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!

Ecojustice Lost in Court

Ecojustice challenged the Alberta, Allen Inquiry, into the “Tarsands Campaign” and recently lost in court. The organizations and individuals behind the campaign were many of those I have connected in a recent article. At the same time, I noted how they obtained tax dollars in their efforts to push their “climate change” concept and to shut down Canada’s oil and gas industry. The article’s long title is “Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, Smart Prosperity Institute, Ecojustice, The Natural Step, and the University of Ottawa interdisciplinary Environment Institute all connect to Stewart Elgie and several other Eco-Warriors” and was posted June 7, 2021.

Friends of Science has utilized some of the material from the aforementioned article in their recent YouTube post.  Watch the video to get a view on how the eco-warriors were and are continuing to shut down the inquiry perhaps because they will be exposed?

ENERGY EVOLUTION: OTTAWA’S COMMUNITY ENERGY TRANSITION STRATEGY

City of Ottawa plans to spend $57.4 Billion to get to net-zero by 2050 and Carney is helping them

On April 24, 2019 the City of Ottawa passed a motion declaring a “climate emergency” and only two councilors voted against it.  Interestingly one of the “No” votes came from Rick Chiarelli, 2nd cousin of Bob Chiarelli, former Ontario Minister of Energy who during his term of service was a big fan of renewable energy which caused electricity prices to rise over 100% in the province.

Passage of the motion led to the appointment of councilor Scott Moffat as Chair of the City’s Standing Committee on Environmental Protection, Water and Waste Management. Moffat presumably accepted the position with his belief in the reputed and upcoming “climate emergency” motion he supported.

As an outgrowth of the “climate emergency” declaration, the Ottawa Community Foundation (OCF), a registered charity with assets of $178 million (CRA 2019 filing) launched the Ottawa Climate Action Fund (OCAF).  The official launch occurred May 14, 2021 and was moderated by Diana Fox Carney, who happens to be Mark Carney’s wife. 

As yet another coincidence, it was earlier announced on May 3, 2021, by Eurasia Group, “the world’s leading political risk research and consulting firm” (their claim), that “Diana Fox Carney, a widely respected expert on global climate and energy policy, will be joining as a senior advisor. At Eurasia Group, Fox Carney will work closely with Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, who helped negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement, to bolster the firm’s growing climate and energy practice. Most Canadians and particularly Ontarians will recognize the “Butts” name as it was he who; “behind the scenes”, influenced former Ontario Premier, McGuinty in the creation of the GEGEA (Green Energy and Green Economy Act) driving up electricity prices in the push for wind and solar generation.

On the launch day of May 14, 2021 the OCAF issued a press release announcing a: “$21.7M investment from the Government of Canada to bring Carbon Down and Community Up“.  As one would expect the press release carried words of wonder from Ministers Seamus O’Regan and Catherine McKenna on how those tax dollars would help save the world from the climate emergency while creating jobs and making life better for our kids and grandkids.

The City of Ottawa’s plan to get to net-zero by 2050 consists of 101 pages and starts with a “Thank You to Our Partners”. The report states; “The city extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to almost 200 public and private stakeholders representing more than 90 organizations” in discussions and technical workshops! One of those listed is Pollution Probe (a charity) who have been pushing environmental issues for several decades.  The interesting issue in respect to the City of Ottawa’s plan is it appears to have been created by Pollution Probe. When you link to the plan in PDF format it suggests it was PP’s creation not the City!  Also interesting is in the list of OCAF’s appointed advisors one finds an individual by the name of Chris Henderson.  If one looks at Pollution Probe 2020 GALA webpage the moderator for one of the sessions was Chris Henderson.  Coincidental, or is Ottawa’s “net-zero” plan a creation of PP rather than City officials?

The official OCAF online launch with Diana Carney as moderator took place on the same day (May 14, 2021) as the $21.7 million in tax dollars were announced.  The video recording of the launch is just over one hour and included presenters; Seamus O’Regan, Catherine McKenna and a few others including Councilor Moffat!  O’Regan waxed on about temperatures last winter being 10 degrees higher than normal in Labrador as a sign of the climate emergency but if he bothered to investigate history, he would have noted average winter temperatures in Goose Bay, where he grew up, vary by as much as 30 degrees from a low of -30 C to 0 C in January. Ottawa MP McKenna screeched she want’s Ottawa to be the greenest capital ever!

Reverting to the PP plan it is interesting to see the following:  “Financial analysis indicates that cumulative community-wide investments from 2020 to 2050 total $57.4 billion with a present value of $31.8 billion.” To put that in perspective the $21.7 million taxpayer dollars just awarded to the City is 0.4% of the investments reputedly needed and those investments are 14.5 times the City’s current annual budget of $3.94 billion. As one should suspect the plan recommends complete electrification of everything and utilizing renewable energy in the form of solar and wind (lowest power density of energy sources).  From the plan: 

The model indicates that the minimum results required to meet the 100% scenario under the electricity sector are:

• Solar photovoltaic (PV) reaches 1,060 MW by 2050 (approximately 36 km2 of solar PV47 mostly on rooftops)

• Wind generation reaches 3,218 MW by 2050 (approximately 710 large scale turbines)”

The proposal to have 1060 MW of solar panels (40% of what Ontario currently has) and 3,218 MW of wind turbines (60% of what Ontario has currently) to supply Ottawa with the power needed to achieve net-zero by 2050 is a dream Ontarians have already suffered though. Residents in Ottawa should get ready for electricity prices to more than double every 10 years.

