Along with this, instead of placing price caps, the tools like Time-of-Use rates and Advanced Metering should be apllied at least to commercial and industrial consumers.

Mr. Jacobs. Why deregulation? Why indeed. The impression of many residents is along the lines of "pressure from US" (fear of trade retaliation on basis of subsidized energy which has been a traditional business advantage for Ontario). Given US imposing of crippling tarrifs on Cdn lumber (claiming that "fact that Cdn government owns almost all forests and charges loggers a unit price for access" v.s. US where "loggers have to own fores lands or purchase from other private owners" constitutes a subsidy? even though Cdn govt. proved its charges are equitable, and won the case at WTO, still the ongoing tarrifs have closed most export sawmills in Canada. Most think US logging companies are trying to force Cdn. Govt. to sell its huge national forests to private owners, which would of course be US logging companies. Most Canadians want the government to maintain control of forests for environmental reasons.) Similar discussions several other comodities e.g. steel.

Ontario couldn't survive if e.g. US auto decided electricity was a subsidy and started similar actions. Personally I'm not convinced of various calculations placing electricity "costs" above present rates. Only 25% of Ontario electricity comes from fossil fuel (coal). All the hydro gen. is old enough to be fully depreciated now, as also the nuclear plants should be. The only reason for any significant remaining capital charges to OPG's generation is that politicians in the past chose to spend the rate money rather than retire debt, but that's just book-keeping. Overall, I can't see how real average electricity "cost" in Ontario can be above 2.3 to 3 cents (Cdn) per kwhr. But then, I could be wrong.

The example you cite is a perfect one. Wasn't that the event where they found an underdesign problem with (a very few of) the calandria tubes at one of the units? They tested, re-designed, re-tested etc, then scheduled replacement of all tubes in all reactors? (Hugely expensive, pure zirconium tubes) According to their website the problem is now deffinitely fixed. Would a profit-making entity have handled it the same? If not, why no?

The difference between Ontario and Florida for example, is that the Ontario government has attempted to introduce competition at the wholesale and retail levels whereas Florida has largely forbidden it. Whether Ontario's scheme is useful or could be considered a successful implementation is another question.

If the goal is competition, the asking "why" leads to a few relatively simple answers: Monopolies have little incentive to make investments that aren't mandated by regulators; Monopolies focus on pleasing regulators rather than captive customers; Monopolies know that there's little downside risk if they do a poor job of managing their basic business because regulators won't let them fail.

Setting up electric utilities as monopolies 100 years ago might have been the right thing to do. In more modern times, monopolies are anachronisms that impose an unacceptably high cost on consumers in the name of serving the public interest.

In brief, OPG's Pickering Nuclear plant was closed in 1997 just after 25 years of its operational life, for refurbishing due to its poor performance and for some upgrading. The initial cost was estimated around $700-$800 million for all of its four units and was expected to be on-line by the year 2000. This was further revised and then the estimated cost was said to be $1.1 billion and the first unit was expected to be on-line by mid 2001. But what actually happened: By September 2003, i.e. with a delay of more than 2 years, only one of its units came on line with an unexpected cost of $ 1.25 billion only for one unit against $1.1billion for all the four units. Now the total cost for all the units is expected to be around $4 billion and the expected time is stated to be the year 2007-2008, i.e. a delay of 6 years. In May 2003, the Ontario government set up a Review Panel to check the reasons. Its report explained astonishing situations at OPG and failure of its management at every level during all these years. What to talk of the completion, they have not even detailed estimates for the rest of the three units even after 6 years of its closure.

Now what can one derive from this, you can well imagine.

Mr.Gould: We can't oversight even a single penny wasted by OPG or through any other way from our tax payer's pockets. So how can we forget a huge cost to taxpayers in the shape of subsidies. It is just like putting money in one pocket and taking out from the other. What is the fun of these subsidies when ultimately it is again a burden on the taxpayers. By this time we have collected more than $ i billion out of this freezed price. How can we justify it? Regarding OPG, it has proved to be a White Elephant for us. We are not able to bear any more. We are feeding it through our hard earned money. Now it is sure that these people can not maintain it, som let some one else come and manage it. Definitely, when one management and one system fails, we have to go for another option.

