4.4. Peaker Plants – Replacing the 450 hr limit on peaker plants with a “To Be Determined” unit-specific annual emissions limit

The Public Update states:

Many operators argued that the 450-hour limit in the proposed peaker provisions would undermine reliability because it would limit the ability of some jurisdictions to provide peaking services. Many stakeholders also noted a potential unintended outcome of limiting the operation of unabated emitting units by defining a maximum number of hours: once a relatively efficient unit meets its hourly limit, a less efficient unit would then be operated if there remained a need for further peaking services. This would result in more emissions than if the more efficient unit had been allowed to operate for longer.^[131]

4.4.1.  Suggestions for your submissions on a unit-specific emissions limit on peaker plants

• Six months after publishing the Draft CERs in Canada Gazette I, it is unacceptable for ECCC to propose limits that are “To Be Determined”.  They need to tell the public specifically what these “To Be Determined” numbers are immediately, so the public can decide whether they are acceptable or not.

• Subject to knowing what the “To Be Determined” numbers might be, unit-specific emissions limits for peaker plants might well be a good idea.  The previous 30 tCO2e/GWh emissions intensity standard was targeted at base load power plants, once they had been operating for several hours or more and were thus operating at peak efficiency.  Both base load power plants and peaker plants do not operate at their best emissions intensity levels when they are first started up from a cold state.  They need to run for at least several hours, so that their many  gaskets, valves, etc. warm up, expand, and thereby operate at their best emissions intensity level.  But we don’t want peaker plants to operate at their best emissions intensity level after many hours or days of permanent operation, because that is not their job.  They should never be operated in that state.  We want them to emit the fewest GHGs possible as they start up from cold, operate for a few or several hours to provide additional electricity to the system when there is a deficit, and then shut back down.  We want them designed to operate at the best emissions intensity level possible during this period of operation, because this is the only period of operation for which they should operate.  Designing for optimal operation for that period will almost certainly be different for designing for optimal operation for near full-time baseload power.  Therefore, it makes sense for peaker plants to have unit-specific emissions limits that are different from gas plants designed to provide baseload electricity.

4.5. Emergencies – Replacing the requirement for the federal Minister’s retroactive approval with a requirement to notify the Minister

Consideration is being given to enabling a system operator’s declaration of an emergency to trigger an exemption from the emissions limit for a reasonable period of time (duration TBD) to enable operators to respond to emergencies. Emissions during this period would not count against the unit’s annual emissions limit. The Minister would need to be notified in all cases, and consideration is being given to requiring the Minister’s approval to continue operating under emergency circumstances beyond the exemption period.^[132]

This change makes sense.  It would put the provincial authorities in a situation of jeopardy by which they were empowered to declare an emergency, but the federal Minister could determine after the fact that the provincial authorities had been unreasonable in doing so.  The CERs are being made as regulations under the Canadian Environment Protection Act (“CEPA”).  While CEPA is separate and distinct from the Criminal Code of Canada, CEPA is nevertheless a “criminal-like” statute, in that breaches of the sections of CEPA or of its regulations can incur criminal-like punishments, including significant fines and even jail sentences.  This change would eliminate the danger of the Minister being in a position to determine after the fact that the provincial authorities had done something for which they are liable to these criminal-like punishments.

However, a further improvement to the Draft CERs would be to have the various provincial and territorial systems operators being able to declare an emergency (which would permit their electricity systems to emit more GHGs for a period of time) and empowering the federal Minister to decide whether the emergency declaration should continue and, if so, for how long.

4.5.1.  Suggestions for your submissions on the emergencies exemption

• You may wish to consider telling ECCC that you approve of this proposed change, for the reasons set out in the Public Update.  However, once a provincial authority declares an emergency and starts the operation of the relevant gas plants, the federal minister should have the power to determine how long that will continue.

4.6. Minimum Size – Applying the CERs to units whose capacities collectively total 25 MW or more

The Draft CERs excluded units with the capacity to generate 25 Megawatts of electricity or less from the emissions intensity limit. The Public Update proposes to include all new units at the same facility whose capacities collectively amount to 25 MW or more:

Consideration is being given to applying the CER to all new units at the same facility whose capacities collectively amount to 25 MW or more, as well as to single units 25 MW and greater. This would avoid the unintended incentive identified during consultations for a facility to aggregate multiple small units, each of which would not meet the threshold to be subject to an emission limit on its own. Consideration is being given to how to continue to exempt remote communities in this context.^[133]

This is a welcome change that will ensure more fossil-fuel-fired power plants are covered by the requirements of the CERs.

4.6.1.  Suggestions for your submissions on units of 25 MW or less

• The proposal to apply the CERs to groups of fossil-fuel-fired power plants whose capacities collectively amount to 25 MW or more is a welcome change likely to be supported by climate-concerned Canadians.