Ka-ching! Windy days blow away ratepayer dollars

Consumers pay: wind power is surplus, and expensive — emissions-free power is wasted

Wind power on two recent windy days cost Ontario electricity customers three times the current rate … and the surplus meant emissions-free hydro and nuclear was wasted

 

A simple Google search “wind power is cheapest energy” will generate 1.2 million hits.

If you search “wind power is most expensive energy” you get 2.1 million hits.

Two days last week in Ontario are real-world proof of the cost of wind power, no matter what the government or wind power industry spin tells you. Tuesday, December 5th and Wednesday December 6th were two very windy days, an excellent opportunity to examine both the power generation from industrial wind turbines in Ontario and their delivered cost of power to the grid.

The numbers for those two days:

$$$   IESO forecasts indicated that wind could have delivered 23.8% (177,100 MWh) of total Ontario demand (755,200 MWh) via the 4,200 MW of grid-connected wind capacity.

But wind turbines have a bad habit of generating power when it’s not needed (middle of the night, spring and fall) so the intermittent power must often be curtailed (constrained/wasted but paid for).  It was!

$$$   The IESO curtailed 41.8% of their forecast generation meaning 74,000 MWh were not used!

Via the contracts in place with wind power companies, IESO is obliged to pay for both delivered and curtailed power at prices for grid-accepted power at $135/MWh and $120/MWh for curtailed power.

$$$   Quick math: the cost for grid-accepted wind on those two days meant Ontario ratepayers got charged approximately $22.8 million or $221.14/MWh for grid-accepted wind. That means it cost ratepayers 22.11cents/kWh (kilowatt hour), well above what the average time-of-use rates would be for the average Ontario ratepayer!  The cost of the delivered wind power for those two days was almost three times the current levied* “average” cost of 8.22 cents/kWh, and 3.7 times the off-peak cost of 5.9 cents/kWh.

There’s more (sorry): be assured IESO instructed OPG to spill water over the hydro dams and Bruce Nuclear to steam off nuclear power — so power from our two reliable, emissions-free sources of power generation was also wasted.   OPG and Bruce will be paid for that waste and the cost will be added to our bills.  At the same time gas plants (backing up wind and solar) were being paid for idling.

Those two December days also saw sales of surplus power of 93,700 MWh to our neighbours in New York, Michigan, and others for pennies of the actual cost. In all probability, we recovered around 15% of their generation costs meaning, we bit the bullet for another $10/11 million.

Total: too much

Just the cost of the curtailed and grid-accepted wind and the losses on our surplus exports for those two days was $32/33 million for absolutely no benefit to any of us ratepayers. If every day of the year was like those two days last week, Ontario’s ratepayers would be shelling out over $6 billion annually, due to the abysmal planning and management of the electricity sector by the current Ontario government.

Imagine how far $6 billion would go to improve our health care system.

Parker Gallant,

December 10, 2017

 

* This price reflects the 17% deferral under the Fair Hydro Act.

Advertisements

Hydro One gives the finger to Ontario Auditor General

Hydro One execs implemented only 17% of the Auditor General’s recommendations. She noticed…

The Ontario Auditor General released the 2017 Annual Report and included were the “Follow-up Reports on 2015 Annual Report Value-for-Money Audits (Summary)”.  Two of those (1.06 and 3.04) related to Hydro One audits with both titled “Management of Electricity Transmission and Distribution Assets”.

The two reports note the “Building Ontario Up Act, 2015 (ACT)”* removed the AG’s ability to conduct “value-for-money audits”.  The Act partially privatized Hydro One apparently to allow funds raised from the sale to be spent on “infrastructure”; however, several reports by economists and the AG’s office have either implied or suggested it was done in order to allow the Ontario government to claim they balanced the books.

Standing Committee Follow-up

Leaving that aside, it is worth noting the Standing Committee’s follow-up report (3.04) indicates they made 10 recommendations to Hydro One, none of which were shown to be implemented by them.   The follow-up report noted “Without receiving further details from Hydro One to verify and support the information in its update, our Office was only able to assess and report on the status of some, but not all, of our recommendations (see Section 1.06) and was not able to assess and report on the status of any of the Committee’s recommendations.” 

