Let’s look at the facts

The announcement of the tentative agreement to sell NB Power is a game changer on the Atlantic Canada political scene, with severe reverberations hitting Newfoundland and to a lesser degree, Nova Scotia. Only Quebec, the originator of the storm, seems immune. Of course, Quebec is 10 times larger than New Brunswick, so the $4.75 billion proposed purchase of NB Power is relatively small potatoes compared to Hydro-Québec’s debt of $35 billion. With total assets of $67 billion their debt-to-asset ratio of 53 per cent is quite healthy.

One of the facts of business life is that most businessmen don’t make difficult choices until it becomes absolutely necessary. Shawn Graham, as CEO of this province, is no different. Nearing the end of his first mandate, he has two financial problems looming – first, the provincial deficit is ballooning and $1 billion may be added for the current year.

Secondly, delays in the refurbishment of Point Lepreau have delivered extra costs to NB Power for the purchase of replacement power. This would make a rate hike unavoidable, and certainly unwelcome before an election.

Given that discussions began early in 2009, it is likely that a sale of NB Power was seen as the neutralizing agent to fix these potentially fatal electoral roadside bombs.

Let’s look dispassionately at the proposal. What is the reality, what is just spin and what is just not true? There are many talk radio shows going on and I’ve listened to a few. Citizens are concerned and want answers.

One of the recurring themes of callers is the idea that Quebec is suspect and their hydro company cannot be trusted to provide power to New Brunswick. We might call it fear of the unknown or fear of significant change in our lives, xenophobia or in some cases Francophobia.

Leaving aside the Quebec-Newfoundland issues related to Churchill Falls for the moment, most observers would say that Hydro-Québec is a well run-utility that is professional and technically competent. Like all large organizations within the state sector and often the private sector, the productivity of employees may leave room for improvement. This also is the case at NB Power, which has consistently avoided making those tough management decisions. (NB Power does find the time to address and implement management bonuses.)

Hydro-Québec regularly delivers power or contracts with utilities south of the border and one doesn’t hear of broken contracts or poor performance. In fact, given the worst case of a separate Quebec outside of Canada, wouldn’t it be extra important for credibility of the new state to fulfill all contracts signed by state organizations like Hydro-Québec?

Could we set aside the Quebec-baiting or fear factor and understand that our own failure to manage NB Power is not the fault of Quebec or their utility?

A second theme mentioned by the government and by some citizens is that NB Power’s debt is unmanageable and we would be unable to reduce it. Not so. For example, under the management of Jim Hankinson between 1996 and 2001, NB Power reduced net debt by $423 million. There is a natural pattern of capital expenditures on new plants in some years and subsequent debt reduction in following years. It happened again after the Coleson Cove rebuild. What remains crucial is good operational cost control and that ongoing capital costs are cut to allow debt to shrink quickly after a major project.

If we compare NB Power’s rates with many others, we can see that the rates are very reasonable. Residential rates in N.B. are 11.66 cents; N.S. is 12.88, and P.E.I. at 17.3 cents; Calgary charges 12.13 cents and New York, 25.3 cents. Only the provinces with significant hydro power, such as Manitoba, B.C. or Quebec, are lower. The same is true for large industrial rates. Ontario charges a cent and a half more than N.B., and who has more industry than our Upper Canadian brothers?

Let’s not fool ourselves that debt at our utility was the reason for the sale or the most important factor. But ever since the building of Lepreau, we haven’t wanted to pay the real cost of electric power, and political leaders from Richard Hatfield down the line wouldn’t bite the bullet and allow rates to rise to lower the debt level. As well, management at NB Power hasn’t controlled costs on a consistent basis. The debt is high but manageable on every level but political, it seems.

We’ve only begun the peeling of this particular onion. This story is quite complex for one column, so let’s look at the self-sufficiency agenda, emissions, peak oil, Newfoundland and lower power rates, on another day. Hopefully, our eyes won’t water too much when we discover the rest of the story.

The Future of Local Food

This op-ed appeared in the Moncton Times Transcript as an introduction to local food and a talk by radio host Jon Steinman (of “Deconstructing Dinner” fame)

“For climate change; for water; for energy; for all sorts of reasons our diet is going to change. Consumers are not going to like it, although it is probably going to be healthier and definitely more sustainable,” says Tim Lang, a Professor of food policy.

Later this month, we’ll be talking about food in greater Moncton. It’s one of the essentials for life, along with housing. It’s part of our daily social interactions. Yet, we take for granted the existence, quality, and cost of our daily sustenance.

Most of us have noticed the decline of agriculture in New Brunswick over the past century in favour of factory farms and corporate concentration in the processing sector. This is a global phenomenon. Should food be just a commodity like all others? Did you ever wonder why there are 850 million people in the world without sufficient food and over a billion who are obese?