Actually, here is the most significant point about deregulation and high price rise in Ontario in the beginning phase. After deregulation in May 2002, the price went high in September when maximum HOEP was $1.02/unit and Average Monthly Weighted price was 8.3 Cents/Kwh, but consumers came to know about this price and its impact only after weeks through their monthly bills. This defeated the basic structure and derivative of a deregulated market, where everything is on real time basis and consumers ought to know about the current prices through the possible means to be adopted while going for deregulation. And going for restructuring without using proper tools will definitely lead to problems. Information about real time prices is the basic tool for this and is used effectively in many DSM techniques by various utilities. We can not change our consumption pattern of the past month.

This is what we need at this time. If we have to Implement deregulation then we have to go along with its proper tools.

"The regulatory process ultimately took more than two years, including 19 months for an EA (from July 1999 to February 2001) and a subsequent nine months for the licensing process (from February 2001 to November 2001). The uncertainty about the outcome of the EA prompted OPG to institute a "minimum spend" policy, thus slowing the pace of work on the project. "

OPG Management had apparently mistakenly assumed no environmental assessment would be required, therefore planned the work to be done with fuel still in the reactors.

Apparently each unit was costing $25 million a month to be out of service. Is that the cost of replacement power? How much of the cost overrun was that? 30 mos x 4 units x $25 mil = $3 billion. If that's the case then the entire overrun can be blamed on whoever (stupidly) decided a full 2.5 yr EA was needed for a plant that had already run for 25 years, which smells really badly of anti-nuc. lobbying and political posturing. refer "CONCERNS EXPRESSED" below.

"OPG assumed that the regulatory approval process could be completed in three months and that it would not be necessary to prepare a formal environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). These assumptions were made despite the age of the station, the backlog of outstanding regulatory commitments and concerns expressed by the community."

My point, which no-one has addressed, is how would a privateized for-profit company have reduced that cost? Agreed OPG management missed filling out some PERT charts, and obviously has a poor relationship with their political masters, but I dont otherwise see a huge potential saving in the report.

Next, it may be a delay due to a regulatory process or any licensing problem, who is responsible for that? For what the top earning executives were sitting there? Did they make any cry at that time? Being a province owned corporation whatelse support they needed?

Even you mentioned that OPG management mistakenly assumed environmental assessment requirement, wrong time schedules and missed PERT charts reporting for such a big project at the time when Ontario was in dire need of power, then what is the other mismanagement about which we are talking about.

You mentioned that OPG has a poor relationship with their political masters, I don't agree to this point. Rather they enjoyed political support for so many years that they were surviving and enjoying taxpayers money with no one to ask about their performance. Can a private company can survive under the same circumstances? No, they would have gone for the wind-up of its management years back. Because they need profit and they can't survive without earning profit. And OPG knows that it can survive without profits.

I agree 100% with your assessment that “deregulation,” as we have seen it, is not deregulation. What we have seen develop instead of a deregulated market, is a complex, unpredictable, quasi-regulated group of systems, that interface across a large grid, all with their own set of risk tolerances, capital and rate structures, and cost-clearing price requirements.

The “deregulation” movement has been ill-conceived from its very beginnings here and elsewhere. You cannot simply take a regulated, cyclical, capital-intensive industry, with the according norms of capital structure, investment requirement, investor expectation, and market structure, partially deregulate it across dozens of connected companies and states, to varying degrees, and expect it to work. The fact that people in various parts of the grid can flip a switch and still get juice today, with the way things have evolved, is amazing to me.