The report went on to say: “We conducted assurance work between April 1, 2017 and July 26, 2017. To meet new Canadian auditing standards, we requested Hydro One’s CEO and/or Vice President to sign a management rep­resentation letter, dated September 1, 2017, at the completion of our work. The purpose of the letter was to obtain written representation from Hydro One that it had provided us with a complete update of the status of the recommendations made in the original audit two years ago.

On August 29, 2017, Hydro One responded that it declined to sign this letter or any similar document. Hydro One indicate that since it ceased to be an agency of the Crown fol­lowing passage of the Building Ontario Up Act, 2015, it was not required to participate in this follow-up, and it was not appropriate for it to sign the letter.”

Auditor General Follow-up

The AG’s 2015 Hydro One, “value-for-money report” had 17 Recommendations and 36 specific recommended actions attached to those recommendations. As was the case with the recommendations made by the Standing Committee, Hydro One basically told the AG to get stuffed, although the follow-up report (1.06) did note: “As an act of good faith and courtesy, Hydro One nevertheless sent us a document on April 26, 2017, presenting actions it had taken to respond to our recommenda­tions (following our formal request in late Janu­ary 2017 for it to report back to us). However, as explained in more detail in the following section, it declined to provide us with any more details beside this document.” 

Few recommendations implemented

With the limited information provided and other evidence obtained from the Hydro One documents filed with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for several rate increase requests (still under review by the OEB), the AG was able to confirm four out of the 36 recommended actions were fully implemented and two were in process for implementation. They were also able to confirm that four actions “will not be implemented”! As a result, only 17% of the AG’s recommended actions can be classified as accepted and executed by Hydro One.

It appears Hydro One’s executive are treating Bonnie Lysyk, the Ontario Auditor General, in a similar fashion as the previous Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli did when he dismissed her “smart meter” report by suggesting she didn’t understand the electricity system. (“The electricity system is very complex, it’s very difficult to understand,” Chiarelli said.)

Coincidentally, one of the issues in the report that elicited the foregoing response from Minister Chiarelli is one the AG raised in respect to Hydro One as “Recommendation # 14” aimed at reducing their lengthy power outages (compared to all other Ontario based local distribution companies [LDC]) which stated: “To lower its repair costs and improve customer service relating to power outages through more accurate and timely dispatches of its repair crews, Hydro One should develop a plan and timetable for using its existing smart meter capability to pinpoint the loca­tion of customers with power outages.” That recommendation has now been classified as “No longer Applicable” and no apparent resolution is sought when viewing the notes in Hydro One’s 2016 annual report.

Their response to Recommendation # 14 may have been cloaked in anger as the AG in the 2015 report noted the 1.2 million “smart meters” acquired by Hydro One cost “$660 million yet it did not implement the related software and capabilities to improve its response times to power outages. Hydro One used smart meters predominantly for billing purposes, but not for the purpose of remotely identifying the location of power outages in the distribution system before a customer calls to report the outage. The $660 million expenditure indicates an average cost of $550.00 per “smart meter” and, as many Hydro One ratepayers learned, despite their average cost being twice that of other LDC they often generated billing errors and about 150,000 of them still require manual readings!

Transparency? Doesn’t apply to us

One has to think that because Hydro One’s executives know they are a quasi private/public monopoly, they don’t have to follow the regulations and demonstrate the transparency required of fullly publicly owned entities, and they can simply ignore the AG’s and the Standing Committee’s recommendations and requests. Their monopolized clients are all of the generators, municipal and privately owned LDC and 1.3 million ratepayers who have no choice as to who will enable them to keep their lights on!

Hydro One’s apparent arrogance should be worrying to all ratepayers no matter if they are Hydro One clients or not.

We can only hope the Ontario Energy Board will finally use their regulatory authority when faced with approving any rate increase requests now before them from Hydro One!

Parker Gallant,

December 7, 2017

 

* In the 12 years from 2004 through to 2015 Hydro One paid $3.375 billion in dividends to the Province of Ontario.

Ontario ratepayers gored at Goreway

What’s up with the big consumer rip-off Mike Crawley has ably reported on? (ref: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/goreway-power-station-investigation-1.4433061)

The report that Crawley relies up on was issued by a secondary watchdog agency within Ontario’s power system called the Market Surveillance Panel (MSP). The MSP reports to the OEB and relies on a research department within the IESO.

Here is the report: https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/MSP_Report_Goreway_201709.pdf

As Crawley notes, the report explains in detail how Ontario ratepayers have been getting ripped off by a large gas-fired power generator located near Bramalea called Goreway Station Partnership (Goreway).

