David Raymond Amos@DavidRayAmos Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others Methinks Higgy and everybody else knows why I was not surprised to read this stuff or why accounting professor Matthew Wegener did not have the first clue as to why I called him just now N'esy Pas?
Still fighting: NB Power and AECL enter mediation in long-running Lepreau dispute
Utility's efforts to recover $1 billion in cost overruns on Point Lepreau refurbishment continue
Robert Jones· CBC News· Posted: Dec 12, 2019 6:00 AM AT
Former NB Power president David Hay promised in 2008 the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station would be done 'on time and on budget,' but that didn't happen.
Like a disgruntled homeowner chasing a contractor years after a disappointing renovation, NB Power is still pursuing Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for compensation over its refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station nearly a decade ago.
But there are no signs any of the roughly $800 million New Brunswick claims it is still owed for the error-plagued job will be arriving anytime soon.
"NB Power is currently in the process of discussions with AECL, the objective of which is to reach a fair compromise of the remaining claims arising out of the refurbishment," the utility reported in a disclosure to the Energy and Utilities Board earlier this month.
"The process is being pursued with the assistance of a mediator."
AECL, a federal Crown corporation, was hired by NB Power as the contractor to overhaul Point Lepreau beginning in 2008, as the plant was nearing the end of its initial 25-year lifespan.
The ambitious renovation had never been attempted on a Candu-6 reactor before, but AECL considered it feasible and developed plans to replace, upgrade or renovate key nuclear and non-nuclear components inside Lepreau to extend its life a further 25 to 30 years.
The work was expected to take 18 months and cost NB Power $1.4 billion but became mired in a number of problems and eventually took three years longer than expected. Those delays pushed costs $1 billion over budget.
Lepreau's poor performance
In addition, the plant has not performed as well as expected following the overhaul.
In its first seven operational years since coming back online in November 2012, the rebuilt reactor has run at an average of 82 per cent capacity, well below the 91 per cent level NB Power predicted for those early years during hearings in 2013 on that issue.
That's a production shortfall so far of about $250 million worth of electricity.
NB Power has also had to spend more than $500 million on capital improvements at Lepreau since the plant came back online, in part to try to improve its spotty post-refurbishment reliability.
The biggest mistake during the refurbishment occurred 10 years ago this month, when tubes were pulled from the station's calandria and the holes they rested in were scraped clean with wire brushes instead of being polished. Scratches left behind caused air leaks around new tubes. (Photo submitted)
There are signs those heavy investments are helping, but the question of who should be financially responsible for the delays and cost overruns of the original refurbishment are still not resolved and have dragged on longer than the refurbishment itself.
NB Power will not say how much compensation it is seeking from AECL but acknowledges in its new disclosure to the Energy and Utilities Board that the two sides are not close to an agreement.
Insurance money
NB Power has even suggested AECL may try and wring money out of the utility by laying claim to part of a settlement NB Power reached with Lepreau insurers in March 2018.
In its update to the EUB, the utility wrote: "There remain substantial areas of dispute between NB Power and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) related to the contract price for the retubing agreement, AECL's liability to NB Power for liquidated damages for failure to meet AECL's schedule guarantee, other damages which NB Power claims against AECL as a result of AECL's performance of the retubing and refurbishment work, and potential claims by AECL against NB Power relating to amounts recovered by NB Power as a result of the settlement."
NB Power has still not disclosed how much insurance companies paid it in 2018 under policies it held in relation to the refurbishment troubles.
But one estimate pieced together from public information by UNB accounting professor Matthew Wegener suggested it was close to $160 million.
UNB accounting professor Matthew Wegener estimated from public records NB Power received close to $160 million from insurance companies to settle refurbishment claims. That would leave $840 million in cost over runs to be recovered. (Graham Thompson/CBC)
That would leave $840 million in cost overruns to be collected for full compensation, which has been the official demand of three straight New Brunswick governments headed by premiers Shawn Graham, David Alward and Brian Gallant.
On Wednesday, the office of Natural Resources and Energy Minister Mike Holland did not immediately respond to a question about whether that remains the New Brunswick government's official position.
