Here is a podcast of my appearance on The Lang & O’Leary Exchange on CBC February 2, 2012. Coverage of the Toronto Hydro vs. Ontario Energy Board dispute starts around 49:34, ends around 54:55. Key points: Toronto’s preparations for the PanAm Games are being jeopardized, City Council is failing to supervise its investment in Toronto Hydro, and training programs for new workers are at risk due to chaos inside the utility.
In a report issued earlier today, Manitoba Hydro International (MHI) reviewed Nalcor’s proposal to build the Muskrat Falls generating station in Labrador and transmit the power to the island of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. A key element of MHI report reviewed Nalcor’s energy production estimate for the project. MHI endorse Nalcor’s estimated output from Muskrat Falls of 4.9 TWh/yr and 4.5 TWh/yr of “firm” energy.
The aspects of MHI’s report addressing the question of energy production to expect from Muskrat falls can be found at page 6 of the Executive Summary, Section 1.3.2 (particularly Table 7), and Section 2.2.9.
MHI did no original research on the question of how much usable power Muskrat Falls could produce in the transmission configuration proposed for the project. Rather, MHI relied upon the same documents that Nalcor has relied upon. With the exception of one document, all of the references relied upon by MHI were addressed in my posts “Stop Muskrat Falls” and “Adams Replies to Nalcor’s Demand for an Apology“.
One of the references MHI relied upon is Exhibit CE-21 from Hatch called “Estimate the Firm Generation Potential of the Muskrat Falls Development – Final Report for Nalcor Energy”, June 2011. This document is not available on the NL PUB’s site here, and appears to be secret. This gap in the publicly available record makes it possible that the analysis I have been relying on to critique Nalcor’s production claim of 4.9 TWh/yr contains some important gap.
Here are the reasons why I continue to stand by my assessment that the output of Muskrat Falls has been vastly overstated by Nalcor and MHI, probably by about 50%, and that Nova Scotia will be unable to get any significant amounts of hydro-electric generation from Newfoundland during cold winter weather. Continue reading ‘Manitoba Hydro Endorses Nalcor’s Production Estimate for Muskrat Falls’ »
Dear Mr. Martin,
Yesterday you wrote to me, starting your letter with the following:
Your blog displays a clear lack of understanding of the Lower Churchill Project, including the Muskrat Falls Development. I’m compelled to correct the statements made by you, and request the prompt apology you said you would make if your arguments were wrong.
Your letter continued:
Contrary to your statement that “Nalcor has vastly overstated the usable output from Muskrat Falls,” Muskrat Falls will generate 4.9 terawatt hours of energy per year. This analysis is based on several studies completed by reputable engineering consultants. It’s not based on an average water flow study as stated in your blog.
Your letter directed me to get an explanation for your assertions about the production benefits of Muskrat Falls by reviewing the Water Management Agreement.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that your direction to the Water Management Agreement is revealing of your basis for claiming that Muskrat Falls will generated 4.9 TWh — the very foundation stone of your case.
If we instead look to Exhibit 19, the Muskrat Falls Feasibility Study, we see a reference to the Acres International Ltd., (1998), “Churchill River Complex – Optimization Study” as the source for your 4.9 TWh claim. We see in abridged exhibit CE-27 Rev. 1 dated June 9, 2011, after the Water Management Agreement was finalized, the following:
“A study by Acres International Limited in 1998 resulted in a report titled ‘Churchill River Complex, Power and Energy Modeling Study’, dated July 1998, which provided the basis for the average and firm energy production values that have been most often used for the Muskrat Falls development.”
When we look to Exhibit CE-28 Rev. 1, we find the Acres power and energy modeling study that Nalcor has used for all the production estimates for the current Muskrat Falls development now under review. If we look to the objects that your consultants used to guide their work at page 12 of 166 under section 1.2, we see there that the purpose of the study you have relied upon was to “provide a post-processor for determining the available energy for sale at the Québec-Labrador border taking into account Island infeed and Labrador loads and transmission losses to the border”. If we look further through that study, we see at section 6.1 the transmission configuration used. There we see that the primary transmission connection for the Muskrat Falls generator in the study is not to the island of Newfoundland and south to Nova Scotia, which is the basis for my concern as expressed in my post “Stop Muskrat Falls” to which you were objecting. Instead, we see that the transmission connections studied were primarily connected to an unconstrained interface at the Quebec/Labrador border with no Nova Scotia connection. If we look to Table 6.3 on page 62 of 116, we see there that all of the power is assumed to be delivered to Quebec.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Nalcor took a study that estimated the energy production available from Muskrat Falls as delivered to an unconstrained interface at the Quebec/Labrador border and applied those study results to the Integrated Island/Nova Scotia system instead. Since the constraints of the Integrated Island/Nova Scotia system bear heavily on the potential output of Muskrat Falls, I believe that there is no basis for you to assert that Muskrat Falls will ever generate close to 4.9 TWh given the system you are now seeking approval for.