The current owners are the Japanese firms Toyota Tsusho Corporation and JERA Co. Inc., each with 50%.

The dollar amounts of the estimated ripoff are large. The MSP estimates that over a three-year period starting when the plant went online in June 2009, Goreway was paid at least $89 million more than could be justified. Some secret amount plus a $10 million fine was paid by Goreway over the course of subsequent investigations. In addition, in a parallel investigation the MSP found that “the Panel believes that a substantial portion of the $11.2 million in Ramping CMSC payments received by Goreway during shut-down over the course of the Investigation Period was the result of gaming.”

In addition, in another parallel investigation the MSP found that Goreway had benefitted from approximately $5.6 million in what the panel called “anomalous top-up payments” under a payment program called the Day Ahead Commitment Process that were “unwarranted”.

More troubling than the dollar amounts of the particular Goreway example, the investigation has pointed to vulnerabilities in the power situation that make it likely that other related ripoffs have occurred.

Goreway is not the only example. Gaming of those CMSC payments has proven to be a persistent problem for consumers, with both generators and large industrial loads exploiting gaps in the system to capture excess payments.

As noted by the MSP in a December 2016 report, the MSP has completed other investigations prior to Goreway that found gaming to have occurred. The first one concerned a gas-fired generating station located near Sarnia, Greenfield Energy Centre. Another investigation identified two dispatchable loads both owned by Abitibi-Bowater. Power importers and exporters have also been found to be gaming the system. (https://www.oeb.ca/oeb/_Documents/MSP/MSP_CMSC_Report_201612.pdf)

A key problem that has made the power system vulnerable to gaming like that pursued by Goreway is a flaw in Ontario’s market design arising from decisions taken in 1999 to maintain Ontario’s long-standing practice of pricing power equally for consumer irrespective of where they take power off the Ontario grid. (I voted against the uniform price market design bullshit which requires the 2-schedule system in favour of nodal pricing.)

The problem with this concept is that transmission constraints that are inherent to a grid like Ontario’s mean that increments or decrements of power injected or withdrawn from the grid do not have equivalent value at all locations. To accommodate the reality of transmission constraints, the IESO operates a two-schedule market. Under this workaround, consumers are billed on the basis of a theoretical unconstrained market plus top-up payments, whereas generators and dispatchable loads that are required to operate outside of the parameters of that unconstrained market in order to manage constraints get paid various incremental amounts, primarily Congestion Management Settlement Credits, often called CMSC payments. Other top-up payments available to generators are Generator Cost Guarantee (GCG) program and the Day Ahead Commitment Process
(DACP), both of which the MCP found Goreway gamed.

The MSP has warned for years about the market design flaws that Goreway
exploited:

“The Panel has, on more than one occasion, recommended that Ramping CMSC paid during shutdown be eliminated…Proposed changes to the rules that govern Ramping CMSC during shut-down have been brought forward by the IESO from time to time, and been defeated. In May, 2013, the IESO launched a further stakeholder engagement that included the issue of eliminating Ramping CMSC during shut-down. Goreway made numerous submissions on the issue, first opposing its inclusion in the
process at all, then questioning its materiality and suggesting that the Panel’s 2011 Monitoring Document had adequately dealt with any problem…After several postponements, the Market Rule amendment took effect in December 2016.”

The new rule appears vulnerable to similar abuses as the old rule.

On the topic of the RT-GCG :

“Among other things, the Panel has estimated that payments for O&M have exceeded a quarter of a billion dollars since 2010, with little or no apparent incremental reliability benefit…The Panel
acknowledges that the IESO is considering a longer-term solution in the form of an enhanced intra-day unit commitment program that would replace the RT-GCG program. However, by the IESO’s own admission that solution is many years away and it remains unclear to the Panel why changes to the program that have the potential to save millions in costs should not be made immediately. Goreway stands as a clear example of how generators are able to exploit the GCG regime and of how difficult and time-consuming it is to address. The Panel is concerned that the same situation remains in place today.”

The IESO Board of Directors has some serious explaining to do to justify why these problems have gone unsolved for so long.

The basic chronology of events also indicates that something rotten is up at the OEB:

The MSP initiated various gaming investigations of Goreway in 2011 and 2012.

The MSP found the gaming started in 2009, immediately after the plant started operations.