At the same time that various states have all been “deregulating” to different degrees, on different schedules, a completely impossible scenario has evolved for companies. Rather than see the investment of yesterday in large, high fixed cost, low operating cost baseload, you instead saw virtually all capital investment flow into the only option that made sense under an unpredictable, quasi-regulated, state-by-state deregulation scenario: natural-gas fired capacity. Consequently, NG consumption rose, NG production began to be tapped out, production prices rose, economic recession hit, all at the same time that states-imposed rate caps would not allow companies to react to these changing dynamics. This is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen. Evidence? Energy merchants (the “new wave” of competitors) hold a collective $125 billion in debt – with no prospect of recovering that capital. There is no way that rate caps can do anything more than defer rate increases and promulgate bankruptcy, now that the disastrous decade-plus-long flirtation with pseudo-deregulation in North America has developed as it has.

There has never been anything in the history of business that enmeshes good and bad economics, dozens of incompatible “deregulation” laws, like the eastern North American power grid does in its current state. This might be a “market,” but it is not a deregulated market. What we have today, amazingly, is probably better than it should be if you were looking at it on paper. I don’t think that if you stuck all the brightest economists from all of history in a room and instructed them to design the most impossible market structure possible, that you would get something as dysfunctional as the North American power market.

I used to have a few friends in low level jobs in Ontario Hydro, I even attended the Angel lineman training couses in Orangeville (was never an employee). The (govt. owned) company had a brilliant reputation for hiring only the best crewmen available and motivating them to outstanding productivity. Extremely well respected in the industry. Sure they paid the crews a little to highly (in the opinion of private industry), and made the huge PR error of allowing that political hack Maurice Strong to run the company for a vew years, but the simply DO NOT (IMHO) deserve the kind of black marks the "anti-nuke" press is giving them on this Pickering issue.

Where's the beef?

If you are talking about best crew with outstanding productivity, then I wonder if this is the scale of productivity where even after 6 years of closing they have not been able to give a clear estimate for the full project, what to talk of the completion. And these are the lapses even admitted by the outgoing management of OPG.

What I would like to add is that we, as public, are not against OPG or a regulated business. Neither we are in favor of any private corporation, nor deregulation. We, as residents of Ontario, want a stable energy sector, we want affordable prices, we want self-sufficieny in electricity. If we make any opinion about any body or any policy that is not due to any ego or personal, that is always based upon the facts put before us. The facts put forward by the Pickering-A Review Panel report released by the Ministry of Energy, Ontario may not be called any personal views or any Anti-Nuke people opinion. And these facts do not speak any positive attitude or productive and efficient management at OPG. However if there are any other reasons to justify this huge cost overrun and time delay, why those were not put to the Panel. We, the people in Ontario have every right to know those reasons. Let any body from OPG come forward to give us the correct information. Even if they were not in a position to comment on policies and problems while in OPG, but once out of OPG, they should have brought to the notice of the public what went wrong and what were the causes. Where was any Whistle-blowing by any professional in the past 6 years.

We, the tax payers in Ontario are one of the stakeholders in our provincially owned corporations. We expect what has been put before us. If we are told that this project will be over within 3 years and with so much cost, we will expect it to be like that with tolerable variations. Even if there are unforeseen problems and hidden reasons causing huge variations, we need to know. By this time we know what is there before us- the Review Panel report released by the Ministry and that does not speak highly of OPG's management in this project. Thats how we make the opinion, because we are concerned about Ontario, we are concerned about our energy sector and we know that by this time nuclear power is the back bone of our supply in Ontario.

Bottom line is after a detailed analysis, there is just no logical way to operate the current US AC grid as an unregulated free market. Period. Only two choices to get a market working they see are 1) divide grid into islands at the borders of each corporate grid with DC interconnecting transmission, a project which would cost tens of billions in transmission investment with no-one to pay. 2) revert to national grid micro-management with a (constitutional ammendment/federal fiat) to override states rights in regulation.

They also point out, as I have in past, that a free market MUST set its price for EVERY kwhr sold in a time period to at least the cost of the MARGINAL MOST EXPENSIVE kwhr generated in that period, whereas current regulatory prictice is to set the price to the AVERAGE cost + a fair markup of the kwhr generated in a period, which is very much lower, expecially in Ontario with paid-off coal, hydro and nuclear generation.

