Hack the heat: How electric cars could change how we think about electricity, period

If there's one person who doesn't need to be convinced of the benefits of using electricity wisely, it might be Jon Seary.

A technology consultant, he could be the poster boy for how to live better electrically. He has his home wired through an array of meters to track energy usage.

"I have five monitors so I can track all our key loads and I get interesting information," he said in an interview.

"I installed a [groundsource] heat pump and I cut my cost for heating to one quarter of what I would be using on base board heaters," he said.  "I have invested in things that will always save me money."

Plug in, turn ignition, drop out

The investment he is most proud of? His Tesla, a full-sized electric car large enough to seat six. Among his claims to fame is a 4,300-km round trip he took last summer with his daughter in the Tesla as they drove from St. John's to Montreal and back, via the U.S., without paying a penny for recharging the vehicle. [Every charge he made along the way came at — pardon the pun — no charge.]

"I don't want people to think it is a bunch of rich people getting toys," said Seary, who is also the founder of DriveElectricNL, which shares information about adopting EVs — electric vehicles — in the province.

"There are very affordable [electric] cars," he said, especially when savings on fuel and maintenance are considered.

As examples, he cited the 2018 Nissan Leaf, a newer version of the car his wife Adrienne King drives. "It gets 270 kilometres on a charge and costs $36,000."

Other vehicles in a similar price range include the VW E-Golf, and the Chevy Bolt, a fully electric version of the hybrid Volt. A little further along the price highway is the new Tesla Model 3 at around $45,000. It's scheduled for release in Canada in mid- to late 2018.

Using the power meters in his home, Seary knows the Tesla, as his primary vehicle, uses about 400 kWh ($50) in summer and up to 490 kWh ($60) in winter. The Leaf uses 127 kWh ($14) a month.

• Hack the Heat: Bright ideas on saving money through appliances, lighting and gadgets
• Hack the Heat: Don't get too steamed about keeping your water hot
• Hack the Heat: How you can take back the power before Muskrat Falls

"If I was driving a minivan, for the amount of driving I do, that'd be about $4,600 a year in gas," he said. "I've replaced that with $600 (5,454 kWh) for power. So in fuel alone I'm saving $4,000 a year." Those savings are even "better again with the Leaf," he added.

With few moving parts, maintenance costs for e-cars are minimal. "You only need brake pads replaced every 100,000 kilometres," he said. On top of those savings, carbon emission taxes are looming ever closer, so governments have an obligation to find innovative incentives to lessen dependence on gasoline.

Big changes in next 5 years

Because of his interest in the environment, Joe Butler invested in a hybrid Prius vehicle eight years ago and today also has a fully electric 2013 Nissan Leaf.  "I thought the Leaf would be a secondary vehicle but it has become the primary vehicle in town or if we are going to C.B.S. or to Logy Bay," he told me. 

The technology is changing fast, Butler said. He anticipates that within the next five years, electric cars will be practical for much longer distances, "especially if we have the infrastructure that will help much of the range anxiety that causes many people to hesitate" before they buy.

"Just from my own bank account, if you are going to pay for an electric car, the energy you are using is local and clean and you are going to save," he said. 

For Butler there is no down side, except maybe for the people selling the cars.

"There is no incentive for car dealers because after the sale there is very little maintenance."

Butler said to grow the number of people driving electric cars, not only the province but also the municipalities have to get involved.

Plugging into the Muskrat debate

In an environment where we're gearing up for Muskrat Falls to come onstream, and the expected doubling of electrical prices from where they are today, the potential of the electric car has people like Jon Seary thinking.

"If half the homes in the province were to get one electric car and used 400 kWh a month, that would add 54 mw to the base load of the province," said Seary.

"What other industry could you get to come in here and use that amount of energy and spread it out all over the province and only demand it during off peak hours?" he said, in reference to the fact that most electrical vehicle owners charge their cars overnight when the demand for power is lowest.

To Seary, that makes a lot more sense than selling excess power to the North American grid. Seary says Newfoundland and Labrador has a long way to go to catch up with other provinces in providing the support for growth in this sector.

Ontario recently raised its rebate to $14,000 for the purchase of electric cars. BC and Quebec also offer rebates. And he's anticipating a federal government rebate this year for as much as $7,500 on the price of a new electric car. New Brunswick Power has installed high-speed chargers along the TCH highway. 

"Nova Scotia Power has plans to do the same at 70-km distances from Yarmouth to Sydney," said Seary.

If you are going to pay for an electric car, the energy you are using is local and clean and you are going to save.- Joe Butler, car owner

 "We could do the same across this province with 12 to Port aux Basques, another six up to St. Anthony and four to Burin and Bonavista," Seary told me. "All high-speed chargers."