The MSP report was complete as of December 2016, but MSP chairman’s cover letter is dated Oct. 2. What? The chair of the MSP is a very well respected energy lawyer. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that he would sit on his own report. Could the OEB have ordered a revised date on the cover letter to avoid blame for
sitting on the report?

The OEB didn’t release the report until November. What’s that
about?

Parker Gallant and Tom Adams

Wind waste should worry Ontario ratepayers

Ontario’s electricity ratepayers paid more than $500 million in 2017 for nothing

With only one month left in the current year, the bad news on the electricity sector keeps getting worse.

Well before the official sources such as IESO report on how much power industrial wind turbines generated and how much was curtailed (constrained, or paid for but not added to the power grid), my friend Scott Luft has published his estimates for both the former and the latter for the month of November.

As he reports (conservatively), curtailed wind in November was over 422,000 megawatt hours (MWh)  that could have supplied 562,000 average Ontario households with free power for the month.

Instead, no one got free power; the cost of the 422,000 MWh of undelivered wind power to Ontario ratepayers was $120/MWh.  That $50.7-million cost for the month was simply added to the costs of the electricity bills ratepayers will be obliged to pay, while some of it will deferred to the future as part of the Fair Hydro Plan.

Somebody’s enjoying cheap power — not you  

No doubt the wasted wind power presented itself when it wasn’t needed; if it had been accepted into the grid, that extra power could have caused blackouts or brownouts, so it was curtailed.  At the same time, much of the grid-accepted wind was exported to our neighbours in New York, Michigan and elsewhere, at discount prices!  Curtailed wind for November 2017 compared to 2016 was almost 55% higher.

How bad is it? Let’s review the first 11 months of the current year, compared to 2016.

So far in 2017, curtailed wind is about 786,000 MWh higher (+33.8%) at just over 3.1million MWh.  The cost of all the curtailed wind so far in 2017 is approximately $373.6 million, or $94.3 million more than 2016 costs.

And wind wasn’t the only source of power generation constrained. When Ontario Power Group reported their third Quarter (September 30, 2017) results they said this:

“Baseload generation supply surplus in Ontario continued to be prevalent in 2017, resulting in forgone hydroelectric generation for OPG of 1.1 TWh*: and 4.5 TWh in the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2017, respectively, compared to 0.5 TWh and 3.9 TWh during the corresponding periods in 2016.”  

Translation: ratepayers will pick up the approximately $165 million cost of that waste via their electricity bills.

Not only are we curtailing wind and spilling hydro, but we also steamed off nuclear power generated by Bruce Nuclear at the same time we pay for idling gas plants to back up intermittent wind and solar power generation.

Intermittent wind and solar cost us

The cost of “greening” Ontario with unreliable and intermittent wind and solar keeps climbing, no matter what their proponents or politicians say.  As ratepayers and taxpayers we should reflect on why 25% of the waste of the noted 7.6 TWh of undelivered power and its cost of $539 million (so far this year) is being deferred via the Fair Hydro Plan.  And at the same time, we should recognize that we have experienced the worst possible planning in the Energy Ministry in the history of the province.

The energy sector in Ontario needs real planning by experts that will provide real value for money and save ratepayers from paying more than $500 million a year … for nothing!

~

*  1 (one) terawatt is equivalent to 1 billion kWh

The secret is out: wind power costs plenty

This past weekend’s stats are not kind to the wind power cheerleaders

The wind power trade association, the Canadian Wind Energy Association or CanWEA, uses every opportunity to push for more wind power development, and often uses “selective facts” to promote their claims.   One of the latest relied on investment firm Lazard by stating:  “A December 2016 report from the U.S. investment firm Lazard found that wind energy is the lowest cost option for new supply in the United States without any subsidies. Wind energy costs continue to fall, offering an attractive electricity source to provinces seeking to clean and diversify their electricity systems.”

That statement is included in CanWEA’s recently released brochure “The Secret is Out, Wind is in”.

Had the unknown author(s) at CanWEA simply looked at the Ontario Energy Board’s (OEB) semi-annual Regulated Price Plan they would have noted Table 2 on page 21 of the April 20, 2017 report that the cost of a wind-generated kilowatt hour (kWh) in Ontario is shown as 17.3 cents ($178/MWh), as the cost of “curtailed” (not added to the grid) wind is also included as a cost input.