The reason "everyone" wants deregulation in Ontario is so that prices will rise. A LOT. Period. And for no good reason. In fact that is often even the STATED justification for it (see cato article). Do we all agree that is a good idea?

Bruce plants, previously owned by OPG were closed in the same years, on the same grounds, for the same work. How those people brought those units in time?

I think you try to justify all the losses, huge cost overrun, huge time delays by OPG. Do you think that the report is misleading? If it is so, have we wasted so many hours. months, resources and all that in investigating, enquiring so many people, analysing so much data? If all the costs and delays are justified then why all the top brass was fired? Why did not they put forward any justification? Why they accepted the responsibilities? Nobody keeps silent after losing his prestigious, million dollars job. Especially being professionals, what justifications they have given? Nothing, and they accepted, and it is the fact. There is no way to justify all this on imaginary assumptions, ignoring facts and supporting this sort of mismanagement at such a big project of natioinal interest.

Len: As you are asking for some specific points leading to huge losses, along with numerous others, here they are- On page 9 of the report it is mentioned that there have been long delays in planning and execution, like, in one case it took 18 months just to get the decision whether to replace a few motors or to rewind them. Other- Final design package for unit 4 was delivered 24 months behind schedule. Even materials were not made available as required leading to long delays and lost manhours.

On page 10- Construction work force was mobilized 18 months before the final engineering design package for unit 4 was completed-leading to manhours loss and money wastage.

Page 10- Out of 43000 tasks generated for unit 4, 15000 were cancelled after another replanning- and this huge rework lead to losses.

These are just a few small examples. I don't think that OPG was new to all these operations or projects. We are running and maintaining our plants for the last more than 30 years. How come that the experts are not familiar with the requirements of these works.

Moreover, as per your previous discusions, let us forget whether it is OPG or any body else, whether it is government owned or private. Let us come to Project Management. At least, when I studied my project management course, we were taught about main three deliverables of any project as: Time, Cost and Quality. So what were the expected/estimated deliverables here in this project: Time- to be on-line by the year 2002 for all the units, Cost- $1.1 billion for all the units. But in contrast, what we got: Time- to be on-line by the year 2006-2008, a delay of 6 years. Cost- $3-4 billion i.e. around 4 times. These are still estimates again and actual may be higher than this when we get them on-line by 2008. So even if we see it as a project, it has been a complete failure.

Now, if any body among us feels and has some specific points that there are some other reasons for justifying these losses contrary to the published report, let us move forward to bring to the notice of the authorities and to the people of Ontario, so that everybody should come to know the facts and let not the people or the consumers be misguided, let not our professional be made the scapegoats and be fired. Let us proceed with those points and bring them to forefront.

That's been the argument why many Southern states have refused to do it. Any jurisdiction where generation costs are below the continental average stands to loose heavily through the raised prices of "free market" electricity, which OMHO describes Ontario exactly.

Mr: Satish: How much of your stated overrun costs are comprised of "replacement electricity purchases"? How much of the balance costs became at core inevitable because of the EA process delays, and project managers having to go into the "minimum spend" policy until the time frame became more clear.

It seems an error if not outright foolish to demand precision timelines from OPG management for a process (the EA) over which they had no control. They stated that their estimated timeframe was 6 mos, which "Environmental Regulators" dragged out to 4 years+. Blame that process, not OPG.

1. How was it impossible for a corporation like OPG (which is owned by the government) to push and have that process completed in time when it was expected to cause huge delays and cost overruns, causing supply shortage in Ontario, depending on costly imports and all that.

2. Where was the whistle blowing for all these 6 years by the professionals that this is causing the province a burden of billions of dollars. For what the executives are paid millins of dollars, just to watching the delays or to push up the things. And this period of 6 months to 4 years is not a small period.

3. If you study the whole report, all the delays, mismanagements were not the result of this EA process only. What is the relation of EA process for a decision to take 18 months to say that a motor is to be replaced or to be rewound. What is the relation of EA process with mobilizing the construction workforce 18 months before the final engineering design package was received. These are just a few examples.

