Who gets the carbon credits for recycling wind turbine blades and other burning questions?

As a climate change “realist” this past week has been what I would term, over the top. It seemed there is total confusion about what we should do and what we should avoid to push for net-zero emissions and move to the “circular economy”.  Some examples:

Industrial Wind Turbines are not yet part of the Circular Economy          

Cement giant LafargeHolcim and GE’s renewables wind turbine unit are teaming up and the purpose is “to explore the recycling of wind turbine blades.” The main objective of the partnership is to focus on “circular economy solutions”.  The same article notes one of the largest companies producing IWTs, Vestas, in early 2020 said it was aiming to produce a “zero-waste turbine” by 2040.  If one gives some thought to the Lafarge/GE team you conclude recycling fiberglass, etc. blades should result in the handing out of “carbon credits”! Both of those team members would presumably want them as they both are facing rising costs associated with “democratic” governments punishing them with a carbon-tax due to their emissions. The proponents of renewable energy from wind turbines must now be wringing their hands in confusion as they had pushed the concept that energy produced from them was emissions free but refused to admit their manufacturing generated emissions and that the blades were not recyclable.  It should also be noted that cement if it was a country would reputedly “rank fourth in the world as a climate polluter.”  IWT, based on many research papers could, “warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees.”  So, will those carbon credits be shared or will they both be rewarded with the carbon tax we consumers are paying now and in the future?

Swiss CO2 law defeated at the ballot box means no carbon tax for the Swiss  

The Swiss held a vote on a CO2 law, based on the “polluter pays” principle,”. It targeted “road vehicles, air traffic, industrial emissions, and the renovation of buildings. Those who cut their CO2 emissions would have benefited from exemptions.” Presumably those who didn’t “cut emissions” would pay an emission tax. Switzerland’s government now has a problem as they have committed to the EU they would cut their emissions. 

It was interesting to note “Urban cantons including Basel, Zurich and Geneva voted in favour of the bill.  But 21 of the 26 Swiss cantons struck it down.”  One should suspect had Canadians voted on the recent move by the Trudeau led government to impose the increase to $170/tonne on emissions the outcome may well have turned out similar. Most large urban community voters seem to fail to realize the outcome will drive the cost of living up as the “carbon tax” climbs whereas the rural communities have a much better understanding of basic economics!

Interestingly the nay side “argued that Switzerland will not make a critical difference to global climate efforts since the real game-changers are China and the United States when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions” which many sane Canadian voters also understand.

So, the question is; when will Canadian voters be given the opportunity to vote yay or nay to the carbon tax?

Meteorologist Says Snow in June In Line With Historical Snowfall on Avalon                                          

The forgoing story about snow in Avalon, Newfoundland June 10, 2021 caught my eye due to having recently watched a video with Natural Resources Minister, Seamus O’Regan doing the introductory speech in a video at the launch of the Ottawa Climate Action Fund (OCAF).  As an aside, OCAF is proposing to spend $57.4 billion tax dollars to make the City of Ottawa achieve “net-zero” emissions by 2050. In the opening welcome from O’Regan he opined about last winter stating, “average temperatures of 10 degrees higher than normal in the height of winter” in parts of Labrador suggesting it was caused by climate change. What he failed to say was average winter temperatures in Newfoundland and Labrador can swing widely by as much as 30 degrees so 10 degrees hardly seems unusual. Nevertheless If you’re pushing the “net-zero” theory to justify handing out tax dollars to groups like OCAF you may only want to present information that is one-sided.

The question someone in the media should ask O’Regan is; do you think snow in June is caused by “climate change”?

Centre Block renovation to take until at least 2030 to complete, cost up to $5Billion                     

Another article that caught my eye was once again all about Ottawa and referenced how the renovation associated with the Peace Tower and Centre Block was not only going to cost taxpayers $5 billion but would also not be completed until 2030 or 2031.  One of the strange issues arising out of the renovation had nothing to do with the $57.4 billion the City of Ottawa wants to spend to make the city reach “net-zero” as the Peace Tower and Centre Block are owned by the Government of Canada. The article noted:

It’s being promised by PSPC (Public Services and Procurement Canada) that the renovation will result in transforming the “largest energy consumer and greenhouse gas emitter” within PSPC’s portfolio of federal buildings into a carbon-neutral facility with significant reductions to energy and water consumption.”