Is there a way to provide a fair living for farmers, improve the economy of our province and increase food security for the people who live here? What is community supported agriculture? What is the effect of processed food on our health? Should we be worrying about the food that we put into our mouths? These are just a few of the questions intriguing to many consumers.

Leading the presentation and discussion at the Dieppe Market will be Jon Steinman from Nelson, British Columbia. His remarkable radio program entitled “Deconstructing Dinner” serves as a sounding board for his belief that “food deserves far more attention than it currently receives and that we owe it to this planet and each other to fully understand the implications of our food choices.” His broadcasts bring together farmers, journalists and researchers who “deconstruct the issues” to provide deeper context to consumers.

Those of you with an internet connection can access past programs at any time via podcasts. A podcast is simply a file found at a website that can be opened by your computer to play an audio recording. In other words – radio when you want it. A wide ranging list of food related topics is covered by this unique program that is heard on 34 radio stations. http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/

The Fundy Biosphere Reserve, the New Brunswick Food Security Action Network and Post Carbon Greater Moncton are partnering to bring Jon Steinman here. Jon brings innovative ideas that may generate community interest to meet the increasing demand for locally produced food.

While we presently see the widest variety of food at our local supermarkets from all points of the globe, Post Carbon believes that food security will become an important issue in coming years. Today’s global market is only possible with cheap and accessible fuel, a prospect that will be changing in the near future.
Your food travels thousands of kilometers to get to your plate – for example, lamb from New Zealand, vegetables from Mexico, or water from Fiji, if you can believe it.

Such a long chain needs a considerable energy footprint, and leaves us vulnerable to transportation glitches or economic damage in the producing countries that will be caused by price spikes following a permanent decline in world oil production. An “oil crunch,” to put it politely, is expected in the next few years by the chief energy economist at the International Energy Agency.

Based on the wonderful Deconstructing Dinner programs that I’ve heard on the internet, I’m looking forward to a very interesting talk by Jon entitled “The future of local food.” It takes place at the Dieppe Market on September 28th at 7:00 pm. A bilingual discussion period will follow. Admission is free.

Develop an energy strategy that serves New Brunswick

Building a new oil refinery with a price tag of $8 billion was never going to be an easy task, but saying goodbye to a project where millions have been already spent must be quite difficult.  Collateral damage may include employees losing work and the investments made by individuals in the community expecting a boom.

There is always a risk of becoming emotionally invested in a concept, whether it’s private or public sector managers.

According to news reports, Irving Oil now sees declining customer demand for gasoline “from 2015 out for the next 25 years.” They didn’t divulge the reason for the decline, despite an expanding U.S. population. One likely cause is the reinvigorated corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE) in the U.S. gas market and hence in Canada. The new refinery would have added capacity into a declining market.

But looking beneath the surface, rising oil prices in 2007 and 2008 made it clear that we are reaching a tipping point in world oil supply. About 40 of the world’s 54 oil producing countries have passed peak production and are declining. Reduced supply means fewer refineries, as I noted in a previous column from 2007.

Has the present government become so emotionally attached to its self-sufficiency agenda and “energy hub” job strategy that they reject the reality of an oil production decline in coming years with its consequential economic chaos? Or is it just saving face until the next election?

Self-sufficiency, as proposed by Shawn Graham, was fatally flawed from the beginning.

It was based on growing a larger population, a strong industrial economy and sufficient cheap energy, all of which are unlikely in the next decade.

With the passing of the refinery project, the “energy hub” seems an empty shell.

There is talk of an Irving wind power export project, which is like assembling Lego blocks made elsewhere – few construction jobs, and few or no permanent jobs. A related concern: do we want to use the best wind sites for export power rather than local use? A proposed natural gas plant is comparable, giving some short-term construction work but few permanent jobs.

The fallout from the refinery decision means expected tax revenue will not materialize.

Based on reduced revenue expectations, one would hope that the expenditures of government (both capital and ordinary) would be reviewed. As an example, New Brunswick’s latest budget proposes spending $160 million on new technical schools and programs, which were partially intended for training of refinery construction trades.

Demographic forecasts of a 20-per-cent reduction in student population in coming years and with more distance education, would see significant spare capacity in existing“bricks and mortar”institutions.

Does this expenditure still make sense? Perhaps lowering tuition would keep the institutions filled in coming years.

Having misunderstood the threat of an impending energy crisis, it’s time for Premier Graham to return to the basics of government.“Government intelligence” could produce an energy policy that meets our needs.

Should new homes have to meet an energy code? Is Efficiency NB making a serious impact on heating costs for existing homeowners? I recently talked to a hard-working woman in the process of being cut off from electricity. Due to misfortune and remarkably high bills, she couldn’t catch up from the high winter costs. This is real life for the less fortunate among us.

