A question of public utility

The editorial page of the Free Press often provides perspectives that are thought-provoking and sometimes contradictory. “Keeping the lights on,” (Oct. 5) by Hal Turner and “Wasteful operations should be held accountable,” (Oct. 6) by Barry Prentice are both thought-provoking. They are not contradictory because they cover two quite different topics. Where they differ is in their delivery and the quality of the underlying facts.

Mr. Turner provides what is, in my view, the most cogent rationale for gas-fuelled generation that I have read. He highlights the essential aspect of power supply to Manitobans. He supports the argument for natural gas generation with succinct, relatable facts and anecdotes relating to what other comparable utilities have done. He states that, “Manitoba Hydro’s experts are neither anti-wind nor pro-fossil fuel.” They are simply seeking the best possible solution for Manitobans — a fact many special-interest groups either ignore or sadly, impugn.

Although some would argue the contrary, I believe that Mr. Turner’s position and longevity in the Manitoba Hydro organization lend gravitas to his column. Mr. Turner understands that “keeping the lights on” is a non-negotiable requirement and a public trust.

Before I turn to Mr. Prentice’s column, I should disclose that before I retired (it’s been a while), I was responsible at different times for Winnipeg’s regional water system and subsequently water supply from source to tap. In that context I was also responsible for the operation of the Greater Winnipeg Water District (GWWD) railway. Like Mr. Turner’s perspective on the supply of electricity to Manitobans, I regard the supply of safe drinking water to Winnipeggers as a public trust.

I agree with Mr. Prentice’s assertion that the water and waste utilities and the solid waste utility should be subject to Public Utilities Board oversight. This would lend discipline and oversight to rate-setting which would be beneficial to ratepayers.

That said, there are several “facts” offered by Mr. Prentice’s that should be examined more thoroughly.

The first is the implied statement that the GWWD has been chugging along with no review of its need or cost. The fact is that, like every other aspect of service delivery by the department, the GWWD has been periodically reviewed for cost-effectiveness and need.

Here is the situation as it now exists for the GWWD and the St. Boniface rail yard — the rail line is used to move rail cars of chemicals to both the water treatment plant and the water intake. If rail car deliveries to the intake were discontinued, the alternative would be trucks. This would add significantly to the cost of chemicals and the carbon footprint associated with delivery. A new roadway would be needed through difficult, swampy terrain. It would be difficult to maintain, less reliable and more dangerous than rail movement.

The rail line has two other important functions. It is used to transport materials and equipment when required for upgrade of the aqueduct, and to respond if there is ever an emergency breach of the aqueduct, as part of the department’s emergency response plan.

Are there other approaches that might be cheaper? Perhaps, but reliability and response times are very important and need to be part of any analysis. Perhaps Mr. Prentice would like to calculate the cost of three-quarters-of-a-million people running out of water and consider the impact of loss of water for hospitals and fire protection.

Finally, Mr. Prentice’s statement that “The GWWD station and yard occupy about 29 acres of developable land three kilometres from downtown,” seems to imply this land is sitting idle. There is a machine shop and maintenance hub at this location that service most of the department facilities. The main equipment yard for the water services division, where water services are dispatched citywide, is co-located there. This yard was selected precisely because of its location, so that services could be dispatched efficiently to all areas of Winnipeg. When the yard was established, it was possible to sell off other department facilities and to accrue other cost savings of about $1.5 million per year (circa year 2000) through the consolidation.

Just as the experts at Manitoba Hydro do their best to serve the citizens of Manitoba, the experts at the water and waste department do their best for the citizens of Winnipeg.

Mr. Prentice alludes to the department continuing to operate the GWWD out of “nostalgia.” This is not factual and it is insulting. But cheap shots are the cross that civil servants bear as part of fulfilling their public service.

By the way, the water and waste department has infrastructure in place so that even in the extremely unlikely event that power supply to the city fails, water will continue to flow from your tap. Life without electricity would be difficult. Life without water would be impossible. This infrastructure is costly and must be maintained and tested annually.

Is this a good return on investment? I think so.

Tom Pearson is a retired engineer and former manager with the City of Winnipeg. He writes from Victoria, B.C.