NB Power says, if it cannot reach an agreement with AECL on who owes what through mediation, it will move on to the next step.
"If this process is not successful, the alternative under the project agreements is to embark upon an arbitration process," it wrote.
Robert Jones has been a reporter and producer with CBC New Brunswick since 1990. His investigative reports on petroleum pricing in New Brunswick won several regional and national awards and led to the adoption of price regulation in 2006.
16 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story.
David Raymond Amos Surprise Surprise Surprise
Greg Miller NB Power in the news again and as usual IT'S BAD NEWS!
David Raymond Amos
Reply to @Greg Miller: Methinks concerned folks should go to the public record of the EUB and start reading documents and transcripts for themselves N'esy Pas?
Fred Brewer Big or small, nuclear is a terrible option. Always over budget and late. Radioactive waste storage has still not been resolved. Of all the options on the table, nuclear is the most expensive and the most dangerous.
David Peters
Reply to @Fred Brewer:
"Big or small, nuclear is a terrible option...Radioactive waste storage has still not been resolved. Of all the options on the table, nuclear is the most expensive and the most dangerous."
Can you source that? The cash cowness of it all is obvious, but, what they're actually doing, on the ground, is anything but.
Fred Brewer
Reply to @David Peters: Sure, according to the Canada Energy Regulator, in order for a nuke plant in Canada to break even financially it needs to sell its power for an estimated range of $125 - $285 per Mw/hr. The only source that comes close to being that expensive is solar. However the Energy Regulator admits that those costs do not include decommissioning or the ultimate, long-term costs of storage of radioactive waste for 10,000 years. Those unconsidered items are enormously expensive.
David Raymond Amos
Reply to @Fred Brewer: Cry me a river
David Peters Shouldn't the contractor be chasing the one they did work for? Why did NB Power pay the additional Billion?
Once again, ratepayers/consumers have no choice or protection in this equation.
David Raymond Amos
Reply to @David Peters: Methinks that you have every right to run for public office or sue the Crown or Intervene in EUB Matters etc just like I have done in the past while legions of cops, lawyers, politicians and many other people laughed at me N'esy Pas?
David Peters Reply to @David Raymond Amos: The only counter to a monopoly is to outlaw it and then break it up.
David Peters Reply to @David Raymond Amos: Lot's of secrecy surrounding the $ involved in energy generation. But, aren't we talking about a public utility? Why the secrecy?
David Raymond Amos
Reply to @David Peters: Methinks Mr Holland and everybody else knows that Roger Richard and I as Interveners will be attending a Public Hearing of the 357 Matter in Saint John next week Perhaps you should attend and try to figure out the truth of the matter for yourself N'esy Pas?
David Raymond Amos Methimks Higgy and everybody else knows why I was not surprised to read this stuff or why accounting professor Matthew Wegener did not have the first clue as to why I called him just now N'esy Pas?
"On Wednesday, the office of Natural Resources and Energy Minister Mike Holland did not immediately respond to a question about whether that remains the New Brunswick government's official position."
David Raymond Amos Higgy and Harper know this is not rocket science
Greg Weston· CBC News· Posted: Jun 29, 2011 10:17 PM ET
The federal government's long-awaited deal to sell off its money-losing nuclear reactor business is more like a perpetual partnership than a sale, leaving Canadian taxpayers stuck with the fiscal fall-out for years to come.
The government-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has announced it has finally reached a tentative deal to sell its commercial reactor development and repair division to Quebec-based engineering giant SNC-Lavalin.
The Montreal-based company was the only suitor in the world left at the negotiating table, a fact that helps to explain why the government is effectively paying SNC-Lavalin to take over the Crown corporation.
Under the deal, SNC will pay a paltry $15 million for AECL's nuclear reactor division, plus some as yet undisclosed "royalties" on future reactor sales.
In return, the government will give SNC up to $75 million toward the development of the next generation of AECL's once internationally successful Candu reactors.
In other words, Canadian taxpayers are giving the Quebec company $60 million to take AECL off their hands.
If that were the whole deal, it would actually be a bargain for taxpayers.