What is the role of wood in New Brunswick for heating homes? Why can’t NB Power reduce its winter peak? Should NB Power be consolidated and work on improving operational efficiency and reducing costs? Should new appliances sold have to meet energy efficiency standards? Since we are facing an impending crisis of very high gasoline prices and energy shortages in the near future, should we be setting a floor price for gas to encourage the purchase of high-efficiency vehicles? Would incentives help us? What about mandatory standards for vehicle mileage or speed limits?

These are but a few of the questions that I would ask the premier. Will he change course? What will be his legacy? His three years of power have shown little progress in setting a new course on energy. Considerable time was occupied in the energy department marketing the “energy hub” idea.  Being a strategy for job generation, it should have been handled by Business New Brunswick.

Who are the losers with three years of an energy policy abyss? The people of New Brunswick, who won’t be prepared for hard times.

But it could be worse, I suppose. Mexico is again facing large decreases in government revenue, as their oil exports declined 14 per cent during the first half of 2009. That decrease of 200,000 barrels a day amounts to $4 billion less revenue for Pemex, the state oil company.

Why solar thermal energy still shines

Is the sun a renewable resource?  Well, technically it isn’t, as it will burn out in about five billion years.  But for all practical purposes, 5 billion years is the same as a renewal source.  In contrast, world oil production started in 1859 and will start declining sometime in the next five years.  So, what’s the most reliable natural resource to provide our hot water from for our homes? The sun, oil wells, or electricity?

Remember that electricity in New Brunswick is roughly 60 per cent from fossil fuels.

If you chose the sun, you may be on to something sustainable.  People thinking about solar energy systems may confuse solar thermal with solar photovoltaic (that provides the electricity for your calculator).  One of the types of solar thermal uses a liquid, propylene glycol, to avoid freezing concerns while effectively transferring heat from the sun to your hot water.

A typical collector consist of a number of black-painted aluminum fins or plates bonded to copper tubing in a box that’s covered by a tempered glass cover. The glycol is pumped through the collector on a roof or wall, absorbs heat and transfers it, through an exchanger, to a storage tank for use when required. The interesting part is that there’s no charge for the energy provided by the sun, so it’s inflation-proof.

At the surburban home of Gordie Smallwood of Moncton, you can find a solar thermal system he’s built with reclaimed collectors. The collector area on his roof is 160 square feet (roughly 8 x 20 feet). That’s bigger than your typical system. His hot water is totally solar heated, with the excess going to partially heat the house.

As Gordie explains, “this is not rocket science. The technology has been around for a long time and there are lots of good manufacturers out there.” The day I saw his unit, the collector output was at 140 degrees Fahrenheit.

I also spoke with Gordon MacDonald of Harvest Energy Solutions about solar thermal. He suggested that people take all of the energy conservation steps that they can as a first step to energy independence, being the biggest bang for your dollar. Each site has challenges as the building may not have a good southern orientation, the angle of the roof may be less than optimum and shading may exist. The roof structure should be in good physical shape to support the weight of the collectors, and space is required for the storage tank, among other considerations.

The cost of a system will vary depending on your requirements – how much heat can you effectively use? For example, the heating demand of a home varies greatly in a winter and is not required at all in the summer. However, hot water heating requirements are relatively stable throughout the year and therefore more economic to design for.

Apparently, commercial and industrial users of large quantities of water are the big winners with solar thermal, as the economies of scale kick in and many companies use hot water only during the day, minimizing storage requirements. Paybacks are quick.

So, if there is an economic advantage, why aren’t more residences and businesses using solar thermal? Very simply, initial installation costs are in the thousands of dollars, and you can rent an electric water heater from N.B Power for less than $10 a month. Which would most people logically choose? Lower first cost wins almost every time. In addition, there are few installed systems in New Brunswick to serve as comfort for those of us who only believe in what we see. Lastly, with a small number of retailers and trained installers, you may understand why solar hasn’t heated up our interest.

The federal government has several programs that reduce payback time and stimulate the industry. The EcoEnergy Retrofit program provides $1,250. The temporary Home Reno Tax Credit has a maximum benefit of $1,350. And there may be others. Be careful to ensure that you qualify and that you follow all the right steps.

In Kingston, Ont., the utility will provide a two-panel unit for $49 a month. Larger sizes are slightly higher. You can also purchase the system for $5,000, not including installation. Other utilities in Canada are getting involved as well, including Manitoba Hydro, Enmax and FortisBC.

What could New Brunswick do to encourage solar water heating? NB Power provides hot water tanks that use electricity at a monthly rental rate. That electricity mostly comes from non-renewable sources (oil, coal, and natural gas). The province could require NB Power to lease solar thermal hot water systems, as well. At 10,000 new systems per year, that’s 20,000 collectors or more. These could be produced locally if we chose to do so.

If you include all of the installation work, you have the start of a new green industry in New Brunswick.

Canada needs lower interest rates

If you look around you can always find someone worse off, and by comparison, you’ll feel better about your own situation. The New York Times recently borrowed $250 million dollars from the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. The interest rate: a whopping 14 per cent. Times are tough for the newspaper business, with ad revenue down considerably in the recession and challenges from the Internet. Carlos Slim is betting that the better brands will survive.