I’m sure PSPC has numerous properties emitting “greenhouse gas” but probably none of them are places where so many politicians are present so perhaps, as taxpayers, we were aware of where the largest “carbon emissions” emanate from; when parliament actually sits. 

Putting aside the fact that our parliamentarians spew “greenhouse gas” one wonders why PSPC didn’t look for alternatives to spending all those tax dollars?  Was the only choice to spend $5 billion to make it “carbon-neutral” or perhaps they should have considered buying some of those California “Global Emission Offset Credit’s” priced at US $20.32/tonne for June 2021? $5 billion would buy a lot of those “offset credits”!

PwC to add 100,000 jobs in US$12 billion strategic revamp

An article in the Financial Post last week stated “PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is investing US$12 billion across its global business in an overhaul targeting better audits, digitization of services and greener operations.” The article went on to note: “The professional-services provider will hire 100,000 employees and develop the skills of existing staff over the next five years as it seeks to respond to the post-pandemic operating environment” and went on to state; “The firm’s spending will also focus on responding to environmental, social and governance (ESG) trends across its operations.” ESG was a creation of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which was founded by the German economist Charles Schwab.  ESG is fully supported by the big four audit firms as it will allow them to increase their audit bills and some of those funds will presumably result in hiring more staff with those (whatever they are) ESG audit skills. It will also allow the big investment firms like Bloombergs, Brookfield, etc. to make lots of money trading those carbon credits that many firms will be required to purchase due to regulations and “Acts” imposed by government bodies at all levels.

My question is related to the foregoing imposition of ESG!  ESG imposition seems destined to make the very rich even richer and those in the middle and poorer classes poorer and is that it’s objective?

A bird stands in the way of India’s green goals  

India has so far escaped the need to impose carbon taxes but they do seem concerned about “climate change” so have been handing out contracts for more coal generation as well as wind and solar generation. This article indicates they have received push-back from the Wildlife Institute of India on the latter contracts and they were successful pushing for buried transmission lines in order to save an endangered bird known as the “great Indian bustard”.  The Supreme Court ruling supported the Institute but now the developers are crying because burying the transmission lines will reputedly increase costs to them by $4 billion.

The question I would have for the Canadian judicial system is why in most cases when similar objections were raised by opponents of wind and solar generation in Ontario and elsewhere did the rulings handed out favour the developers and ignore wildlife proponents?

IESO and OEB join forces to support innovative projects to help meet province’s growing energy needs

The IESO (independent Electric System Operator) and the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) recently issued a Press Release announcing they have formed a new partnership. The partnership “would test the capabilities of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) in providing services at both the local and provincial levels.” The DER resources they want to test are identified as: Some examples include rooftop solar panels, battery storage units and demand response devices, such as smart thermostats, that help reduce or shift consumers’ electricity usage.”  While industrial wind turbines are missing from the examples one should assume they are part of the mix as approximately 600 MW (megawatts) of their capacity are already part of the DER!  Ontario’s ratepayers have already experienced those “innovative projects” (sarcasm intended) which caused electricity rates to jump over 100% creating energy poverty while driving energy dependent businesses out of the province. IESO will also subsidize those “innovative projects” via their Grid Innovation Fund (GIF) while the OEB will provide “temporary relief” from regulatory guidelines.

My question is; why is the Minister of Energy allowing this to happen when the outcome has already been clearly demonstrated?

Conclusion  

From all appearances it appears confusion reigns supreme throughout the world when itcomes to the question of “climate change”, and the myriad ways governments and their regulators are dealing with it.  It is time realism is deemed important in respect to the global movement to effectively increase energy poverty and for governments to respect scientific opinion that has been tossed aside by the super-rich out to increase their wealth while harming the rest of mankind!

The time has arrived for governments to answer our “climate realism” questions!

Ottawa spending billions to get to net zero

Marc Patrone, host of the weekday show from 9 AM to 11 AM had me on as a guest this morning (June 17, 2021) to talk about the City of Ottawa’s “Energy Evolution”. While we discussed the foregoing briefly we also touched on several other energy related subjects such as the Line 5 pipeline and what the Ford Government has done in respect to the electricity sector in Ontario and the wind projects.