Had the author(s) also simply looked at IESO data they might also have noticed that maybe wind energy costs are not continuing to fall!   Saturday, November 25th was an example: it was a very windy day in Ontario with an especially windy night. Unfortunately for the wind power cheerleaders, our demand for power from 12 AM until 7 or 8 AM was relatively low, but the wind was really blowing. That meant the 4,200+ MW of wind capacity were running at 90% (approximately) of their capacity, at the same time as Ontario’s demand for power was hovering mid-way between 11,000 and 12,000 MW. That’s very close to what our nuclear plants can provide on their own without help from other generation sources.

As a result, IESO ordered wind’s curtailment, hydro’s spilling and nuclear steam-off. At the same time, they were exporting whatever the market would take.

So, all together on November 25, the IESO curtailed 35,600 MWh of grid-connected wind and accepted 30,600 MWh into the grid, while scrambling to prevent brownouts or blackouts by exporting about 50,000 MWh over the day.

Industrial-scale wind power developers get paid $120/MWh for curtailed wind and $135 MWh for grid-accepted wind.

Quick math on all that means:

Ontario’s ratepayers picked up the costs of almost $8.6 million for curtailed and grid-accepted wind power produced when it wasn’t needed.

The cost of the grid-accepted wind (30,600 MWh) was therefore just over $280/MWh or 28 cents per kWh or, 10.7 cents more than the OEB reported back in April. On top of that, we ratepayers also ate the costs of spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear and the losses on the 50,000 MWh exported at a price close to zero.

Now if that author or authors who cranked out the latest CanWEA “selective facts” brochure were brutally honest, they would immediately change the title to:

“The Secret is out: wind is horribly expensive, intermittent and unreliable!”

Wind power peaks match power use lows

Once again, the numbers show: wind power shows up when it’s not needed, adding to consumers’ electricity bills

The IESO/Independent Electricity System Operator just released their October 2017 Monthly Market Report.

As usual, it was full of bad news.

Ontario power consumption was down 2.6% from October 2016 and was the third lowest consumption month of the 10 so far in 2017.

October 2017 was also the fourth highest month for curtailed wind* in 2017 with 37.9% (481,243MWh [megawatt hours]) curtailed, compared to May’s record curtailment of 49.3%, April’s of 42.6% and June’s curtailment of 38.1%.  History has shown wind’s generation levels in Ontario tend to always be higher in the Spring and Fall months, so this was no surprise.  What it does underscore, again, is that the months of lowest power consumption line up with wind power’s best days on the job. Power when its not needed!  Curtailment of wind in October cost Ontario ratepayers about $58 million.

On top of the wind power curtailment, Ontario also was busy exporting surplus power to our neighbours in New York, Michigan, etc. providing them with cheap power subsidized by the ratepayers of Ontario.  Net exports (exports minus imports) averaged 1,438 MW per hour so 1,069,872 MWh were delivered elsewhere.  Based on the record Global Adjustment (GA) for the month of $125.63 and the very low HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) of $8.75 MWh (0.088 cents.kWh) the cost to Ontario ratepayers; after recovery of the HOEP, transmission and congestion charges was approximately $107 million.

In summary, Ontario ratepayers picked up costs of curtailed wind of $58 million plus lost revenue from exports of $107 million for 1,550,000 MWh (rounded) generation of no value to them.  Those 1,550,000 MWh were enough power to have supplied 172,000 average households with power for a full year or almost 2.1 million average households with power for the full month of October.

No doubt we also spilled cheap clean hydro and steamed off emissions free nuclear while paying for idling gas plants, at the ready; to ensure power when clouds passed over solar panels and the wind refused to blow.

This all adds up to very Un-Fair Hydro Plan!

Parker Gallant

November 23, 2017

Note: “constrained” means the power was not needed so not added to the grid … but paid for anyway.

* Thanks to Scott Luft for his invaluable data!

Ontario’s energy poverty: how we got here and why government plans won’t work

 

Former Energy Minister Chiarelli told us not to worry about costs — now hundreds of thousands live in ‘energy poverty’

An OEB report dated December 22, 2014, completed at the request of the then Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli opened with this remark: “The Minister asked the Board to provide advice on the development of an Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP), which would assist low-income customers who are spending a disproportionate amount of their income paying for electricity.”

The report used various methods to determine the potential number of households in the province in that category and concluded: “Using LIM (Low Income Measure) as a measuring tool, and relying on Statistics Canada household data, Ontario has 713,300 low-income households. The OESP is estimated to reach 571,000. This estimate recognizes that not all low-income households in the province pay their electricity bills directly (i.e. utilities included in rent).”