Fortunately, the average cost of borrowing for the province of New Brunswick is lower than that, presently 8.3 per cent, down about half a per cent from several years ago, due to the trend of lower interest rates and the rise of the Canadian dollar. Former Premier Bernard Lord isn’t happy with the rising provincial debt strategy taken by Premier Shawn Graham’s government, according to a recent news report. A combination of higher capital spending and lower personal taxes will be financed by debt. The auditor-general indicated in March that the province’s debt could surpass $10 billion by the end of 2013. That’s approximately 52 per cent higher than the legacy of the previous administration.

If the interest rate on the provincial debt remains the same, the annual payment for that $10 billion debt could be $830 million annually, or $253 million more than 2008. To be fair, a higher debt is not necessarily a bad thing, if the money borrowed results in future increased revenue to pay the higher debt interest. For example, if the spending increased economic prosperity, or if our population would increase to provide higher tax revenues – not likely based on our recent history.

There is an historical precedent for this strategy that comes to mind. What country consistently deficit-financed budgets, lowered taxes over the past 30 years and now finds itself in a financial minefield? While Zimbabwe may have a terrible debt to GDP ratio at 240 per cent, the country I was talking about is the United States. It’s at 85 per cent and will hit 97 per cent in 2010.

Canada’s ratio is slightly less than 30 per cent but will rise in the next few years as we follow the Keynesian expenditure bandwagon suggested by the Obama administration.

So where is these story going? Well, the U.S. makes a link between oil prices and the economy. “Another spike in oil would have consequences in terms of world recovery…” explained Steven Chu, the U.S. energy secretary in Rome at a meeting of energy ministers.

Italian Economic Development Minister Claudio Scajola called for an alliance between the private sector and governments to spur investment. “When the crisis is over, the risk of insufficient energy supply exists, and as a result high and unstable prices.”

From these statements, it appears that some governments finally recognize a precarious situation in oil pricing and supply when they see one. There’s a book that just went on my must read list, “Why your world is about to become a lot smaller – Oil and the end of globalization.” Jeff Rubin, formerly CIBC’s chief economist, foresees future recessions caused by oil price spikes in triple digits.

We’ve seen that recessions lead to reduced government revenues. A logical thought progression would suggest that provincial governments could benefit from lower borrowing rates to help adjust to difficult times in coming years. How could this be done?

The mandate of the Bank of Canada could be enlarged to include purchase of provincial bonds as deemed advisable. Perhaps these funds could encourage an off-oil agenda by conservation and green power construction. At the moment our central bank provides assistance to chartered banks and administers national monetary policy. The short term funding to chartered banks can be as low as the bank rate, presently .25 per cent.

One intent of monetary policy is to limit inflation to around 2 per cent and definitely avoid deflation. Over the past few years, the growth in the money supply has varied between 7 per cent and 12 per cent and depending on which money supply indicator you use, it increases by a double digit and sometimes triple digit billions each year. A portion of this money could be used. The key question is, how the chartered banks would view this type of change?

Simply reflecting on a statement from Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois brings doubt: “we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created..  are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

In Canada, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s proposed revision of credit card law doesn’t lay a glove on the chartered banks. There’s no cap on maximum interest rates.

Let’s see if I’ve got this right. The banks have access to billions of government capital at .25 per cent, your deposits for virtually nothing, and they loan it out to us at 19 per cent interest? That’s quite a spread to work with, Jim.

The banks may not own Jim Flaherty or Stephen Harper, but they certainly have a good hammerlock going and didn’t someone just cry uncle.

More food security needed for Metro area

Published Tuesday, May 12, 2009 in the Moncton Times &Transcript – written in association with Michel Desjardins (co-founder of Post Carbon Greater Moncton)

If you were affected by the changes in energy prices in the last year, you are not alone.

Post Carbon Greater Moncton (PCGM) is a group of approximately 65 citizens of the Metro Moncton area that have come together because they share the view that the world is about to enter an era of oil scarcity.

This will result in dramatically more expensive energy supplies and a significant shift in the way we live. This view is supported by a growing number of geologists and scientists from around the world.

The time to start planning for a future marked by the high energy costs is now. Being less dependant on fossil fuels means being more self-sufficient and less vulnerable to volatility in the world oil market.

To reduce our dependency on fossil fuels we should start by focusing our attention on at least four areas of activity:

1. Food self-sufficiency and security;

2. Energy efficiency;

3. Active and public transportation;

4. Education and awareness.

Let’s take food as an example. The agri-food industry is extremely reliant on cheap fossil fuel energy. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides and to produce food (i.e., planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting). Fossil fuels also play a critical role in the processing, distribution and packaging of food.

Furthermore, oil and gas are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads.