You can listen to the podcast starting at 1:17.37 here:

If you are a subscriber to NEWSTALKCANADA you can listen here:

https://newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=2527

Net-Zero by 2050 Seems Destined to Reference Money Left to Buy Food for Most of Canada’s Population

Robert Hornung, CEO of CanREA (Canadian Renewable Energy Association), recently finished a three-part series about the wonders of wind, solar and storage and indications (based on his verbiage) are; he is delighted with how the Trudeau led government are committed to achieving “net-zero” emissions by 2050.  The final sentence in his last article “Cape diem, Canada” tells the reader: “We have a fleeting opportunity to avert a catastrophe for our children and grandchildren. We need to seize it. Today.”  As one can imagine Hornung believes the world can be saved from the “changing climate” which he tells us is causing events showing: “our permafrost is melting, our coastal sea levels are rising, our snow-cover patterns are changing, and our weather is becoming more extreme, with floods, droughts, and intense storms on the rise.”  As one would expect he says the foregoing can be stopped as our electricity needs “can easily be supplied by Canada’s massive untapped renewable energy resources”.

All Canadians should realize we are now all being asked/told to relive what Ontarians were told by the McGuinty led government back in 2009 when they ushered in the GEA (Green Energy Act). The GEA caused electricity rates to more than double due to the push for renewable wind and solar generation. Ratepayers and taxpayers in the rest of Canada should take Hornung’s gloomy prognostications and concern themselves about the “net-zero” aspirations he exudes!

Hornung goes further and touts “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy,” the report released by Jonathon Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC) in December 2020 bringing us the $170/tonne carbon-tax.  Hornung also seemed enamoured by another report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices whom I devoted four articles to in early 2020.  The CICC was a creation of Wilkinson’s predecessor Catherine McKenna using $20 million of our tax dollars.  The report Hornung referenced from the CICC is “Canada’s Net Zero Future” and it is 132 pages full of the fabrications Wilkinson and his boss, PM Trudeau, presumably ordered!  Doing a word search in the report for “net-zero” provides only 14 hits but one for “net zero” (without the hyphen) provides 588 hits. The word “tax” only appears twice-ie: 2 mentions, and it’s not in respect to the $170/tonne carbon-tax as it is referred to as a “carbon price”!

The report breaks down the various existing “safe bets” and possible “wild card” technologies that will purportedly allow us to meet Canada’s 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets. The “safe bets” include renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, hydro and also include storage (battery) and nuclear and of course transformation of our transportation modes via conversion of personal vehicles to EV. The report claims using those technologies along with increased insulation and heat pumps for buildings limited carbon capture, etc. etc. will easily allow us to meet the emissions reductions by 2030.  The “wild card” technologies include hydrogen, CCUS (carbon capture, utilization and sequestration), direct air capture, small modular reactors and a myriad of other technologies including changing our diet to consume less meat and dairy products and those will allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Naturally they reference the UNIPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) several time as well as the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) in a favourable fashion as well as utilizing their reports to augment their views and recommendations.

The report also uses scary references and their reputed costs such as suggesting air pollution causes 20,000 annual deaths in Canada: “Harmful air pollutants that increase the risk of disease and premature death—pollutants such as particulate matter and ground-level ozone—are common by-products of GHG emissions. Globally, air pollution represents the single largest environmental threat to human health, according to the World Health Organization (2016), and it also takes a significant economic toll. In Canada, estimates suggest that air pollution kills around 20,000 Canadians annually, with more than 17,000 of those deaths attributable to fossil fuel use (Lelieveld et al., 2020). The direct welfare costs of fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone in Canada is estimated at as much as $46 billion per year (IISD, 2017), while Health Canada (2019a) estimates the total annual economic damage to public health from air pollution is approximately $114 billion.”  I should note Health Canada’s recent report echoed the same scary stuff and used the same reference perhaps to prepare us for the next pandemic and accompanying lock-downs.

Needless to say, the CICC report suggests the move to lower levels of carbon emissions coupled with the recommendations on using “safe bets” and evolving “wild card” technologies will not only help to reduce “global warming” and presumably reduce air pollution; but it will also reduce our expenditure on energy as a share of income. 

We should view the graph above, suggesting energy expenditures as a share of income will drop as pure unadulterated fabrication!  Not even the Ontario Liberal Government during the McGuinty/Wynne era promised our electricity costs would drop due to the adoption of clean energy from wind and solar.  They suggested rates would increase one percent (1%) but Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers know we were lied to and the actual cost increase was well over 100% and we must live with that for 10 more years!  One should doubt the CICC report has provided us with anything close to actual outcomes!