It went on further to state: “Using LICO, (Low-Income Cut-Off) Ontario has 606,100 low-income households, and the OESP would reach only 484,900. Using LICO plus 15 per cent, the current LEAP (Low-income Energy Assistance Program) measure of low-income, the number of households would be 687,300 and 550,000, respectively.” 

What that suggests is that, at the time of the OEB report the StatsCan data in 2014, using LICO, indicates approximately 13,5% of households were “spending a disproportionate amount of their income paying for electricity”. Using LIM, the number jumps to 15.8%! Rate increases from November 2014 to November 2016; according to the OEB, were 1.6 cents/kWh (+17%) for an average residential household, so we would expect more households were thrown into “energy poverty”!*

So what did the Ontario government do to alleviate the problem?

The LEAP (Low-income Energy Assistance Program) kicked off in 2010 requiring all local distribution companies (LDC) to contribute 0.12% of distribution revenue (net of the cost of power).  The total amount allocated for this program is less than $5 million annually.

The RRRP (Rural and Remote Rate Protection) has been around since 2003 and provided relief to some rural and remote residential ratepayers.  The annual cost of $170 million was paid by other ratepayers and was recently (January 2017) expanded by the current government to cover more Hydro One customers increasing the annual cost to an estimated $243 million now paid from tax revenues.

The OESP (Ontario Electricity Support Program) as noted above was triggered by a directive from Bob Chiarelli when he was the Minister of Energy and was estimated to cost between $175/225 million to support those hundreds of thousands of households living in energy poverty.  The program was initiated in January 2016 and paid for by all Ontario ratepayers via the regulatory charge on hydro bills. The program has been expanded to provide more support to low-income households and the costs are now paid out of tax revenues.  The projected cost increased to approximately $300 million per annum!

The First Nations On-Reserve Delivery Credit is a new incentive providing approximately 21,500 customers with free delivery charges (estimated at $85.00 per month) at an annual cost of $21 million.

The Affordability Fund is also a new program funded by taxpayers to provide qualifying households with: LED lights, appliance upgrades, insulation, heat pumps, etc., all for free at the taxpayers’ expense, estimated at $100 million.  It’s not clear if this is to be an annual or a one-time fund!

All of the above initiatives, with the exception of the LEAP program, are now funded by taxpayers, so about $370 million was transferred from ratepayers to taxpayers and annual funding costs increased to approximately $660 million!

That’s on top of the $40 billion deferred under the Fair Hydro Plan!

How was so much energy poverty caused?

The quick answer to the above question is, it was caused by the Green Energy Act (GEA) which gave long-term contracts to mainly foreign industrial wind and solar developers. Wind and solar provide unreliable and intermittent generation and must be backed-up by gas plants doubling up on the costs.  The results have been evident since those power sources were added to our grid in larger and larger quantities.   The following highlight some of the estimated costs for the first nine months of 2017:

  • Nine months of curtailed (could have been generated but wasn’t needed) wind of 2,209,000 MWh (megawatt hours) were paid $120/MWh so cost ratepayers $265 million.
  • Nine months of spilled (over the dam but not through the turbines) hydro power of 4,500,000 MWh by OPG cost ratepayers almost $185 million.
  • Nine months of subsidized surplus power of net exports (exports minus imports) of slightly over 9 million MWh to our neighbours cost ratepayers about $800 million.
  • Nine months of “conservation” spending is estimated to have cost Ontario ratepayers $300 million.

Totalling up the above, and forgetting about the costs of steamed-off nuclear or money paid for idling gas plants to back-up wind and solar, gets this result: Ontario’s electricity system paid for 15.7 million MWh that provided no power for Ontario’s ratepayers.

That 15.7 million MWh could have supplied over 1.7 million average Ontario households with power for a full year, but instead added their costs to our electricity system.   Those costs of an estimated $1.550 billion were 2.3 times the relief provided to households living in energy poverty!

To conclude, what created more “energy poverty” in the province is to simply point to bad planning (no cost/benefit analysis) by the incumbent government. Their plan to resolve it? I will simply repeat former Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli’s promise, “it’s just the price of a Timmies cup of coffee”—every day of the year for many, many years!

 

* Energy poverty is generally defined as 10% or more of disposable income is spent on heat and hydro!