Standing in the dark
Perhaps as a reaction to public pressure, or at least in the face of some pushback to its plan to spend $23 million on a backup generator, Summerside City Council took a surprising step Tuesday, when it issued a rare press release in response to a recent Journal Pioneer news story that featured local energy entrepreneur Steve Howard questioning council’s decision to dish out many millions in taxpayer cash for dated technology, rather than proceeding with a “greener” option.
Pending council’s final approval, the city says it is close to inking a $23M deal with Kore Energy to design, build, and install a 16-megawatt generator at its Ottawa Street plant.
First, let’s give council credit where it is due. That being the city is proactive in looking for a local solution in the event of an emergency power outage.
It is only fair to note that many governments would ignore the issue until it was too late to do anything about it; when people are already shivering in the dark.
Tuesday’s release, however, lacks some vital information. Some might argue that it looks more like an exercise in damage control rather than the oft-quoted openness or transparency pledge. We don’t propose to be experts in energy, but if council is going to state – as it has – that: “As a backup generator, it’s only started up in emergency type situations, so our number one priority emphasizes reliability. Number two is security.”
And that: “the city did look at renewable energy options, like wind and solar, but both technologies do not rank nearly as high as traditional technologies in reliability or security for instant, black start,” where are the supporting arguments to prove that? Where did they rank? What were their costs? Can we see too?
For a city that has long claimed and to its credit has been at the cutting-edge of green initiatives, why are they now stating that green energy is: “still in its infant stage at the utility scale.
It is not mature yet, not mainstream, and so the economics and technology did not make the best case for the city’s situation?”
Green energy is not new. It has been developing for decades.
In fact, since signing the Paris Accord, Sweden has set a goal of eliminating fossil fuel usage within its borders and becoming the world’s first 100 per cent renewable country. Thanks to hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, and other low-carbon sources, Costa Rica uses about 99 per cent renewable energy sources and wants to become completely carbon neutral by 2021 (climaterealityproject.org). Really? And Summerside can’t come up with a cost-effective and green backup power alternative?
Perhaps most troubling of all is the fact that by the city’s own estimates this new generator will only be used 10 to 12 hours per year. Granted there’s a lot Joe Citizen doesn’t know about energy use and generation, but 10 to 12 hours per year doesn’t seem like a lot of time. Has council considered asking residents in the form of a survey which they’d choose: spending $23 million taxpayer dollars, or 12 hours in the dark?
In the end this may be the right decision for Summerside, but without all the information who’s to know for sure.
As it stands now we’re going to spend $23 million and we’re still all still in the dark.