Natural Resources Committee on March 24th, 2009

[Tim Weis]

I just want to make one clarification, because it's been picked up on a couple of times. I didn't mean to say that pilot projects in and of themselves aren't useful, but the point I wanted to make is that pilot projects can't be the ends unto themselves. We need to be thinking beyond pilot projects and how we implement these things on a large scale. So that was the point I was trying to make, not that we don't need some pilot projects in a handful of areas, but that we need to be thinking much bigger than that and in much larger penetrations than pilot projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Now to Mr. Allen for up to five minutes.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a few questions, and if I have any time left over I'll share it with Mr. Anderson.

The first couple of questions, Mr. Whittaker, are on wind power. Very interesting. We had a potential development in my riding in New Brunswick where we have one side of the family who wants it and one side of the family who doesn't, and it's a large wind development.

My first question is this. What changes have you seen in the EIA process with respect to these wind developments that potentially would be troublesome in terms of their future development?

The second one is on the large wind power projects, as opposed to the small ones. I've seen the wind maps of New Brunswick, for example, and there are a few locations that have good wind regimes, but a lot don't. Does it take a bigger wind regime for the small turbines? What are the maximum capacity factors that you're seeing for the small turbines as opposed to the large ones?

[Sean Whittaker]

Thank you very much for that question. It was a very good question.

With respect to environmental assessment, any wind project that goes ahead right now has to, at the very least, undergo a provincial environmental assessment. If it receives federal support or is near water, then it requires a federal environmental assessment as well. To be honest, those processes are exhaustive, they're time-consuming, they're very difficult, but they really do vet the projects well. We feel that the projects that come out of the federal and provincial EIA processes are really solid.

One of the problems that you run into is ratcheting requirements, and this is something that we've seen where you start getting overlaps of requirements. A developer in New Brunswick may have to do a provincial environmental assessment and then have to do a federal EIA that covers 90% of the same things. And then they're in a municipality, and the municipality says they have to do a survey on this type of bird species, and that might be something they've already done at the federal and provincial levels but it's not accepted.

So it's a matter of streamlining. It's not changing the rigour of it, because, to be honest with you, our interest is in having projects that are really viable and sound. It's a matter of making sure there's as little overlap as possible and as great a certainty as possible so that you have set timelines for how long it will take a project to go through the process from A to B.

With respect to your second question, it's interesting to note our wind vision: 20% of all of Canada's electricity coming from wind. If you took all those turbines and spaced them out correctly, they would occupy land about the size of Prince Edward Island; so one five-thousandths of Canada's land mass would be occupied with these turbines. So you don't need much space to provide one-fifth of all our power.

We're agnostic with respect to who develops wind, because there's a role for everybody. In New Brunswick you have TransAlta. It's an Alberta oil firm, primarily a fossil fuel firm, that's developing that project. You have Acciona, which is an international developer--

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

If you wouldn't mind going to the point, I don't have a whole lot of time. I'd just like to know the difference in the capacity factors of the two, because I know the large turbines in P.E.I. are upwards of the high thirties, and in some cases the forties. What are you seeing with the low turbines in terms of capacity factor, because it makes quite a difference on the price and the economics of it, and secondly with respect to the utility system as well?

[Sean Whittaker]

The average capacity factor of all wind turbines currently supported by the ecoENERGY program is about 33%, and that's considered to be quite high. Generally, on your threshold, you have to start having a 30% capacity factor to make it viable. The North Cape wind farm in Prince Edward Island has this cranking wind and it's been sitting at about a 41% capacity factor. So it does change the economics, you're right, and it's a matter of picking the right spot. It's quite an art to finding that spot where you have a capacity factor that makes your economics work.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Have you got any averages for the smaller ones?

[Sean Whittaker]

The smaller ones are tougher. When you're siting a large wind farm you can stick it where the best winds are and you also have to be near transmission lines. When you're dealing with small turbines you don't have that luxury, because you can't string 20 miles of line to a community since that will ruin the economics. So you're generally more constrained; you have to site them near to where the load is, and there you're looking at capacity factors that are more around 25%.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up, Mr. Allen.