AECL may be world-famous for its Candu reactors, but it hasn't sold one in 15 years, and now generates mainly massive amounts of red ink, the Crown corporation having cost Canadian taxpayers more than $820 million last year alone.
AECL's refurbishment of the Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick is so behind schedule and over-budget that the provincial government is demanding more than $2 billion in compensation.
In short, SNC-Lavalin is buying a money-losing, high-risk business with no sales of new reactors, and a scandalous record of fixing old ones.
In the words of Atomic Energy of Canada's president, Hugh MacDiarmid, earlier this year: "It is, in some cases, a bit of a leap of faith that somebody needs to take that we are going to be a company in the future that will enjoy growth, profitability and operational effectiveness."
Taxpayer stuck with liabilities
SNC-Lavalin isn't the only party taking a leap of faith in this deal.
Most of AECL's massive past liabilities and a lot of the financial risks going forward will remain exactly where they have always been — on taxpayers.
For instance, SNC-Lavalin will complete the current refurbishments of four reactor projects, but only "through subcontract service agreements with the government of Canada."
Translation: SNC-Lavalin will get paid for doing the work, but taxpayers will likely be on the hook for massive cost overruns and potential lawsuits that could run into the billions of dollars.
Similarly, the government's promised $75 million to complete development of a next-generation Candu reactor — called the Enhanced Candu 6 - may not be the last public cash into that project.
Under the deal with the feds, SNC is only undertaking to "work towards completing the Enhanced Candu reactor."
If that costs more than the $75 million the government is putting up, SNC could simply abandon the project — unless, of course, Ottawa ponies up some more cash.
Even if the new Candu finally comes to market, the Ontario government is already insisting that it won't be ordering any of the new multi-billion-dollar reactors unless the feds guarantee the deals against cost overruns.
Expect the same the world over — the nuclear reactor business runs on government guarantees.
Golden handshakes
SNC-Lavalin says it will be keeping about 1,200 of the roughly 2,000 employees currently working in AECL's reactor division.
Unless there is fine print in the deal we haven't seen, that means taxpayers will also be stuck with the onerous costs of giving golden handshakes to 800 scientists, engineers and other relatively high-priced AECL employees, not to mention the potentially staggering expense of transferring 1,200 public service pensions to SNC-Lavalin.
Perhaps the biggest ongoing cost to Canadians is what's being left out of the AECL deal - namely, the Chalk River research division that produces isotopes for medical scans and treatments.
The deal splits off Chalk River from the AECL reactor division that SNC-Lavalin is buying. Over the past two years, the government has given AECL more than $170 million in special funding for the Chalk River research reactor and other facilities that produce nuclear isotopes for medical scans.
Meanwhile, AECL spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars at Chalk River building two new isotope reactors that don't work and likely never will.
Making matters worse, AECL's commercial partner in that snafu, MDS Nordion, is now suing the federal agency for $1.6 billion in damages.
Of course, if putting AECL under private-sector management successfully turns the nuclear reactor company into a commercial powerhouse, the federal government could ultimately reap a windfall in royalties from the sales of CANDU nukes the world over.
The fact the deal was announced by the government on the eve of summer doldrums suggests even the new owners of AECL aren't exactly overwhelmed with optimism.
David Raymond Amos@DavidRayAmos Replying to@DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631and 47 others Methinks it interesting that Matthew Wegener a professor of accounting at UNB came up with the same figure I did last year but in a much different fashion N'esy Pas?
Top-secret Point Lepreau insurance settlement details leaking
NB Power deal over nuclear plant refurbishment may be worth $159M, according to inadvertently released figures
Robert Jones· CBC News·
NB Power refused to reveal how much money it got in a settlement with insurance companies last year over cost overruns at Point Lepreau. (Photo submitted)
What is supposed to be a top-secret settlement between NB Power and insurers over problems encountered during the troubled Point Lepreau nuclear plant refurbishment appears to be worth just under $160 million, according to various financial details inadvertently released by the utility. NB Power is not confirming the amount, claiming it is still a company secret.
But there are signs the Lepreau settlement, reached last year, is worth slightly less than half the $320.1 million the utility said it was owed when it filed a lawsuit against insurers in 2012 for non-payment of its claim over damages and delays.