4. While investigating, the panel is stated to have interviewed the OPG management, the executives, the workers unions, the contractors and the regulators. If EA process is the sole reason, what is the fun of reporting all the numerous errors, project failure causes, material shortage, no cost reporting and a lots of things like that.

5. The last but not the least, why the outgoing professionals did not ellaborate this sole reason for all the losses, in the past as well as while leaving. Why they simply admitted their faults. Is not it disgusting? This is the main point again and again which I am not able to digest as a professional. Why they took the responsibilities for the cause for which they were not reeponsible.

6. What efforts were made to resolve this process delay and to make future suggestions so that it may never happen again.

This is again leading to another but the same old problem- i.e. inefficient regulatory system. So should we professional, the consumers, the public and the taxpayers should keep sitting and watching the corporatins and regulators waste the province's money.

So other than OPG mismanagement, this regulatory process is to be ellaborated and I think these are the the ultimate points again justifying deregulation.

" OPG assumed that the regulatory approval process could be completed in three months and that it would not be necessary to prepare a formal environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). These assumptions were made despite the age of the station, the backlog of outstanding regulatory commitments and concerns expressed by the community. In a letter dated July 8, 1999,5 the AECB informed the company that the “resumption of operation of Pickering A after a prolonged shut-down period imposed by a condition of the current operating licence would constitute a ‘project’ for the purposes of CEAA.” The AECB continued: “As indicated at our meeting of June 28, we do not consider that the Exclusion List Regulations are applicable to this proposed project.” OPG was, therefore, formally instructed to carry out an EA under section 18 of CEAA on the return to service project. "

Again it is mentioned at the same page:

"The Panel observes that OPG’s nuclear management did not use the window of opportunity provided during this period to ensure that critical activities such as design engineering were completed before construction began"

Thats why I pointed out earlier also to first study the detailed report. Its no way just to protect the inefficiency without going through the facts. Whatever it may be, why did not the OPG management made an outcry that this EA process delay only has caused a loss a $ 3 bilions. Why they simply left silently, admitting their fault.

My question still is, how would a private for-profit company have avoided the EA?

Is this not the MARGINAL costs to buy merchant power on the open market? What proportion of total generation is that?

As per IMO, this monthly weighted average is provided just as an information as the weighted average of price during the whole month. Actually it is the HOEP,Hourly Ontario Electricity Price which is the basis of the commodity price of electricity and which is set every hour. This price has been as high as $ 1.02/Kwh at some hours in September 2002 as against the weighted price of 8.3 cents/Kwh in that month.

As per IMO data of available supply sources in May 2003, the percentage of our hydroelectric supply is around 24% and coal fired plants is around 22% of the total generation.

The only way a for-profit entity could have done better would have been to avoid the EA process. How? Either the process was never necessary in the first place (my position) or by lobbying / bribery they could have avoided it?

No use giving it a political color. The report has been prepared by the panel which was set up by the previous conservative government. Even if you say that it was federal government delaying it knowingly to malalign the provincial government, why did not the Ontario conservative government put the facts before the public? Why they kept on sitting and feeding the money? What efforts did they put to set the things right? If any body, any agency is playing havoc with our system, should we go on just watching and let him allow for all this. It means we can't run the show, then why we take the responsibilities if we can't manage the things.

Next, again try to study the report prepared by the panel set up by the same conservative government. As per that, EA process is not the only and sole reason for all this.

Even for EA process, the OPG has been put at fault. Why did OPG assumed a 3 months EA process when it was told about the details and the delays. As per the letter written by AECB for this process in July 1999 to OPG and as per the meeting in June 1999, OPG failed to follow the instructions and kept itself on false assumptions and inefficient expertise or rather did it knowingly by not revising the estimates on realistic basis.

Other than this EA process, as mentioned in the report, the OPG people did not even bothered to go for other critical activities like design engineering jobs which had no link to this EA process.

Even after all this and EA was done, where are the other management procedures, project management efficiencies and productivity and all that. How come that they still don't have the detailed estimates for the remaining three units when 3 years have passed since EA has been completed.

