Big Eddy Power Project Situation Update Dr. G. Alan Hepburn, P.Eng Byron Ostrom, Roy Reed January 17, 2011 1 Council: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Just so you know, you’re looking downstream here. The dam will be just off the bottom edge of the picture. We are holding a concurrent presentation for local residents in the Lions Club Hall. It’s being hosted by Byron Ostrom and Roy Reed 1
• “ Al” (Alan Hepburn) Credentials • BSc and PhD in engineering • Retired AECL Branch Manager • Most recently worked (amongst other things) on safety-critical computer-controlled systems • President, Black Bay Ratepayers Association since Aug ‘10 • Both the Big Eddy and Half Mile Rapids projects could satisfy the localised concerns of Black Bay residents if conditions were applied to the project to protect fish etc. • Tonight, however I am representing the broader interests of Petawawa residents 2 My name is Al Hepburn, and I am president of the Black Bay ratepayers Association However, tonight I am representing the broader interests of the residents of Petawawa as a whole I hope to convince you that the Big Eddy project proposed by Xeneca Power for the Petawawa River represents a significant threat to the safety of the public in the Centennial Park area, due to the wide and rapid variations in river flow that will result on a daily basis. Council must play an active role in the evaluation of all the effects of this project, and take whatever action is necessary to ensure a favourable, safe outcome for Petawawa residents. Just because you don’t have signing authority in the project approval process does not mean you are powerless. 2
Green Energy Primer • Government promise to replace coal-fired electricity • Ontario Power Authority offers Feed In Tariff (FIT) contracts to small power suppliers • Two variants for small water power – FIT basic: $0.13/kw hr 24/7 – FIT with modified peaking: 35% incentive during peak hours (Mon-Fri 11am – 7 pm) 10% penalty off peak 3 Some background - The provincial government is trying to eliminate coal-fired generating plants in Ontario. To do this, they need to develop alternate sources of electricity. They’ve built a new 650MW gas fired plant in Halton Hills, for example. The GE Act focuses on much smaller scale projects. It is designed to encourage the construction of plants which produce power from renewable sources such as wind and water. The OPA will enter into a Feed In Tariff contract with the supplier. For example, the FIT program pays 13 cents per kw hr, and that goes up to 18 cents at peak hours. You pay 10 cents. We all know where the difference is going to come from. 3
Run-of-the-River Primer • Big Eddy is said to be a run-of-the-river facility – At any time, downstream flow = inflow – Power (=revenue) proportional to head and flow – Every drop of residual flow is money lost 4 Big Eddy is a run-of-the river plant (read). Here’s a diagram of one of these plants. The amount of the diverted flow is determined by this Flow Control Valve (FCV). Just remember Flow=Power=Revenue. The residual flow is LOST revenue, so it’s in the owner’s interest to negotiate as low a number for this as he can. 4
EA Process • Environmental Assessment precedes detailed engineering work • Green Energy projects do their own Environmental Assessment (EA) – Consultation required with Stakeholders, MNR etc. – Have to retain an independent consultant • Publish Notice of Commencement • ~ 18 month EA phase – Several documents required, including Project Description • Publish Notice of Completion • 30 day comment period • Construction starts 5 In the past, any new generating project has been subject to an Environmental Assessment process, which could stretch on for years. The government had to come up with something to make this move much faster. So for these “green energy” projects, they’re going to let the proponent do his own assessment. He is, however, required to retain the services of an independent consultant. He’s also required to involve stakeholder groups during the process, and to consult with various government agencies. The process starts when he publishes his Notice of Commencement (that happened in July, 2010). Most stakeholder concerns are supposed to be resolved as the public consultation progresses. There’s no requirement that the people who raised the concerns need to be satisfied with the answers. After about 18 months, the Notice of Completion is published. That starts a 30 calendar day clock, during which time the public are free to present any remaining concerns formally. Then construction starts. 5
EA Consultation • For Big Eddy, proponent is the Petawawa Green Electricity Development Inc. – Owned by Xeneca Power Development Inc. • The proponent’s response to the stakeholder consultation requirement has been to establish the Petawawa Stakeholders Advisory Committee (PSAC) – Chairman appointed by Xeneca – Members appointed by chairman – Members must agree to a) promote the project and b) not disclose any information without Xeneca approval • PSAC is hamstrung by those terms of reference – Is given even less information than the general public 6 At Big Eddy, the proponent is Petawawa Green Electricity Development Inc., which is owned by Xeneca Inc, No doubt they have a separate entity to limit liability. Xeneca’s answer to the stakeholder consultation requirement has been to form the Petawawa Stakeholders Advisory Committee (PSAC) Xeneca appoints the Chairman. The chairman appoints the members. The Members agree to promote the project and not disclose any information without Xeneca approval. So PSAC is designed to be seen and not heard. 6
PSAC Membership • Chairman is Jean Paul Gladu, Aboriginal Strategy Group • Bob Rantz, former CAO Petawawa • Dustin Hoffman, H&H construction • Representatives of various sporting/recreational groups • BBRA was represented by James Carmody – When James was elected to council, our new president was unwilling to sign up to their terms and conditions – Presentation like this would have been impossible • Petawawa Council have observer status only – We don’t know the reason why 7 Here are the members of PSAC And you (council) are in there too, but only as an “observer”. James Carmody represented BBRA until he joined council. I refused to sign the PSAC terms of reference, so I joined the ranks of others who have spoken against the project and have been excluded. 7
Available Information “Among PSAC’s primary goals is, through open, transparent and communicative process, to achieve a positive relationship with the community at large and to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of stakeholders...” • Sources: – “Notice of Commencement” published in Daily Observer July 16, updated Dec 24 – Xeneca Presentations to BBRA and Council – Releases to Petawawa Stakeholder Advisory Committee (PSAC) – The “Waterpower Site Strategy” (WSS) document (Sep. 2009) – Xeneca Project Description (PD) document – BBRA field trip to Misema River 8 The advertised communications plan sounds just wonderful, doesn’t it?. In reality, getting definitive information has been difficult. All my requests to Xeneca for information have been ignored. The presentations were basically content free. The “Notice of commencement” doesn’t tell you much. But there is a two page “Project Overview” that we came across since this slide was put together that says they’re going to run the facility in peaking mode – You’ll understand just how significant that is shortly. For the moment, we’ll look at the two Xeneca documents we have been able to get our hands on (no thanks to Xeneca). What I’ll present are facts taken straight from these documents, and a little analysis based on the numbers contained in them. If that information is inaccurate, then Xeneca has nobody but themselves to blame. When I took over from James Carmody in November, I basically only had two Xeneca presentations to go on. So I asked Xeneca where I could see one of these plants already in operation. They directed me to the Misema River, near Earlton. Maybe they thought I’d never go there.. 8
The Misema River Dam 9 But, on Nov 12, three of us flew up there and took some pictures, which you’ll see at various points in the presentation. The only one that Xeneca took issue with was this picture of the dam (point). The residual flow will spill over the dam (point), like this picture of McGraw Falls, rather than flowing through an 18” diameter pipe, as we saw at Misema. Is either of these what was promised last year? In fact, neither of these is what you’re going to get – It’ll be a spillway, but not a fixed one like the one shown here. 9
Recommend
More recommend