Some of those at the CICC, such as Bruce Lourie patted themselves on the back for being instrumental in getting the Ontario Liberals to buy into the renewable energy push. He and others* have played a big role in getting the CICC established and have continued to successfully push their agenda.

We should all suspect the Hornung forecast of the “catastrophe for our children and grandchildren” will be related to the unaffordable costs of just trying to survive a Canadian winter with those “baseboard”** electric heaters the CICC sees in our future!

*Rick Smith, a Lourie cohort has just been named as the new President of CICC

**Reminds me of the early sixties adds about how we could “live better electrically”.

Woke banks all in on ‘reset’, carbon exchange ripoff

Marc Patrone of Sauga 960 AM had me on his show today to follow up on my recent article which was related to how the Canadian banks like TD and RBC have joined in with financial institutions around the world to push the concept of ESG (environmental, social and governance) concept conceived by the WEF (World Economic Forum) and loved by all the various UN bureaucracies.

While Marc and I did talk about that we also covered other related ground such as CO2 emissions, net-zero by 2050, science (he had a great clip of Steve Koonin) and the general failure of the main stream media in putting out all the facts and actually doing some investigative reporting.

You can listen to the May 5, 2021 podcast on SAUGA 960 AM starting at 50.45 here:

https://sauga960am.ca/podcasts/

Or if you are a subscriber to NEWSTALK CANADA you can listen here:

https://newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=2527

O’Toole’s carbon “tax” may be even worse that the Liberal one

Marc Patrone, the host of a two hour morning show on SAUGA radio 960 AM had me on his program today April 19, 2021 and we again covered a fair amount of ground. The main topic was the recent announcement by the leader of the CPC, Erin O’Toole and his version of the carbon tax. We also touched on the recent news from the Canada Infrastructure Bank run by Catherine McKenna who told us in their press release they were doling out $655 million of our tax dollars to run an underwater transmission line under Lake Erie.

You can listen to our conversation starting at 1:18:40 of the podcast here:

If you happen to be a subscriber of NEWSTALK CANADA you can hear our conversation here:

https://newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=2527

Some good news on electricity costs

The foregoing title is a little deceptive as when Marc Patrone and I were speaking this morning on his show at Sauga Radio 960 AM we also covered a fair amount of other ground. Some of the other topics discussed were short spurts about pipelines, China, Russia’s forests and even briefly about housing costs. You can listen to our full discussion on the podcast starting at 41:10 and ending at 58:00 here:

or if you are a subscriber to NEWSTALK CANADA you can listen here:

https://newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=2527

OPG’s on a roll and Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers are paying the price

OPG released their 2020 Annual Report about a week ago and despite profits increasing, during the pandemic, by $235 million (up 20.9%) from $1,126 million in 2019 to $1,361 million, the media didn’t seem to notice. Gross revenue, net of fuel costs, increased $1,118 million over 2019.  Based on total generation of 82.1 TWh, (up 5.5% over 2019) the cost to produce a MWh (net of fuel costs) jumped from $68.70 in 2019 to $78.72/MWh in 2020 for a 15.5% increase!

The increased gross revenue came from, nuclear, up $700 million, gas and other generation up $300 million and higher hydro costs of $40 million. The latter doesn’t include 4.3 TWh* of spilled hydro costing ratepayers about $220 million in 2020 nor does it include the “fuel costs” of water which were $347 million up slightly from 2019 despite a small drop (2 gigawatt hours [GWh]) of actual generation.

The increased revenue from nuclear and hydro came as a result of the OEB finally blessing rate increase applications submitted by OPG.  In the case of the nuclear rates the OEB took an inordinate amount of time to approve rate increases, so much of this jump was associated with some catching up by OPG as well as a slight increase (3 GWh) in actual generation. The jump in gas costs is due to the acquisition by OPG of the “portfolio of combined-cycle natural gas-fired plants in Ontario from TC Energy Corporation (TC Energy) for approximately $2.8 billion, inclusive of customary closing adjustments. The portfolio included the Napanee GS, the Halton Hills GS, and the remaining 50 percent interest in the Portlands Energy Centre.” As a result of the acquisition, OPG’s gas generation operations in 2020 represented 26.8% (2.6 TWh) of all grid connected gas generated (9.7 TWh) whereas in 2019 the 0.6 TWh they generated was only 6.3% of grid connected gas generation.  The acquisition didn’t close until the end of April 2020 so we should expect OPG will have an even larger percentage of gas generation in 2021.

