Harding: Is Sask Party’s Sask Power Keeping Us In The Dark?
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:12 pmIs Sask Party’s Sask Power Keeping Us In The Dark?
By Jim Harding April 5, 2009
The Sask Party recently released Sask Power’s 2009 budget.
40% of the nearly $1 billion will go for new electrical generation and the rest for upgrades and new transmission lines.
The biggest expense is for simple cycle natural gas turbines near Kerrobert, North Battleford and Saskatoon, which can be turned on and off to meet peak load demand. A new transmission line will be built from Coronach to Moose Jaw. An astonishing $8 billion spending is planned for the next decade.
Minister Cheveldayoff accused the previous Calvert government of ignoring Sask Power’s “infrastructure deficit” and being more concerned about “the lowest cost-bundle”, while NDP Deputy Leader Atkinson rebutted that $2.5 billion was spent from 2000-2007.
There was no focus on basic energy policy in the partisan skirmishing. The Minister denied that these huge expenditures had anything to do with Bruce Power’s desire to build nuclear plants here, but also said they were about attracting “new industry to our province”.
Regardless, this budget locks us into unsustainable, non-renewable energy.
There’s nothing about wind power, which presently provides only 3% of our electricity.
There’s no exploring other renewables – from small hydro to biomass, or policies that would encourage this shift.
There’s no priority to demand side management (DSM), though it’s much cheaper to reduce demand than increase supply.
I decided to explore this glaring imbalance.
After contacting Sask Power, I was told the protocol was to speak directly to the Minister.
When I said my questions were somewhat “technical”, I was told “the Minister’s the Minister”.
I thankfully got a personal call from Minister Cheveldayoff. I asked whether he’d seen the recent projection by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation of 146,000 MW of wind power, compared to only 9,000 of nuclear.
He didn’t respond directly, but said he’s awaiting a Sask Power report in May, adding they were considering wind, perhaps “200 MW”.
When I noted that with less wind potential than us, Alberta was approaching 1,000 MW, he said that’s a “little ahead of the game” and he was awaiting a report on what the grid “can handle.”
But he assured me we’re “moving in that direction” and it’s “not either/or”.
When I asked why, then, all Sask Power’s expenditures were on non-renewable generation and transmission, he said we’re the “fastest growing economy” in Canada and producing “power is our priority.”
(I forgot to ask “Would that be as an economic activity, for profitable export?”)
When I discussed how energy efficiency, and renewables produced nearby end uses, provided reliable electrical supply more cheaply, reduced GHGs more cost-effectively, and created far more local employment, our conversation began to peter out.
But, when I mentioned that Sask Power’s policy of not paying a fair tariff for farmers, First Nations, towns and others producing extra electricity was a stumbling block to sustainable energy, he replied that (policy) “isn’t the be-all or end-all”.
The conversation needs to continue.
The Sask Party seems disinterested in seriously advancing renewable energy.
They appear locked into the old, industrial-extraction model that’s getting Ontario and Alberta into so much trouble.
We are being kept in the dark about wind power which is booming elsewhere.
Sask Power’s long-term budget trend may be preparing us for Bruce Power’s privatized nuclear mega-project on the North Saskatchewan River, without any public debate or objective exploration of energy alternatives.
This remains unacceptable.
-------------
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who writes a weely column "Saskatchewan Sustainability" for the provincial chain R-Town News.
By Jim Harding April 5, 2009
The Sask Party recently released Sask Power’s 2009 budget.
40% of the nearly $1 billion will go for new electrical generation and the rest for upgrades and new transmission lines.
The biggest expense is for simple cycle natural gas turbines near Kerrobert, North Battleford and Saskatoon, which can be turned on and off to meet peak load demand. A new transmission line will be built from Coronach to Moose Jaw. An astonishing $8 billion spending is planned for the next decade.
Minister Cheveldayoff accused the previous Calvert government of ignoring Sask Power’s “infrastructure deficit” and being more concerned about “the lowest cost-bundle”, while NDP Deputy Leader Atkinson rebutted that $2.5 billion was spent from 2000-2007.
There was no focus on basic energy policy in the partisan skirmishing. The Minister denied that these huge expenditures had anything to do with Bruce Power’s desire to build nuclear plants here, but also said they were about attracting “new industry to our province”.
Regardless, this budget locks us into unsustainable, non-renewable energy.
There’s nothing about wind power, which presently provides only 3% of our electricity.
There’s no exploring other renewables – from small hydro to biomass, or policies that would encourage this shift.
There’s no priority to demand side management (DSM), though it’s much cheaper to reduce demand than increase supply.
I decided to explore this glaring imbalance.
After contacting Sask Power, I was told the protocol was to speak directly to the Minister.
When I said my questions were somewhat “technical”, I was told “the Minister’s the Minister”.
I thankfully got a personal call from Minister Cheveldayoff. I asked whether he’d seen the recent projection by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation of 146,000 MW of wind power, compared to only 9,000 of nuclear.
He didn’t respond directly, but said he’s awaiting a Sask Power report in May, adding they were considering wind, perhaps “200 MW”.
When I noted that with less wind potential than us, Alberta was approaching 1,000 MW, he said that’s a “little ahead of the game” and he was awaiting a report on what the grid “can handle.”
But he assured me we’re “moving in that direction” and it’s “not either/or”.
When I asked why, then, all Sask Power’s expenditures were on non-renewable generation and transmission, he said we’re the “fastest growing economy” in Canada and producing “power is our priority.”
(I forgot to ask “Would that be as an economic activity, for profitable export?”)
When I discussed how energy efficiency, and renewables produced nearby end uses, provided reliable electrical supply more cheaply, reduced GHGs more cost-effectively, and created far more local employment, our conversation began to peter out.
But, when I mentioned that Sask Power’s policy of not paying a fair tariff for farmers, First Nations, towns and others producing extra electricity was a stumbling block to sustainable energy, he replied that (policy) “isn’t the be-all or end-all”.
The conversation needs to continue.
The Sask Party seems disinterested in seriously advancing renewable energy.
They appear locked into the old, industrial-extraction model that’s getting Ontario and Alberta into so much trouble.
We are being kept in the dark about wind power which is booming elsewhere.
Sask Power’s long-term budget trend may be preparing us for Bruce Power’s privatized nuclear mega-project on the North Saskatchewan River, without any public debate or objective exploration of energy alternatives.
This remains unacceptable.
-------------
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who writes a weely column "Saskatchewan Sustainability" for the provincial chain R-Town News.