So, still try to go through the contents of the report and see the gravity of the management failures.

If you say that it was federal government strategy to malalign the Ontario government, even then it shows incompetency on the part of Provincial government in its strategies. Does it mean that federal people are more smart than us and we can't manage the show.

Nothing like that. Even still if we don't admit our lapses and go on blaming other agencies for the complete failures rather than improving our efficiency, again we will be in troubles. The energy sector today is a complex mesh and there are so many escapes to put the blame on others, but being professionals, we must admit where we failed and learn to improve ourselves from our own faults.

Firstly, it was all blamed to EA process. Then the federal government was blamed. But I have been insisting that without going through the report and just trying to shield inefficiency is nothing more than just wasting the time.

You say that it was EA process that took long time, but how can you justify OPG's action where it took 18 months to decide about the replacement or rewinding of a motor? Is there also AECB's or Federal government hand in it?

OPG did not bothered to prepare a complete project execution plan for such a big project, Did AECB or Federal government stopped them from doing so? Rather AECB asked them in June and July, 1999 to treat it as a project.

Construction workforce was mobilized 18 months before the final drawings were delivered which lead to manhours wastage, did AECB or Federal government asked them to do so?

Out of 43000 tasks generated, 15000 were cancelled leading to huge rework and losses. What is the AECB's or federal government's role in it.

Even after starting the work, material was not made available to the workforce, Did AECB or federal government stopped OPG from supplying the material and delay the project?

Thats why, I think it is no use discussing without specific reference to the report. I can't produce the whole report in this comments section.

And if you ask me the cost in Dollars, I will say the entire cost responsibility lies with OPG, because it was a project which has failed completely and when there is a complete failure, everything is attributed to the management failures. Moreover, by this time even it has been proved as above that even in EA process, OPG did not act as recommended by AECB, so misconceptions about EA process has also been proved to be the responsibilities of OPG.

Len, as you have stated that it is the regulated process and regulating agencies which are more prone to political interference, and if any nuclear federal agency had been influenced by federal government of Canada to delay the process and cause losses to the provincial government, then I would strongly recommend deregulation.

So guys, let us conclude that if this is the situation, then only deregulation can save us. Let us keep away this regulated system everywhere and let private for-profit companies come forward to save at least losses due to incompetence and inefficiencies. At least they are less prone to political pressure and interference as pointed out here by Len, if it is so.

I think there are still doubts about EA process, even though I have ellaborated some detials earlier.

Panel Report page 6 points out that

1. OPG had the misconception of assuming the wrong figure of 3 months estimate for regulatory process despite of some available facts.

2. Despite of a meeting in June 1999 and a letter by AECB in July 1999, OPG was conveyed about the EA bindings and was asked to take necassary action and to treat it as a project.

But even then OPG did not react accordingly and put a wrong estimate in August 1999 with unrealistic restarting dates and unrealistic costs.

Even after completion of the EA process OPG presented 6 different cost estimates and 7 different time estimates. So Len, as you pointed earlier that it is foolish to expect exact time frame estimates from OPG in the absence of EA report, then how do we justify these 6 and 7 different estimates over a period of time when EA report was received.

Above facts prove that considereing EA process as an escape channel for all the mismanagement by OPG is not the right way and is a wrong justification.

Next you are asking about costs in dollars amount, Jame is right in saying that when every thing has been proved by now including OPG's role in EA process, then it is the complete failur for total project and for total costs.

Even then to go for specific costs and losses on specific jobs, the report mentions that OPG did not follow any Project Execution Plan for such a big project and no Work Breakdown Structure was formed, no Cost Breakdown Structures were formed, no precise cost reporting system was followed, no cost variation analysis was done and due to all these things, the panel could not conclude about specific losses on particular jobs.

Here is again the extract from Page 14 of the report:

"Panel was unable to attribute cost overruns to specific causes because of the inadequacies of the method that OPG used to track project costs."

Even no project audit was performed on its progress and costs expenditures. In addition, a lot has been discussed above and no need to repeat the things. What esle is needed to prove the mismanagement.