Seary sees other missed opportunities here at home, including at Marine Atlantic's ferry terminals.

"You have to be at the ferry terminal two hours before sailing. That is a perfect opportunity to recharge before embarking. But there is nothing for electric cars," said Seary.

Here at home, the lack of highway charging stations has prompted Seary to press for change.

In February, he sent a letter requesting consideration of this to Natural Resources Minister Siobhan Coady and Municipal Affairs and Environment Minister Eddie Joyce.

So far, he has had no response from either of them.

"The silence has been deafening."

The flip side of conservation

This brings me to the end of my series on energy conservation. I've presented some of the steps you and I can take to protect ourselves from the oncoming price shock as Nalcor Energy — the Crown corporation that owns Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, our own utility —  ratchets up the price we pay for electricity to help them finance the cost of Muskrat Falls.

However, as some readers have pointed out, that may be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Because, by Nalcor's pricing logic, the more power we save, the more they must charge us for the power that we do use.

And in response, the more we will conserve. Is there a way out of this dilemma? 

During my research, I've discovered a way of approaching this problem that has me wondering if we're not going in another direction — the wrong direction — entirely.

On Feb. 20 of this year, a bridge opened between the island of Newfoundland and the rest of North America and traffic began to flow into the island. This connection is the Maritime Link, a submarine electrical transmission cable.

It connects us to the North American electricity grid. We celebrated that connection by importing electricity for less than the cost of generating power at the Holyrood oil-fired generators.  

And by Nalcor's own admission, come mid-2018, "the Labrador-Island Transmission Link will come into service providing additional options to bring lower-cost power to the island." (Emphasis mine).

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Come 2019, when the hydro development on Muskrat Falls roars into life, we will be up to our arses in electricity from Muskrat Falls.

But Nalcor and Hydro are proposing to sell that electricity to us at a marked-up price. They will export, via the Maritime Link, any surplus to the rest of North America — for rock-bottom prices.

To add insult to injury, Bill 61--passed by the House of Assembly in 2012--makes it illegal for anyone other than Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to import power via the transmission links that could bring "lower-cost power to the island," and break its stranglehold on our electric bills.

What's logic got to do with it? 

According to James Feehan, a professor of economics at Memorial University, government's insistence on allowing the price of electricity to be determined based on the cost of the Muskrat Falls hydro project defies basic economics.

Feehan has publicly questioned the feasibility of the Lower Churchill hydro development since January 2012. That's when he published a paper that stated "[Muskrat Falls] is not a good idea. It is premature and imprudent at $6 billion."

More than six years later, the cost is at $12.7 billion … and counting.

"The alternative [to meet the island's demand for electricity] before Muskrat Falls was better use of resources and conservation. But now that Muskrat Falls is done, the modern substitutes no longer apply," Feehan said in an interview, "and we are stuck with this old technology [solution]."

"So now we have to get the pricing right," says Feehan.

That means the price of Muskrat Falls power has to reflect its opportunity cost — the amount Nalcor can get on the export market.

"Question is, what can you get for it?" he said. "What is the point of charging a price on the island that makes it worthwhile for everyone to put in an oil furnace and heat pumps and triple-glazed windows and find ways to not buy that electricity?"  

Then [Nalcor] will just have to turn around and sell the power you and I save to the North American grid for two to five cents wholesale.

"We can always dump it, if we can't use it for ourselves. But why get people to dump electricity that they could use at the opportunity cost?" he says. "Where is the payoff going to be the biggest?"

Feehan says the price for electricity cannot be tied to the cost of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric development.

"If NL Hydro gets the pricing right, that could encourage [innovation and changes]… . What if homes burning oil for heat switched to electricity? The price might even encourage people to go to electric cars."

Thank God we're surrounded by electricity 

With the Maritime Link, we are no longer isolated by water — at least as far as access to electricity is concerned.

Yet, apparently, there are those at the helm of our own utility who believe it is only by holding ratepayers hostage that they can pay for Muskrat Falls. And our government, unless it repeals Bill 61, supports them. The only thing separating us from the prevailing price for electricity on the North American grid is our willingness to hand over our rights to Nalcor.

Yes, Muskrat Falls must be paid for. But the onus is on Nalcor and the provincial government to find creative ways to tackle that debt. As taxpayers, you and I will have to contribute to that solution.

But that is a separate issue from the cost you and I ought to pay per kWh when we're awash in electricity. Especially when any excess power must be dumped on the mainland.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not people in the Maritimes or elsewhere in North America, should benefit first from Muskrat Falls power. Otherwise, what's the point of building bridges?