Yukon Energy will not use the new $43-million LNG plant to restore power during short-term outages, says the corporation’s president.

Andrew Hall said this morning the back-up diesel generators will still be used to restore outages in Whitehorse. They are better suited and quicker to respond to those situations than the new natural gas generators, he said.

“What LNG does not do very well is that restoration, where you have to pick up load very quickly,” said Hall, who was appointed to succeed David Morrison as president of Yukon Energy after the project was under construction.

He said for the foreseeable future – over the next several years – Yukon Energy will continue to rely on its diesels for restoration during outages.

If there was a prolonged issue with hydro generation such as the situation last year when hydro generation was shut down for three days because of frazzle ice at the Whitehorse Rapids Dam, the natural gas units would be used, he said.

Hall said the primary use of the new plant will be related to peak demand in the winter months and in years of low water when the system just doesn’t have enough water to meet the demand with hydro generation, and thermal generation is required.

The president of the corporation acknowledged Yukon Energy’s use of the term “emergency back-up” to describe how the natural gas generators would be used may have been a little too simplistic.

Perhaps there should have been a distinction between emergency back-up and restoration, he suggested.

In a press release last Wednesday, Yukon Energy announced the new LNG facility was in service and ready for use.

“Like our diesel units, the natural gas facility will only be used for emergency back-up or for peaking power in the cold winter months,” says the press release.

When an outage occurred the very next day, the diesels were used to restore power.

Two Whitehorse residents intimately involved in Yukon Energy’s application to replace two old diesels with natural gas units, and intimately involved with the public hearings that followed, said today there was never any such distinction made.

Neither the Yukon Utilities Board nor the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board were told the new LNG plant would not be used for restoration, said John Maissan and Sally Wright.

Wright said in light of the revelation by Hall this morning, it’s become clear that Yukon Energy was not upfront with the Yukon Utilities Board.

The utilities board and the assessment board were told the new natural gas generators were required to provide reliable, emergency back-up generation, Wright said.

She said there was never any distinction between emergency back-up and restoration.

Maissan said there was no distinction made in the application, and there was no distinction made during the public hearings.

“This is new to me,” said Maissan, a professional engineer who was granted official intervener status to participate directly in the application process and public hearings alongside the Yukon Conservation Society.

“That word (restoration) was never mentioned,” said Wright, a local energy critic and lobbyist for more reliance on renewable energy, particularly wind generation.

Maissan said perhaps Yukon Energy wasn’t aware at the time of the application that natural gas units were not well-suited for quick startups.

“It is disappointing, I have to say that,” he said.

Maissan said today’s news suggests there should be another public review before Yukon Energy replaces a third old diesel with a natural gas unit, which has already been approved by the utilities board.

The new LNG facility is currently fitted with the two new gas generators, but was designed to accommodate three, the third expected as early as 2017.

Maissan acknowledged he was always in favour of replacing the old diesels with new, more efficient diesels, as the cost would be less compared to natural gas units.

Yukon Energy argued natural gas was the answer for emergency back-up and peak demand in the winter because it was much less expensive in the long run, he said.

Maissan said Yukon Energy said the difference in capital cost would be $9 million more for the natural gas units.

With the cost overrun of the new facility, however, the difference is up to $17 million and the corporation isn’t even using them for short-term outages, he said.

Yukon Energy’s decision to go with liquefied natural gas set off a firestorm in the territory.

The Crown corporation insisted Yukoners would save millions in fuel costs, savings which would cover off the difference between new diesels and new natural gas units in five years.

Burning natural gas instead of diesel would also be better for the environment, Yukon Energy argued.

The scores of Yukoners who voiced their strong opposition to natural gas argued the emerging science is showing that natural gas is harder on the environment because of the inevitable leaking of methane gas in the extraction process.

Methane gas, they said, is much more harmful as a greenhouse gas than emissions from burning diesel.

Scores of Yukoners also voiced their displeasure about going with natural gas because of its link to the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, even if the fracking wasn’t occurring in the Yukon.

There were also those who suggested the decision by Yukon Energy to go with natural gas fit with Premier Darrell Pasloski’s desire to stimulate a natural gas industry in the Yukon and provide a local source of gas.

Scott Kent, the minister responsible for Yukon Energy, was unavailable this morning to say whether he knew the LNG facility would not be used to restore power during short-term outages.