order to help slay the province’s deficit.
We don’t know a whole lot about selling beer and wine (although we are familiar with the purchasing side), but when it comes to OPG, we had a few words of advice for Mr. Clark: Stop this underperforming crown corporation from wasting more money on bloated nuclear projects.
In our submission to Mr. Clark, we pointed out that all the dividends and income taxes paid by OPG and Hydro One over the last 15 years have gone to paying down the debt left by Ontario Hydro’s nuclear cost debacles instead of paying for transit, school repairs or better health care.
This $20 billion debt has also sucked up every cent in provincial income tax payments from more than 70 local electric utilities and, of course, has left every electricity ratepayer paying a debt retirement charge on hydro bills. If Ontario wants to cut its debt and deficit, the last thing it should be doing is allowing OPG to carry on with another high-risk, low-return nuclear project.
As numerous commentators, including former bank economist Jeff Rubin, have pointed out recently, we’d all be better off if Ontario dropped its fixation with uneconomic nuclear projects and builds a partnership with Quebec to trade affordable renewable power instead.
The Premier of Quebec, who is hard at work trying to slay his own deficit, gets it. He says a deal is doable and that “the price will be right.” After all, his province has power to spare and needs to build new export markets.
If Premier Wynne really wants to boost OPG’s returns, she should order the utility to focus on the 54 low-cost water power generating stations it inherited from Ontario Hydro instead of sinking us back into debt with another uneconomic nuclear project.
Read our submission: Maximizing the Value of OPG.
- Angela Bischoff
Later this month, Canada’s premiers will be meeting in Charlottetown, PEI to discuss energy issues . This is a great opportunity for the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec to put their heads together and strike an electricity trade deal that can have big benefits for both provinces.
By importing low-cost Quebec water power, Ontario can save more than $600 million per year - or $12 billion over 20 years. By exporting power to Ontario, Quebec can increase its annual export revenues by more than $600 million. That’s serious coin that can be spent on schools and hospitals or deficit reduction in Quebec, and big money that can be saved by Ontario electricity ratepayers and businesses. Plus, Ontario avoids piling up another mountain of nuclear debt on its already sagging bottom line.
We’re looking for Premier Wynne to walk away from Charlottetown with a framework for making a win-win deal with our neighbours. In fact, this deal should be about as close to a “no brainer” as any decision Premiers Wynne and Couillard will make in the next four years.
Please pass this message on to your friends.
- Angela Bischoff
The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) is very worried that Ontarians have discovered that they are being taken for a ride by expensive nuclear projects.
Today, the CNA made its opposition to clean water power imports from Quebec clear in an opinion piece in the Toronto Star (in response to our own op ed). It’s certainly not surprising that the nuclear industry lobby doesn’t want Ontario to look at a cheaper, cleaner and lower risk product instead of the expensive proposition it is peddling. But its objections to importing water power at half the estimated cost of power from a re-built Darlington Nuclear Station really raised our eyebrows:
Of course, none of the CNA’s disinformation is surprising given that every nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone massively over budget and been completed behind schedule – the current Darlington rebuild being no exception. If you were selling a product that always arrives late at a significantly higher-than-promised cost, you’d probably be pretty scared by savvy competitors too.
But we should not treat the long-subsidized nuclear industry as some sort of charity case that requires huge public subsidies while turning our backs on a completely viable alternative. It’s time to start reaping the benefits of increased electricity trade between our two provinces and tune out electricity separatists like the CNA.
- Angela Bischoff
P.S. For another critique of the CNA's position, see the letter sent to the Toronto Star by engineer Malcolm Hamilton.