Sincerely,
Tom Adams
The long-awaited firing of Anthony Haines, CEO of Tony’s Hydro (formerly Toronto Hydro), could be announced this afternoon following a meeting of the utility’s board of directors.
Here is a short recap of the “Ontario Electricity Regulation Crisis Report” series: Continue reading ‘Ontario’s Electricity Regulation Crisis Report – Part 28: Board Meeting at Tony’s Hydro (Formerly Toronto Hydro) Today’ »
The following response to the previous post was received from Nalcor at 11:25, Monday January 30th. It was posted to the discussion forum for the previous post but to ensure that those interested in the subject have easier access, it is repeated here.
++++
Letter of Response from Ed Martin, President & CEO, Nalcor Energy
Your blog displays a clear lack of understanding of the Lower Churchill Project, including the Muskrat Falls Development. I’m compelled to correct the statements made by you, and request the prompt apology you said you would make if your arguments were wrong.
Usable output
Contrary to your statement that “Nalcor has vastly overstated the usable output from Muskrat Falls,” Muskrat Falls will generate 4.9 terawatt hours of energy per year. This analysis is based on several studies completed by reputable engineering consultants. It’s not based on an average water flow study as stated in your blog. Continue reading ‘Nalcor Replies to Post “Stop Muskrat Falls”’ »
Nalcor is vastly overstating the usable output from Muskrat Falls that the grid will be able to accept. By overstating the benefits of Muskrat Falls, the utility is understating the rate impact. Continue reading ‘Stop Muskrat Falls’ »
According to the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator, reducing wind power output during now common surplus supply conditions will save megatonnes of CO2 emissions. Not only will cutting wind power cut emissions but consumers will save millions of dollars too. Consumers save despite Ontario wind generators getting paid for power they could have produced when consumers can’t use their power.
The root cause for these counter intuitive results is that wind power’s production characteristics are mostly out of sync with consumer needs. Given the production and demand characteristics of the rest of Ontario’s power system, wind power has grown to the point where it has become toxic to the system. Continue reading ‘Cutting Wind Power Cuts CO2 Emissions’ »
Here is a column from Matt Gurney at the National Post posted Janauary 27th plagiarizing this post from the 26th where I drew attention to the inconsistency of Toronto Hydro claiming that it fails to achieve regulated reliability requirements while awarding its CEO Anthony Haines with fat bonuses. Perhaps Gurney was actually plagiarizing John Spears at the Toronto Star, whose article here also plagiarized this website.
Here is a news report from Jonathon Jenkins at the Toronto Sun posted on January 26th plagiarizing this post from the 25th where I drew attention to the coming ratepayer hit for $1.27 million when Toronto Hydro’s board of directors finally wakes up and fires rogue CEO Anthony Haines. A mitigating consideration however is that Jenkins’ recent news report on ratepayer-funded luxury automobiles at the utility did acknowledge my research as reflected in my post of the 25th. Continue reading ‘Plagiarism Plague’ »
Today’s front page story in the Toronto Star directly rips off research from this web site without attribution. While I am heartened that the Star considers the work presented here as worthy of attention, I am disappointed that the Star does not recognize the legitimacy of my work and my intellectual property by acknowledging their source. I would welcome comments here from John Spears or his editors at the Star.
Here are two other examples of the Toronto Star using research from this web site without attribution.
+++
Postscript
Reply from John Spears Monday Jan 30 9:45am:
Gee whiz, Tom.
I guess I should read your blog more assiduously. It’s Monday morning, and I’m just seeing your post for the first time.
I was aware of your piece on the hydro cars, but since I mentioned it only in passing in my story I didn’t think to credit you. Perhaps I should have. My apologies.
As for the focus on the story, which was the bonuses, I was simply not aware that you had written about this. I long ago learned that just because you publish something, it doesn’t mean everyone has read it. Moreover, just because one person writes something doesn’t mean no one else can. In fact, it’s a staple of journalism to match the other guy.
In this case I wasn’t consciously matching you. I just thought Copeland’s statement about not meeting reliability targets for five years raised the question about bonuses. I had some other things going and it took me a couple of days to get around to doing it — to add up the numbers (I can show you my chicken scratches if you want) and to get Copeland to talk about it.
If you went through the same exercise before I did, then well done. I simply hadn’t seen it.
But for you to get righteous and huffy about this as a matter of journalistic integrity is simply laughable.
Regards,
John