"We cannot provide a specific number," said Marc Belliveau, a spokesperson for NB Power, in an email to CBC News about the settlement amount.
"We continue to believe that keeping this information confidential is in the best interest of customers as we continue to work through the remaining litigation."
NB Power has been trying to keep details of the Lepreau insurance settlement under wraps as it pursues additional compensation from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It was the main contractor during the refurbishment of the nuclear plant that ultimately ran three years behind schedule and went $1 billion over budget.
But Matthew Wegener, a professor of accounting at the University of New Brunswick's Saint John campus, says NB Power has not been as disciplined redacting information about the settlement from its budget documents this year as it was last year and doubts AECL will have a hard time piecing together precise settlement details if it chooses.
Wegener's own estimate from a review of public information is that the settlement is worth around $159 million, although he says that could be refined with deeper analysis of available information.
"It's not overly difficult, just time-consuming," said Wegener.
"It depends on how much certainty you want. Just to get that estimate, really it only took me a couple of hours."
UNBSJ accounting professor Matthew Wegener estimates the settlement is worth about $159 million. (CBC)
Last year, NB Power announced it had settled a claim with insurers for part of the refurbishment delays caused when workers used wire brushes that left scratches on critical components of the reactor that were supposed to be polished.
The scratches caused problems as the reactor was being reassembled and eventually took about a year to be resolved.
NB Power made a damage claim with insurers for $65.1 million over the scratches and a further $255 million claim for the delays caused by repairing them.
The redactions [this year] within their budgets are not really sufficient to be concealing anything.
- Matthew Wegener, UNBSJ accounting professor
The legal fight dragged on for six years but last April the utility announced it had settled the claims. However, the utility would not say what it received, insisting the information was too sensitive to be released publicly.
"Immediate public disclosure of the terms of settlement would be directly and substantially detrimental to NB Power's opportunity to reach a favourable resolution of remaining claims between NB Power and AECL," NB Power lawyer John Furey told the EUB at a hearing hearing in Saint John.
Furey said if Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. found out what NB Power won from insurers it could affect how much the utility can ultimately wring from the company — or worse — might encourage AECL to make a claim against NB Power for part of the insurance money for itself.
A sample of NB Power's redacted 2018/19 budgeted financial statements. (NB Power)
Settlement details were shared with EUB members, financial experts and the public intervener, but were otherwise sealed.
Several hearings dealing with the settlement were held behind closed doors, with those in attendance subject to confidentiality agreements. Transcripts of those hearings remain secret.
NB Power's income, balance sheet and cash flow statements were also rewritten to account for the financial impact of the settlement, but 30 of 66 financial entries were blacked out in the public version to prevent anyone from piecing amounts together.
However, this year many of those blacked out values have been disclosed in the utility's latest application for a rate increase and Wegener says it is much easier to track how settlement money hit NB Power's accounts.
"The original redactions were pretty effective," said Wegener
"The redactions [this year] within their budgets are not really sufficient to be concealing anything."
No lawsuits filed yet
Public intervener Heather Black has seen the settlement, but will not speak about it because of the non-disclosure agreement she signed last year. She also would not comment on whether NB Power has failed to protect the secrecy of settlement details in this year's budget submission.
"I am still bound by the confidentiality undertaking and can't give you any insight without potentially violating it," she said in an email to CBC News.
From publicly available accounts Wegener looked at, he says the information appears to show the insurance settlement involved a $48.5 million payment for direct damage to the plant caused by the scratches and a $102 million payment for startup delays caused by them.
In addition, he says based on those numbers there would have been another $9 million in settlement funds shared between legal fees and a payment to P.E.I.'s power company Maritime Electric, which owns just over four per cent of Lepreau's output and expenses.
Wegener says his $159 million estimate of the insurance settlement could be off slightly, but the fact it can be made at all shows how much information that was secret last year has leaked into public view this year.
Belliveau acknowledges some previously secret information about the settlement has become public in NB Power's financial reporting, but says that was inevitable and expected.
NB Power continues to "engage in negotiations" with AECL for compensation for cost overruns on the Lepreau refurbishment even though the job finished more than six years ago. The utility says it has not filed any lawsuits over the issue yet and any amount it is seeking to recover is "privileged and protected from disclosure."