Madame Bonsant, do you want to ask one short question?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question.

Mr. Lessard, ÉnerCam is located in my riding. I'm very familiar with its process.

Earlier you said that Sweden had achieved its Kyoto targets, particularly as a result of biomass. Do you believe that, if financial incentives had been applied by your respective niches, Canada would have achieved its Kyoto target today?

I'm speaking to Mr. Tanguay.

[Denis Tanguay]

Financial incentives are currently being offered in the geothermal sector. We've observed annual growth rates of 100% over the past three years. That does help improve energy performance, particularly through energy replacement and substitution.

Our technology definitely makes it possible to make a major improvement in achieving Kyoto targets.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I know that geothermal energy is a very costly process. If there were more grants to help people, would greenhouse gas quantities have been cut a little more?

[Denis Tanguay]

It's hard to say what marginal impact additional grants would have had. In some provinces, they're already talking about grants of $8,000 to $10,000, which reduces the payback period to seven, eight or 10 years.

Personally, I believe that the combination of very large financial incentives provincially and federally and the entire market structure put in place by the association to support industry development has had a significant impact on the technology. These two factors combined have helped increase the impact the technology has had on markets. That's what we see for the years to come. We really have a solid industry now.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bonsant.

Thank you all very much for being here today. It was a very interesting meeting. The information you've provided will be helpful in our study.

We will suspend for about a minute and come back to deal with Madame Brunelle's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order.

As mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we will now go to the motion that was amended at the last meeting, and then debate was adjourned on the motion.

Madame Brunelle, we will now bring back this motion to the committee. Could you please read the motion as amended? Then we will go to any debate on the motion.

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Here's the motion as amended:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources examine the ecoEnergy programs with a view to proposing the necessary modifications to maximize their accessibility and their environmental impacts and that it be reported back to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

Have you any opening comments to make?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, I can provide more of an explanation. You must bear in mind that this motion was introduced a very long time ago. That was in response to a request that had been made to us to suggest future business for the committee. I looked around a little and discovered that the government was investing a lot of money in the ecoEnergy programs; we have a lot of programs. For that reason, it would really be a good idea for this committee to determine program limits, to ensure that we can maximize their accessibility and environmental impact. We are in the middle of an economic crisis; we don't need to remind anyone of that. We should check to see whether these consumer incentives that may be characterized as environmentally friendly are really good, whether people consider them efficient, effective. It seems to me this would really be an opportunity for economists, government officials, environmentalists, citizens, private businesses from various fields and entrepreneurs to come and present their views. I believe that would be a very interesting study. We estimate that it would take between four and 12 meetings to cover this study. It must be kept in mind that the government has invested an enormous amount in the ecoEnergy programs: ecoENERGY for Technology, $31 million; Fleets, $2 million; $185 million for Biofuels, and I won't name them all, Mr. Chairman. If you look at the budget, there are a lot of them, and it seems to me it would be a good idea to determine simply whether they're efficient, so that the House can adjust matters as necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Madame Brunelle.

We go to Mr. Cullen now. I have Mr. Trost on the list, and no others that I recognize.

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks.

Very briefly, as we can tell from the witnesses today, I think this is topical and relevant. My question goes back to my comments from last time in terms of the process of this committee coming up with its agenda.

Perhaps through you, Chair, to the clerk, I can be reminded of.... When we cast this first agenda we had installed in it a place where we could review how this study was going and begin the process of laying out our next agenda. I can't recall when that date was. I think we said at mid-term, if I'm correct, Chair. It was sometime after six weeks, I believe. We said we would take a small pause and see how we are doing with this study, what needs to be added or subtracted, and then start to set the agenda for the next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes. I think there was talk and I think there was general agreement that after the 21st, some date soon after that, we would take a look at things and discuss it again. We certainly can do that.

Mr. Cullen, in terms of your comment that it would be good for the committee to determine its future business at a time set aside to do that; I would love that, of course, as the chair. But as chair, I must recognize motions, as you know.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

With this motion the debate was adjourned sometime in the past. Of course the member has every right to bring it forth, and that's where we're at now. You know that.