Smart meters, smart grids, conservation campaigns: how well does IESO watch your money?

More on Ontario’s IESO…

August 1, 2018

Yesterday, I examined IESO’s responsibility in respect to the “financial settlement” associated with the various public and private electricity generation sources in the province, and their ability to execute those, considering all the variables connected with the GA (Global Adjustment) and the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price).

I contemplated not only their ability to handle that responsibility, but also to deal effectively with the FHP (Fair Hydro Plan) and the HST rebate the prior Ontario government created.

Soon, the IESO will be further burdened with the financial aspects of the additional 12% reduction in residential electricity bills that the newly elected Premier Ford government has promised. IESO denies responsibility for any audit-associated issues and simply pays money to the LDC (local distribution companies), based on the data associated with the billing submitted.

The question today is this: is it possible possibility the IESO can be “gamed” as they already were by one of the gas generators for $100 million, as reported in December 2017?

IESO deals directly with all grid connected (TX) generators, plus approximately 70 LDCs in Ontario.  Those 70 LDCs in turn deal with well over 26,000 generators under the various MicroFIT programs, carrying a variety of contracted payment amounts. So, “gaming” IESO under their unaudited procedures should not be seen to be difficult.

Additionally, those LDCs are responsible for implementing campaigns associated with the numerous conservation programs, which annually dole out more than $400 million.  For example, Hydro One uses their five-year allotment of $338 million to basically do whatever they wish with the money, as long as they report back to IESO that they have reduced consumption via conservation programs. Toronto Hydro’s allocation is even higher than Hydro One’s at $396 million.   Strong “gaming” possibilities.

Now if you bother to look at past predictions of both data development and spending on that development, you would find aspirations speaking to “smart meters” and a “smart grid” as a means to take data and configure it in such a way to allow all of us to experience utopia! Presumably that “utopia” would make life easy for IESO to handle the financial aspects of managing day to day activities associated with generating power and bringing it to our households or businesses along with the many variables included in the Global Adjustment!

The facts, since the advent of both smart meters and smart grids however, dispel those notions of a forward-looking “cars will fly” utopia. As the Auditor General reported, the “smart meters” cost Ontario $2 billion which, as it turned out was twice as much as planned. The “smart grid” was advocated by a 10-member Smart Grid Forum in February 2009 with objectives loosely defined as “It is necessary change; change from a one-way ‘dumb’ grid to an interactive, intelligent smart grid.”   The Forum reached a consensus in respect to the costs of this “smart grid”: “The preliminary cost estimate by the Forum is that incremental capital spending over the initial five years would be $1.6 billion.”

Well, those five years have come and gone. To the best of my knowledge, there is no report indicating how far we are along in developing the “smart grid” or how much of the $1.6 billion has been spent, but what we do see on each and every electricity bill we get is a charge for its development.

So, “smart” meters, “smart” grids and all that data and the fact the IESO was “gamed.” It is still looking like a one-way “dump” on ratepayers.

Tomorrow, in Part 3 in this series, I look at what the Fair Hydro Plan has accomplished in the first year of its existence.

PARKER GALLANT

Advertisements

Author: parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog

Retired international banker.

One thought on “Smart meters, smart grids, conservation campaigns: how well does IESO watch your money?”

  1. You might be the only one that remembers that a report on the “smart grid” is due. Considering the people in charge, you might be the only one that thinks a report is needed. In Part 3 I am expecting that the only thing that the FHP has achieved is DEBT.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s