The year 2008 has shown just how quickly a surge in oil prices can drive world food costs through the roof. Had it not been for the Canadian dollar gaining in value against the American currency, and therefore counterbalancing the increased cost of American food imports, Canadians would have paid considerably more for their food during this period.

Even though oil prices have pulled back recently, PCGM believes history will repeat itself. Most energy analysts today are of the opinion that oil prices are poised for a swift recovery in the next few years, if not months. Communities unprepared for a new round of price hikes run the at-best risk of having to pay a higher proportion of their income on food. At worst, they could suffer food shortages.

PCGM proposes to conduct an experiment to determine how urban agriculture can contribute to self-sufficiency and food security.  A volunteer local family “backyard farm” will grow fruits, vegetables and also raise three chickens.

The goals of the project are to explore optimal conditions for small-scale farming in an urban setting and lay the groundwork for an effective municipal regulatory framework.  PCGM also expects to use the project to raise awareness about food self-sufficiency and security in the Greater Moncton area.

Many of you already benefit from a vegetable garden in your yards, but the raising of chickens for eggs may seem exotic or strange at first glance. Our grandparents raised chickens at home and today it is common practice in approximately 100 North American cities. For example, in San Francisco: “It is permitted for any person, firm or corporation to keep or feed up to four of the following in any combination: dogs of age six months or older unless part of a dog kennel, hares, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice, gerbils, chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, doves, pigeons, game birds of any species, or cats provided that coops or enclosures are approved by the Director of Public Health.”

Other chicken-friendly cities include Victoria, Vancouver, Seattle and New York.

There are numerous advantages to raising chickens in an urban setting. Here are a few key ones:

* Chickens are productive. They provide eggs for personal consumption and fertilizer for gardens;

* Chicken-raising gives control over the quality of eggs, i.e. antibiotics, etc.

* Chicken-raising is an easy and accessible way for average people to contribute to local food security and self-sufficiency;

* Chickens are trouble-free, quiet and people-friendly. It is a fun and educational hobby.

It is for serious reasons that Post Carbon Greater Moncton has formally requested that the City of Moncton allow this pilot study and consider at a later date any necessary changes to bylaws.

Within a few years, energy will decline. Economic dislocation will greatly stress the fabric of our society causing financial problems for most citizens.

Some economists believe that this recession was caused by rising oil prices in 2007 and 2008. Therefore, the next recession may be sooner than many imagine.

Shall we examine our future under a clear and focused light, and acknowledge that oil will decline and that we need to adjust?

Or shall we wait until a larger crisis strikes, and our leaders flop about like fish out of water?

The choice is ours to make.

Can our society avoid the next ‘Black Swan’

We’ve been getting a little refresher recently on what an economic contraction feels like.  Canadian figures show that our GDP increase dropped from 2.7% in 2007 to .5% in 2008.  The US economy contracted by 5.9% and Japan felt a staggering 12.7%.    We can expect further contraction in 2009 based on job losses and declining consumer confidence.

The optimist in me believes that the economy will recover as the toxic loans and derivative products are spun out.  In 2010, confidence could return and people may open their wallets for purchases.  But is there a perfect storm waiting for us after that?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes black swan events in his book entitled naturally “The Black Swan”.  World War I or the September 11 attack, are examples of how unexpected events can dramatically change human history.  Taleb suggests that a black swan is a complete surprise but afterwards is ‘explained’ by hindsight.  Wouldn’t it be nice to predict a perfect storm / black swan event and hopefully divert the course of history.

Fact 1 – The population of the world is increasing at slightly over 1% per year or roughly 80 million new inhabitants crowding onto the planet every year.  These people all want the good life with a car and other typical consumer items. Greater population with level or declining oil production means 1% more competition for that oil each year.

Fact 2 – The president of Total Oil, Christophe de Margerie recently predicted that world oil supply will peak at 89 million barrels per day, a rather astounding admission from an industry source.  A significant number of analysts think that production has either peaked or will in the next few years.  At the very least, everyone agrees that the era of cheap oil is over, with new offshore developments costing between $60 to $80 dollars a barrel.  Although $40 oil helps our present economic woes, the low price forces cuts in oil discovery and development budgets and also renewable energy projects.

Over the last few years production capacity has flattened out at roughly 86 million barrels / day so his views seems closer to reality than most oil company leaders are willing to publicly admit.  The International Energy Agency now predicts a production peak 10 years earlier in 2020.  Expect further adjustments to their prognostications are reality shakes their irrational exuberance.

So why does world oil production matter anyway?  Very simply, oil equals economic growth.  Without oil, there is no economy.  We can print all of the dollars we want, but they won’t power a car or a backhoe, or a ship to deliver goods around the world, unless oil is available and at a reasonable price. Declining oil means economic contraction with higher oil prices – the worst of all possible worlds.