Mr Satish: That last bit about Page 14 pretty much seals it for me. The report panel was either completely incompetent or simply didn't want to publish detailed cost breakdowns.

I have already pointed out that we are not against anybody, we are going as per the informations put before us.

If the panel failed to report all this, where is the OPG management with the correct and accurate cost analysis and data?

Uptil now, why those figures have not been brought to the public in this free press system?

Is there anybody, protecting the mismanagement, who can present a better cost analysis and reporting system in the absence of relevant data, or who can show that all the failures reported in the document had lead to no financial losses, and all the OPG failure points as discussed above and in the report had no financial impacts.

As you pointed out earlier,you may call AECB to have caused all the delays (which has been proved not to be so), you may held federal government playing havoc with the province (which is just an assumption), you may call the review panel as incompetent( which investigated as per the data put by OPG management), but at the end no body can give a clean chit to OPG in this project.

In case you haven't noticed, we do not exactly have a "free press system" regarding nuclear power.

"(which has been proved not to be so)" can only be said of 5%, my estimate, they can take the hit for 95%.

The "chit" ceratinly smears a lot more widely than the "spin doctors" have made out so far. It is also a valid question "Why was the fact that {someone} was playing political games with 3,600 megawatts of reactor generation for 2 1/2 years never mentioned regarding the August 14 blackout?"

Sometimes we blame EA process, then we blame federal politics and then the incompetency of the review panel, - Do we try to prove OPG to be totally clean in all this? Not even a singe question regarding efficiency of OPG has been answered as discussed above many times, which I may not like to repeat again and again.

1. How can specific cost overruns on a particular job be analysed exactly and correctly in the absence of Work Breakdown Structure and Cost Breakdown Structures. Why did not OPG followed this basic principle of Project Management to arrive at correct decisions. Why don't we agree that OPG failed to do so in such a big project? Was it avoided knowingly and intentionally by OPG to have correct cost reporting on specific jobs?

2. Again come to EA, from where we started: I take the extract from the report as "OPG assumed that the regulatory approval process could be completed in three months and that it would not be necessary to prepare a formal environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). These assumptions were made despite the age of the station, the backlog of outstanding regulatory commitments and concerns expressed by the community."

Why did OPG made this wrong assumption despite of the mentioned facts? Were the OPG people incompetent to have a correct decision? Were they not conversant with the rules and regulations about the plant they were running? Were the people of OPG not having any rapport with the regulatory agencies related to their plant?

3. Now the next extract again: " In a letter dated July 8, 1999, the AECB informed the company that the “resumption of operation of Pickering A after a prolonged shut-down period imposed by a condition of the current operating licence would constitute a ‘project’ for the purposes of CEAA.” The AECB continued: “As indicated at our meeting of June 28, we do not consider that the Exclusion List Regulations are applicable to this proposed project.” OPG was, therefore, formally instructed to carry out an EA under section 18 of CEAA on the return to service project."

Why did not OPG reacted accordingly as per AECB instructions? Why did not OPG treated it as a project when clearly intimated by AECB? Why a Project Execution Plan was not prepared when clearly informed? Why did they put wrong and unrealistic figures in August, 1999, when they were already informed by AECB about the process in July,1999? Was it done intentionally?

Do all the above questions speak of OPGs efficiency?

4. Again come to Project Failure. Right from the very beginning, it has been discussed that it has been a complete project failure. Reason: Despite of all the available instructions and informations including EA process, OPG set the stated Time of restart and Cost as the deliverables. Now, how to measure the project efficiency? Projects are always measured by the set deliverables and the achieved ones. So, what were the achieved deliverables as compared to the estimated? Why such a huge variation? Due to wrong and unrealistic figures? Can we call it efficiency to project the unrealistic figures? Is it not a breach of trust? Was it done knowingly, when they were aware of each and every thing? What method was followed to take corrective actions while executing? Why cost reporting on jobs was not done to mesaure the progress and check the variations?

All these questions along with numerous others, as discussed above remain unanswered.