28 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story.
David R. Amos Surprise Surprise Surprise
David R. Amos Reply to @David R. Amos: Methinks Mr Jones understands why NB Power and the EUB keep barring me from intervening and why I will never understand why he conceals the facts of the matter. However anyone can check the public records of the EUB to read what Mr Jones will not report about N'esy Pas?
David R. Amos
Content disabled
Methinks it interesting that Matthew Wegener, a professor of accounting at the University of New Brunswick came up with the same figure I did last year but in a much different fashion N'esy Pas?
Ferdinand Boudreau Why always secret stuff-- Its our money? Getting tired wool pulled over our eyes
David R. Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Ferdinand Boudreau: Methinks you should no doubt understand why NB Power and the EUB keep barring me from intervening any more However anyone can check the public record to study what I have already done N'esy Pas?
David R. Amos Reply to @Ferdinand Boudreau: "Getting tired wool pulled over our eyes"
Methinks you should ask yourself who is doing it N'esy Pas?
Rawlu McIsaac Nuclear is nothing but a Never Ending Money Pit, from the day it is Built to the day it is Buried somewhere nobody wants it...
David R. Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Rawlu McIsaac: Go Figure
Gaëtan Thomas on why building Point Lepreau was “visionary” by New Brunswick Posted on November 7, 2017 | Natural Resources Magazine
"The plant came online in 1983. There were some delays and cost overruns, and this was not long after the nuclear reactor accident at Three Mile Island in the U.S. There was also a fairly large earthquake in the early 1980s in the Miramichi. A lot of effort was required to explain the advantage of the CANDU 600 nuclear reactor design Point Lepreau used. We placed a high value on having a good relationship with local communities and the First Nations and it’s still going on today.
If you could go back in time and know what we would be facing today for carbon reduction targets, people would say we were not only visionary but predicting the future. This was done without having the benefit of looking at carbon the way it’s looked at today. I think there are very few people who have opposed Point Lepreau in New Brunswick, and it has generated a lot of pride. I’m told the latest survey shows over 80 per cent of our residents support nuclear power.
I think that’s because we were able to provide benefits. When you have a plant that produces no carbon emissions and we are the fourth-best jurisdiction in regards to power rates in the country, the proof is in the pudding. Our customers are enjoying very competitive rates. They would not be able to do that without Point Lepreau."
David R. Amos Reply to @Rawlu McIsaac: Go Figure some more
2018-05-14
Fredericton, N.B. – The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) announced the appointment of Gaëtan Thomas as the new Chairman of the WANO-Atlanta Centre Regional Governing Board.
"I am pleased to announce the appointment of Gaëtan Thomas and welcome him to the Atlanta Centre Regional Governing Board and the wider WANO family. Gaëtan brings a wealth of experience and insight to the position, which will be very valuable to the global community of nuclear operators.” said Jacques Regaldo, chairman of WANO.
WANO, which has over 130 members across the globe, is the organization that unites every company and country in the world that operates commercial nuclear power plants. Its goal is to achieve the highest possible standards of nuclear safety and excellence in operational performance. WANO is headquartered in London and, in addition to the Atlanta Centre, which has 38 members, WANO also has regional centres in Moscow, Paris and Tokyo.
David R. Amos Reply to @David R. Amos: Gaëtan Thomas on why building Point Lepreau was “visionary” by New Brunswick Posted on November 7, 2017 | Natural Resources Magazine
"The plant came online in 1983. There were some delays and cost overruns, and this was not long after the nuclear reactor accident at Three Mile Island in the U.S. There was also a fairly large earthquake in the early 1980s in the Miramichi. A lot of effort was required to explain the advantage of the CANDU 600 nuclear reactor design Point Lepreau used. We placed a high value on having a good relationship with local communities and the First Nations and it’s still going on today.
If you could go back in time and know what we would be facing today for carbon reduction targets, people would say we were not only visionary but predicting the future. This was done without having the benefit of looking at carbon the way it’s looked at today. I think there are very few people who have opposed Point Lepreau in New Brunswick, and it has generated a lot of pride. I’m told the latest survey shows over 80 per cent of our residents support nuclear power.