A possible black swan starts after an economic recovery in 2010 when oil demand recovers and supply tightens.  By 2011 a rapid price spike similar to 2008 occurs.  The economy weakens again and the oil price slips briefly.   Supply, weakened by under-investment and natural depletion, no longer meets demand.  This cycle of spikes and economic slippage proves fatal for our economy.  Our growth economy changes to a continual decline economy.  Further stimulus programs are out of the question as no willing lenders such as China can be found.  Our 2009 stimulus funds were spent on frivolous issues like four lane highways.

As with any sad story, there is a happier version where the wise leader directs and encourages a transition to a sustainable localized resilient community.  Significant investment is made in localized food production and manufacture of goods.  Conservation of energy in homes and business is made a priority, and shifts off-oil to other renewable supply is promoted.

Is it already too late to save our society? The list of missed opportunities is endless.  The Lower Churchill hydro project would take six years.  Photovoltaic cells won’t be ready for prime time economically for several years.  The present rate of retrofitting our existing homes could take 50 years.  We don’t even insist on an energy code for new buildings.

England now requires that all homes being sold have an energy performance certificate and by 2016 all new homes must be zero carbon.

In the courtroom drama “A few good men”, the lawyer Tom Cruise interrogates the Colonel, played by Jack Nicholson shouting, “I want the truth.”  Jack responds “You can’t handle the truth.”

Are we ready to understand a truth that globalization without adequate oil is almost impossible? Unless we’re ready with sailing ships, nuclear powered or coal burning ships.  Approaching is the perfect storm of population growth, energy decline and economic fragility, but our leaders won’t tell us the truth or help us get ready.  Perpetual economic growth requires increased supply of oil.  That party is over.

Could we adapt prior to a “declining oil / permanently contracting economy” black swan and avoid the end of our modern society? Maybe. Try renewable energy and extreme conservation.  If spent wisely, stimulus funds or routine capital expenditures could begin that transition.  At the moment, only Barack Obama “gets it” to the extent of spending billions on rail transit.  For Canadian politicians like Stephen (energy superpower) Harper, it’s just business as usual. Energy leadership in New Brunswick is equally unimaginative and bleak.

It’s all in the Performance

Recently, a small industrial owner asked for advice.  He was thinking about converting equipment from oil to electric as a way of saving money.  A quick look at his electric bill indicated that his average cost was 16 cents per kWh, which is relatively high.  His rate for furnace oil was actually lower than his kWh rate and conversion to electric would only worsen his situation. Although most business people are very smart, few understand the complexities of the small industrial rate and the variable first block.  NB Power’s rate design is intended to flatten demand but does it achieve anything but costing some customers more money? The solution chosen by this industrial customer was to reduce the size of compressors and install ground source heat pumps for space heating.  This case made me reflect about NB Power’s lack of progress on rate reform and much more.

In the rarified altitude of NB Power’s 9th floor, there are bigger fish to fry than rates today.  The Lepreau refit, with fuel costs at $1 million per day, must be weighing heavily on David Hay’s mind.  It’s now three months late or $90 million over budget.

His salary and bonus has been in the news virtually every day.   Over at Nova Scotia Power, their CEO is paid $600,000 per year.  Remember Jim Hankinson, the well-respected CEO of NB Power from 1996 to 2002?  He’s now working as CEO at Ontario Power Generation for $1.6 million a year.  That’s one of the companies generated when Ontario Hydro was broken up by the privatization / de-regulation ideology prevalent several years ago.

Although his salary is high by New Brunswick standards, perhaps we should be asking another question – Is David Hay doing the job that he is hired to do in a competent manner? And to be fair, how are the groups directly associated with NB Power playing their roles.  – The Energy and Utilities Board, The Department of Energy and Efficiency New Brunswick.  Are they doing a good job?

The Minister of Energy Jack Keir is ultimately responsible for NB Power.   Mr Keir has indicated that he wants to have NB Power run as an efficient business and operate at arm’s length to the government.   Let’s take the issue of company structure, something that is really outside the domain of CEO Hay.  The previous Conservative government split the corporation up into 5 units and incurred multi million dollars costs for no obvious benefit.  This Liberal government has given no clear direction to NB Power to re-integrate the corporation and reduce costs.  A report was commissioned back in July 2008 with Bill Thompson and Bill Marshall as the authors.  Has this report been given to the minister?

The Department’s major interests are the new refinery and private sector financing and building a second Lepreau unit with power to be sold to New England states.  There are a few problems blocking this project: inadequate transmission capacity south of Maine, no long term contracts signed from US utilities, an unfinished design for the new ACR-1000, and an uncertain future for AECL.  As well, the earliest in-service date would be 2017, the construction cost could be $7.5 billion dollars, and the possibility of cheaper photovoltaic energy being available to customers before that date may be the financial ruin of utilities who buy into the deal.  Aside from these immense obstacles and uncertainties, apparently it’s going well.