5. Next comes the free press. Who stops us from expressing our views on our professional and public related matters? We are discussing here for the last so many days, no body has stopped us. Can, we professionals, keep our mouths closed on fear of supression? At least when I appeared for my P.Eng. exams, we were not told to do so. Whistle blowing is our first tool against such events. There are so many platforms to exppress our views especially where public money and public safety is involved. But by this time, nobody has come forward to tell us another truth.

Already stated, we have no ego, no prejudice, but let anybody come, may be from the ousted management and tell us the other truth. I would appreciate and welcome such efforts.

Continuing further and shifting the focus on another subject without having an answer to the above questions will be just repeating the things and be of little use.

"In 2002 this cost advantage is still evident: a statement by Ontario Power Generation in January 2002 claimed that electricity from the refurbished Pickering A plant (see related FAQ) would cost CDN$0.03/kWh, compared with CDN$0.045/kWh for a new gas-fired cogeneration plant (i.e. one that generates industrial process steam as well as electricity), and CND$0.05/kWh for a new combined-cycle gas turbine. Price volatility is another concern: these gas prices are based on an average long-term cost of US$3/million BTU, but the spot price reached three times this average at one point in 2001. [Source: Speech by OPG CEO and President Ron Osborne to Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, Pickering, Ont., 2002 January 23] "

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionC.htm#SectionC

Also interesting re. initial construction costs of Darlington. "In the end about 70% of Darlington's final cost increase was due to schedule delays and financial policy changes. The remainder of the increase is attributable to changes in scope, including that imposed by an evolving regulatory environment over the course of the project."

IMHO, it's a good thing OPG wasn't a private for-profit outfit or they'de have been bankrupted by the idiots during cinstruction. Thankfully they did finish, which means we now can have access to the US$0.025/kwhr power of the 3600MW plant.

Len: How can you justify hundreds of questions as raised above about OPG's professionalism, lack of vision, lack of management, lack of control, lack of coordination and all that leading to the complete project failure making OPG fully responsible for all the cost overrun. Not even a single queastion has been answered.

And what about the OPG's expected losses around $750 miilion in 2004, running into continuous losses since the last 5 years.

Your details about Darlington clearly speaks about OPG's responsibility in the case of Pickering-A which shows that you ultimately agree that project management plays a role in costoverrun and OPG's project management in Pickering-A has been a complete failure.

This from OPG website. Please post a reference or stop posting.

quote<<[Toronto]: Ontario Power Generation Inc. (“OPG”) today reported its financial and operating results for the third quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2003. Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2003 was $37 million or $0.14 per share, compared with $215 million or $0.84 per share for the three months ended September 30, 2002. For the nine months ended September 30, 2003, net income was $125 million o r $0.49 per share compared to $61 million or $0.24 per share for the same period last year.>>

Also, regardless what you all may say about the "expensive" power from "mismanaged" OPG, it's got a real sweet balance sheet with no outstanding debt except the 8 billion liability to the so-called "decomissioning fund" for the amounts which the former boards of directors (read goverments) chose to spend rather than invest of the ratepayers contributions, now at 1/10th of a cent / kwhr. And even though it sells its power into the same grid as everyone else, it is legally limited to a maximum retained price of Cdn$0.038/kwhr, all the balance above that amount going directly to subsidize the "Price Cap" which the author claimed is costing taxpayers huge amounts. Nonsense.

AND even at the $0.038/kwhr price limit for all production, it made the previously posted profits (including immediate payment of the stupid cost overruns of the Pickering refits.)

http://genes4-anp2003.nuclear.jp/PPT/Business3.pdf

Status Plant In-Service Date

On budget, on schedule Cernavoda Unit 1, Romania 1996

On budget, on schedule Wolsong Unit 2, Korea 1997

On budget, on schedule Wolsong Units 3 and 4, Korea 1998/99

On budget, ahead of schedule Qinshan Phase III, Unit 2, China 2003

On budget, ahead of schedule Qinshan Phase III, Unit 1, China 2003

On-going Cernavoda Unit 2, Romania 2006