It is worth noting OPG’s total generation of 82.1 TWh added to Bruce Nuclear’s generation of 44 TWh provided 95.4% of all grid connected Ontario demand in 2020. If one includes the 4.3 TWh of spilled hydro OPG was paid for and the 1 GWh of steamed off nuclear at Bruce the combination of the two could have provided 98.7% of Ontario’s grid demand.  The grid shortfall of 1.7 TWh could have been easily provided by OPG’s hydro units.  Without the costs of over $2 billion dollars for the 13 TWh generated by grid connected wind, solar and bio-mass generation, ratepayers and taxpayers would have been much better off.  Additionally as Scott Luft recently noted that surplus generation only served to reduce emissions for our neighbours in US states such as Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc.

Another point worth expounding on is, in addition to the water “fuel costs” of $347 million paid to the provincial government OPG is required to pay them what is referenced as PILT (payment in lieu of taxes). The PILT jumped up 103.9% from 2019 when they were $190 million to $387 million in 2020. So, the province received $734 million in 2020 from us ratepayers which should help to pay a good chunk of the estimated cost of $6.5 billion of the “Ontario Electricity Rebate” that now appears on our monthly hydro bills and is allocated to taxpayers.

While previous Ontario governments have made the electricity ministry as complex as possible the current Ford led government has gone on to exacerbate its complexity rather than trying to undo the mess!  It’s time they actually studied the sector and generate changes to simplify it and reduce the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers but perhaps that is too much to hope for!

*The 4.3 TWh of spilled hydro was equivalent to what almost 480,000 average households (over 10% of all Ontario households) consume annually.

Maine transmission lines, Texas Cold Snap and Tree Planting

For some reason I forgot to let you all know that I was once again on the Marc Partone Show on SAUGA 960 AM on Monday February 22, 2021 and Marc and I covered several topics. They naturally included some chatter about what happened in Texas, the transmission line to connect Hydro Quebec with Massachusetts running through Maine and tree planting. Our conversation starts at 46:45 in the podcast.

Here is the link to the Marc Patrone podcasts:

Podcasts

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; How Dare You

Back on September 27, 2019 a Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg spent 15 minutes speaking with Prime Minister Trudeau and during the chat she reportedly told him; “he is not doing enough to fight climate change”! Later that day Trudeau took part in the “Global Climate Strike” in Montreal along with Greta and at some point, during the day, promised to plant 2 billion trees to help reduce global emissions, should his government be re-elected.

Well, we know they were re-elected with a minority but face no opposition on the purported upcoming pandemic, referenced as; “climate change”!  The question then becomes; how’s that tree planting coming along as it’s now 17 months since your promise to Greta?

As it turns out the Ministry of Natural Resources has finally developed a questionnaire related to Trudeau’s promise.  It’s a 12 page “Request for Information” which asks a series of 26 questions (some with several parts) and even includes one on your company/group’s “Diversity and Inclusion” (not sure what the latter has to do with planting trees). The deadline for submission is March 25, 2021.

It took the Ministry 17 months to develop the questionnaire but they expect responses should only take just over a month. 

Perhaps Trudeau and his cabinet were far too busy working on sourcing Covid-19 vaccines (sarcasm intended) to follow up on his promise or; should it be blamed on Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change? Wilkinson included the cost ($3.16 billion) to plant those trees in his December 11, 2020 report titled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”?   Why so long to calculate the costs and so precise (rounding to $3.2 billion would represent less than 1.3% of the estimated total costs), with a government who have been unable to table a budget for two years?

Had Trudeau actually done some research before meeting with Greta he would have discovered a Washington Post article from 2015 contained global tree counts by country and it stated;  Canada had 318.3 billion trees second only to Russia!  It went on to note, “There are a whopping 8,953 trees per person in Canada” placing us # 1 In the world whereas Sweden is well down the list with only 3,200 trees per person.  Had he gone further he would have also found out on another measure that Canada ranks third in “Forest area by hectares” after only Russia and Brazil.

We are # 1 in the world but Trudeau wants to up the count by another 600/700 trees per person at a cost of approximately $4,000 in additional taxes supplied by an average family of four. We should truly wonder how that in any way benefits Canada when China has only 102 trees per person and Greta (to the best of this writer’s knowledge) has not challenged them.