If we look over at the EUB and it’s predecessor’s performance over the past twenty years, most objective observers would agree that it has failed to reform and regulate rates.   A couple of examples – Any rate increase below 3% is not subject to review and the revenue-cost ratios are consistently out of the range suggested by the EUB.  Large customers get better rates than small customers and on it goes.  Our energy watchdog is just a cute poodle but it’s not all their fault.  Let’s face it, government wants it that way – An agency with responsibility but little authority.

The folks at Efficiency NB want to see more efficient use of energy and that’s exactly what we need both for NB Power and the citizens of this province.  Roughly three years into their mandate, we see little solid evidence that the agency is achieving its goals.  What percentages of homes in the province have been upgraded?   1%?  2%?    Their annual reports are astoundingly short on detail and context.

So, are EUB, DOE, ENB, NB Power doing a good job?  Respectively, how does ineffective, incompetent, ineffective and not good enough, sound to you?

May I make a few quick suggestions?

1) Give the EUB authority or eliminate the EUB and roll its functions into the Energy Department.  Without real rate reform, we have no incentive to conserve.

2) Premier Graham needs to accept that the energy hub is unlikely to produce anything of value, and re-task the Energy department to do its real job. A maybe solution in 2017 doesn’t cut it.

3) Efficiency NB has not lived up to its mandate.  It has no sense of urgency, and requires attention from government.

4) The Energy Minister should be the chairman of NB Power’s board of directors.  Recombine the corporation into one business unit.

Our modern society provides amazing benefits that result from the incredible energy of liquid fuels such as oil.  Our level of usage is not sustainable and change must begin immediately if we are to re-organize our very survival. The Graham government needs a complete energy reboot.  The question is whether he will press the button or whether the people will do it for him in 2010?

Invest in the right stimulus: Energy Independence

Stimulus is one of the buzzwords for 2009.  Every country that can afford it will be borrowing money to jump start the economy.  Canada is no exception.  You can be sure that when politicians try to spend money quickly, a considerable waste of your tax dollars will follow.  The ill-considered ideas will not be malicious; our esteemed leaders just don’t realize that the world has changed.

The economic problem facing us has its origins in financial weapons of mass destruction and the cost of oil.  Economists estimate the benefit of the recent drop in oil prices to the US at over $300 billion dollars.  That’s quite a stimulus package that Saudi Arabia has arranged for George Bush and his successor.  Our oil shock in 2008 is not the last one or even the worst that is coming.  We should expect another in 2010 or 2011 as soon as the economy revives.  Where will we find the funds for another multibillion stimulus program then?

Oil prices at $40 don’t support the kind of capital exploration budgets that are required to maintain supplies of oil and natural gas that are sapped by annual depletion.  A number of exploration companies are either selling for a loss or have shut down some production.  Most oil producers in Western Canada have cut their exploration budgets severely to survive.  The results of this under-investment will come back to haunt us.  The International Energy Agency warns that much larger investments are required to forestall disaster looming in the near future. Banks, being risk averse, remove credit where there is evidence of financial weakness caused by lower prices.

One of the things we seldom talk about is energy return on energy invested (EROEI) when contemplating investments for the future.  Looking back to the early days of oil production, it took one barrel of oil to bring 100 barrels of oil to market.  Today the ratio is much lower, so that the same barrel now only brings 10 from Saudi Arabia and probably only 3 barrels on average from the Alberta tar sands.  As we move into deep offshore wells like Brazil, we get costs in the $80 a barrel range.

So, our economy is increasingly being drawn into more investment for less energy output.  A blog entitled Calculated Risk http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/07/us-energy-consumption-as-percent-of-gdp.html estimates that in 2008 energy costs jumped to 14% of US GDP as compared with a low of 6% in 1998.  A logical next step for Canada would be to actually invest in projects that would reduce our dependence on oil and other energy to the tune of 8% by conservation and substitution as a minimum starting point.  So far, one of the “replacements” for oil is corn-based ethanol.  Analysts unfortunately have concluded that with an EROEI of roughly 1.3, it takes almost a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol.  That’s hardly an investment strategy to get us off oil.

What about electric power generation from wind turbines?  They give roughly a 20x average return on energy.   For a coal-fired power plant, it’s 7.5 and a nuclear powered unit is just over five.  Hydro power plants are over 10, according to the Encyclopedia of Earth.  Photovoltaic is still expensive with a questionable return at the moment.

So, if you had $40 billion to spend, how would you create the most energy independence and oil immunity for Canada and as a side benefit create jobs?

As a longer-term strategy, how about re-building a railway freight and passenger service?  We could sure use a new national energy standard for new homes and a serious upgrading program for existing homes?

How about a national direct current electric power transmission line to efficiently move hydro power from BC, Manitoba, Quebec or Newfoundland to other areas.   What about a strategic oil reserve of perhaps 100 million barrels?  The purchase of oil with deferred delivery from hard-pressed Canadian producers would ease the pain in the Western oil patch from volatile prices.