I think that’s because we were able to provide benefits. When you have a plant that produces no carbon emissions and we are the fourth-best jurisdiction in regards to power rates in the country, the proof is in the pudding. Our customers are enjoying very competitive rates. They would not be able to do that without Point Lepreau."
Fred Brewer Point Lepreau is the albatross around NB Power's neck. Mactaquac will be the next.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Fred Brewer: Methinks many would agree that the real albatrosses are the NB Power's Management, its Board of Directors and of course the politicians who use the cash cow for their benefit N'esy Pas?
Marc Martin What a mess....The English population of NB should have let he government sell this corporation, scandal after scandal...
Rawlu McIsaac
Reply to @Marc Martin: their is Only One Population in New Brunswick. Want English Only? then go back to the GD States where you belong.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Rawlu McIsaac: Methinks the CEO of NB Power is a French man N'esy Pas?
Marc Martin
Reply to @David R. Amos: Cry me a river.
Marc Martin
Reply to @Rawlu McIsaac: The English population rejected the deal with Quebec because they were French....
Rosco holt
Reply to @Marc Martin: Why get rid of the baby with the bathwater? The only problem with NBPower is government. It was in the black until Godfather Frank put his greedy fingers in it.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Rawlu McIsaac: Methinks everybody but the local unionized French bureaucrat knows that the Quebeckers did not buy NB Power because they did their due diligence and did not wish to buy a huge headache. Hence they backed out of the deal. Furthermore history proves the Quebeckers definitely did not refurbish their own Nuke
BTW ya think the bureaucrat would dream up his own expressions but I guess plagiarism is considered a form of flattery by the mindless N'esy Pas?
Fred Brewer
Reply to @Rosco holt: Proof please. I don't think you can prove that NB Power amassed 5 billion in debt just since the days of King Frankie. It all started with Point Lepreau long before Frank's time
Bruce Ellingwood
Reply to @Marc Martin: If you really believe that, and are not just trying to stir the pot(as usual), then you are more foolish than I believed you to be.
nomadic way
Reply to @Marc Martin: NO, I would say it's because they know of how Hydro Quebec will rip them off like how they rip off Newfoundland and Labrador Churchill Falls power for decades and have effectively built their entire industrial infrastructure since the 1960's on Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' backs and will continue to do so until their "deal" expires in 2041. They are gross human beings to deal with in that way. LOVE Quebec, LOVE the people. Most have never heard of Churchill Falls and when explained to them they immediately and emphatically say Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be the beneficiaries of their own hydro power, but deteste Hydro Quebec and would warn any of their neighbours in U.S. or Canada thinking of doing business with them should RUN faster than electricity, RUN at the speed of light, RUN!
David R. Amos
Reply to @Bruce Ellingwood: "then you are more foolish than I believed you to be."
Methinks many should agree that he is even worse than your latest assessment of his character N'esy Pas?
David R. Amos
Reply to @nomadic way: Methinks a deal is a deal N'esy Pas?
Lou Bell 160 million ! Yee Haw ! Bonus time again !!!
David R. Amos
Reply to @Lou Bell: Methinks it interesting that Matthew Wegener, a professor of accounting at the University of New Brunswick came up with the same figure I did last year but in a much different fashion N'esy Pas?
Lou Bell 160 million . CEO will be looking for a buyout of BIGLY proportions I suspect.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Lou Bell: Methinks the beancounter overlooked how much they paid out in lawyer fees N'esy Pas?
Andrew St.John the construction Director was involved in pushing this work forward without taking time for complete test analysis. Not exactly AECL. They are just an easy target from Ontario.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Andrew St.John : I heard some things about that too but different
David R. Amos Methinks everybody knows the real story here is the things that Robert Jones and his buddy Marc Belliveau won't tell N'esy Pas?
"Big or small, nuclear is a terrible option...Radioactive waste storage has still not been resolved. Of all the options on the table, nuclear is the most expensive and the most dangerous."
Can you source that? The cash cowness of it all is obvious, but, what they're actually doing, on the ground, is anything but.