Canada’s Ministry of Natural Resources states Canada has 347 million hectares of forest (40% of its total land mass of 979 million hectares) and 77% of them are on Provincial Crown Land.  The other issue is availability of the 1.5/2 million hectares required for the 2 billion trees! Presently that amount of land is not available! Is the plan to reclaim land currently used for agricultural purposes? Will farmers be required to allow their land to be used or acquired, at what cost recognizing that would harm our agricultural sector?  One should assume the Ministry of Natural Resources has not included those costs in their estimates!

What Prime Minister Trudeau should have done is simply told the “how dare you” teenager from Sweden, she and other Swedes, should get busy planting trees!  Instead, he bailed and Canadian taxpayers will wind up paying the price.

To reiterate, on behalf of all Canadians; how dare you, Prime Minister, Trudeau!

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer—How Dare You!

Back in mid-November 2020 Michigan Governor, Gretchen Whitmer announced her plan to shut down Line 5 by revoking and ending a 1953 easement that allows Enbridge Energy to run a dual pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac.  Revoking that easement would mean thousands of job losses in Michigan, Ohio and Ontario and raise the price of gasoline, jet fuel and propane for citizens in those locations and elsewhere. In the case of propane many rural areas in those three locations as well as Quebec are dependent on it as a source of heat during the winter.

The fightback from Ohio, various companies and unions and of course Enbridge has been significant however from the perspective of Canada’s Justin Trudeau’s government it has been “wimpy”! Pushback from Ontario has been what most would perceive as benign! Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Greg Rickford simply claimed he was “profoundly disappointed”! 

What Minister Rickford should have done is to tell Governor Whitmer he would use his responsibility for the Ontario electricity sector to push back and advise Governor Whitmer that he would order IESO to shutdown the intertie line with Michigan.  That action would cut them off from receiving our emission free, and very cheap electricity which they enjoy buying at subsidized prices.

Thanks to my friend Scott Luft, one is able to look back to 2008 on his data (extracted from IESO) and see how much cheap surplus power we have exported and what we received in payment for it.

It should first be understood Ontario’s gas plants (and coal plants when they operated) are only called on to generate power when demand cannot be met by our cadre of nuclear, hydro and renewables (wind and solar) so surplus energy is almost always caused because demand is low but the wind is blowing and/or the sun is shining. What that infers is most of Ontario’s exported and surplus power is considered almost emissions free! Alerted to the above; if one reviews Scott Luft’s chart it is easy to calculate information Minister Rickford could use in a chat with Governor Witmer or our Prime Minister. 

He would note Ontario exported 186.6 TWh over the ten years from 2011 to 2020 and further examination would allow him to determine Michigan received approximately 50% and New York (approximately 35%).  Adding the revenue generated he would note total revenue on those sales was $4.8 billion indicating Ontario sold each kWh for 2.57 cents. Going further he would see during the same timeframe IWT generated 93.7 TWh, solar 25.8 TWh and additionally Ontarian’s were obliged to pay the cost of curtailed wind, spilled hydro and steamed-off nuclear which totaled 49.4 TWh meaning ratepayers picked up the costs.  If one adds the three together, they come to 168.9 TWh which is more than we would consume in a year (in 2020 we consumed 132.2 TWh) and is very close to what we exported to our neighbours with Michigan getting about 93 TWh at a cost to them of just under $2.3 billion whereas those same 93 TWh cost Ontarians approximately $15.5 billion.

What the foregoing implies is Ontario ratepayers subsidized our electricity exports to Michigan to the tune of $12.2 billion in contravention of the USMCA Trade Agreement which clearly states:

To not use export subsidies or World Trade Organization (WTO) special agricultural safeguards for products exported to each other’s market.”

For some reason I suspect the State of Michigan will not raise this issue with the Biden Administration as they are quite happy to take our clean subsidized electricity and avoid having to fire up their numerous coal plants to obtain what amounts to approximately 10% of their annual consumption.

In the event Minister Rickford doesn’t want to shut down the “intertie” lines (recently upgraded) that delivers cheap power to Michigan he should at the very least demand Michigan issue Ontario “carbon credits” that are salable or can be applied to offset other emissions in the province!

Hopefully Minister Rickford will recognize the costs of our electricity exports to Michigan and how they negatively affect Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers and will run with the foregoing suggestions to ensure Line 5 is not cancelled by Governor Whitmer!