Would we be better off with a national program of wind power development and support of hydro plans in Manitoba, Newfoundland, Quebec and BC?

I like to believe that our leaders will make choices that have an excellent energy return.  However, isn’t there a “Murphy’s law” about decision making time being inversely proportional to the cost of the project?  With $40B in play, we can expect some pretty dumb ideas in the near future.  When your local politician trots out the perennial choice of widening roads or building bridges to nowhere, one might ask them about the energy return on these $100 million a pop boondoggles.  Obviously, there is none.  In fact, the future of the personal automobile is in serious question if we don’t dramatically raise fuel efficiency.

But as a wise politician once said, “I’ll double cross that bridge when I get to it.”

All I Want for Christmas is an Energy Policy

“The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable — environmentally, economically, and socially. But that can — and must — be altered; there’s still time to change the road we’re on.”

Is this statement from a mad eco-blogger off his meds?  Or is it perhaps from the supposed terrorist guy that Obama pals around with, Professor William Ayers?

No it’s just the 2008 World Energy Outlook released by the International Energy Agency (IEA).  The agency is the energy advisor to 28 member states, mostly the industrial world.  Typically, the agency has been very optimistic but recent reports have sounded alarm bells and are very somber in tone.  The base case of the IEA shows all liquids production rising to 106 million barrels per day in 2030, which is lower than the previous production forecast of 116, absent any policy intervention.  It also shows a one third increase in coal usage.

The report has been sandwiched between a lot of bad news such as the world’s present economic meltdown, the collapse of the GM, Chrysler and Ford, and global warming and has not received the attention it deserves.  The remarkable thing is that oil is directly involved in all three.

Here’s how…
Jeff Rubin, chief economist for CIBC, argues that “In the past, oil shocks have triggered global recessions by transferring billions (or now trillions) of dollars of income from OECD economies with typically very low savings rates to OPEC economies with typically very high savings rates.”  He also speculates that “If the global meltdown is all about defaulted subprime mortgage debt, a global recovery will have to wait until we see a bottom in US housing prices.  But if the global recession is primarily about the recent oil price shock, then the subsequent halving of prices from $147/bbl to little over $60/bbl now, and not a pick-up in Cleveland property values, is the real road to recovery.”

Earlier this year GM’s president Rick Wagoner admitted the obvious, “These higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior and rapidly.  We don’t think this is a temporary spike or shift. We think it is permanent.”

Previously, I had indicated that bankruptcy troubles at GM and the others would happen in 2009.  It now appears that GM may run out of cash before Christmas.  After the US provides a $50 billion bailout package, then Canada will be expected to come up with $5 billion as part of retaining our portion of the integrated industry in Canada.  That’s how the branch plant economy works.

It will be amusing to see how PM Stephen Harper will spin his free market principles into a capitalism bailout package. To maintain a veneer of capitalist philosophy, the taxpayers of Canada should receive an equity share in return for their $5 billion contribution.  The US government, as the larger contributor, would get most of the pie.  After all, the existing shareholders of the automakers haven’t held their management accountable for their actions and the companies are presently worthless.  Isn’t that how it works?

Oil didn’t kill GM directly alone.  Poor management over the decades failed to control costs or recognize the end of the oil era and adapt with appropriate vehicles.

The last of the three symptoms is global warming, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuel such as oil or coal.  The IEA report indicates that converting to alternative renewable energy or conservation will be costly but provide savings in energy.   For example to cap at 550 ppm would cost $4.1 trillion but saving $7 trillion in energy.  To reduce to 450 ppm would cost an additional $9.3 trillion between now and 2030 but return savings of $5.8 trillion.

Another big issue noted in the report is the rising depletion of existing oil fields, which is presently 6.7% on average.  The world must find new output of 30 million barrels a day by 2015 to maintain existing levels of production.  That’s the equivalent of three Saudi Arabia’s.

Increases in fuel demand and emissions will occur in non-OECD countries such as China and India.  In contrast, the US demand for oil has actually decreased in the first eight months of 2008 by 5.4% or 1.1 million barrels per day, when compared to 2007.  That’s the equivalent of almost four refineries the size of the Irving complex in Saint John.  It is likely that Barack Obama will aggressively move on reduction of US oil dependence in the coming years.

What we aren’t doing very well is attacking the disease instead of the symptoms.  The disease is addiction to oil.   Curing the root problem would require an energy policy that is integrated with our industrial objectives and public works expenditures.  Does New Brunswick have such a plan that is related to the real world of the IEA?  Well, we do have the self-sufficiency plan which it is rooted in the past and the dream world.

Remember that the IEA are optimists and they say we have to dramatically change our approach.  The real situation is a lot worse than most can imagine.  Energy Minister Jack Keir, could we have an energy policy by Christmas?  I won’t specify what year because I don’t want to be disappointed when I look in my stocking.