The 101-page plan says absolutely nothing about the toxic elements in those 1060 MW of solar panels that will require disposal in 15/20 years when they reach their end of life and need to be removed from the 36 square kilometers of rooftops they will cover.  Interestingly enough, many will have to be removed and replaced before we even reach 2050.

The same concern should be considered in respect to those “710 large scale turbines” whose life cycle is about the same as solar panels and will be 160 metres in height as compared to the 98 metre height of the Peace Tower. I presume Catherine McKenna would welcome solar panels on her roof and one of those industrial wind turbines near or at her residence if she really wants Ottawa to be “the greenest capital ever”.

The OEB yearbook of Distributors for 2019 indicates the hourly peak demand for Hydro Ottawa in the summer was 1,348 MW and winter peak was 1,257 MW, By 2050 or sooner those peaks will double or triple. What that could mean is residents and businesses will be faced with rolling blackouts similar to those experienced by California, Southern Australia and were partially to blame for the Texas blackout. Those three regions have opted for unreliable and intermittent wind and solar generation although Texas hasn’t gone quite as far as California and SA have.

Those of us in the rest of Ontario should insist Hydro Ottawa be disconnected from the grid to ensure only the City of Ottawa is affected by blackouts or brownouts in the future.  Let them spend the $57.4 billion but only use the tax dollars generated by those living in Ottawa and the rest of us can sit back and watch what happens when politicians are eventually accused of harming those who voted for them.

Cabal of climate change fear-mongers cash in.

Once again I was invited to be on Sauga Radio 960 AM where Marc Patrone and I discussed my recent article about the “climate change” cabal of unelected warriors who seem to control the politicians the rest of us elected. We touched on a few other related topics that talked about the costs of the folly they profess.

You can tune in to the June 8, 2021 podcast here at 1:20:45 to hear the full conversation:

Podcasts

Or if you are a subcriber to NEWSTALK CANADA you can listen here;

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

Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, Smart Prosperity Institute, Ecojustice, The Natural Step, and the University of Ottawa interdisciplinary Environment Institute all connect to Stewart Elgie and several other Eco-Warriors

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) is an outgrowth of a $20 million award by Catherine McKenna when she was Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MoECC).  The award was granted to the Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration (P-CEC) a group of 21 familiar “climate change” advocates which morphed into the CICC. The P-CEC was explored by the writer in a series of six (6) articles disclosing who they were, how they were connected and how they were funded.  The first in the series was posted November 11, 2019 and the final one December 15, 2019.

When the contract was awarded the $20 million allocated to the winning group by Minister McKenna was to be utilized over five years. The CICC’s  annual report for 2020-2021 indicates they used $4.7 million of the award and 52% went towards compensation and 21% for external research.  Beyond that, there are no specific details in the “annual report”.  Needless to say, the CICC have churned out many reports since their founding reflecting on the usual cadre of eco-warrior concerns such as; climate change, global warming, emissions and of course net-zero.

CICC reputedly has 25 Staff led by Kathy Bardswick, formerly CEO of the Co-Operators Group where, as CEO she led them to be “the first Canadian Insurance company signatory to the UN Principles of Sustainable Insurance, being a member of the UN Inquiry into a Sustainable Financial System”.  

CICC has Stewart Elgie as a “Expert” panelist along with several other recognizable climate change advocates like Blair Feltmate, Mark Jaccard, etc. Bardswick recently retired as Founding President of CICC and her post has been taken over by none other than Rick Smith, a former CEO of Environmental Defence. Smith is a close associate of Bruce Lourie whom yours truly has written extensively about due to his influence with the former Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty and creation of the GEA which drove up electricity prices in the province by over 100%.  If one looks at the CICC Board Members one will note Lourie is one of the chosen as is Chis Ragan.  Ragan was Chair of the Ecofiscal Commission and Stewart Elgie was a Commissioner.  Bruce Lourie sat on Ecofiscal’s Advisory Board.  The Ecofiscal Commission recommended; emissions should be priced at $210/tonne in order to achieve Canada’s commitment to the Paris Accord. One should notice Ecofiscal’s recommendation is not much higher than current Minister, Jonathon Wilkinson of the MoECC is taking us with the price to reach $170/tonne by 2030.

Elgie’s biography on CICC describes his awe-inspiring career to this point (sarcasm intended) by noting: “Prof. Elgie started his career as an environmental lawyer in Alaska, litigating over the Valdez oil spill. He returned to Canada and founded Ecojustice, now Canada’s largest non-profit environmental law organization”. The bio goes on to say Elgie “is also the founder and chair of Smart Prosperity, Canada’s major green economy think tank and policy-research network.” and “is a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa and director of the University’s interdisciplinary Environment Institute.”

Elgie easily made the Ontario “Sunshine list for 2020 but, it doesn’t disclose what he gets from Ecojustice or the Smart Prosperity Institute where he sits as the “Executive Chair”. Elgie, as a “professor” earned $203,528.72 according to the 2020 Sunshine list.  A quick review of Ecojustice’s Oct. 31, 2020 financials disclosed this note: “As a result of COVID-19, Ecojustice Canada Society took advantage of government assistance programs in place, resulting in the recognition of $382,225 of revenue relating to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy in the year which is included in other revenue.” What a kind gesture by Canadian taxpayers to toss almost $400K at a charity whose intentions are to shut down all fossil fuel generation and consumption in Canada which will inevitability create more energy poverty.

The Smart Prosperity Institute which Elgie founded is within the University of Ottawa and includes at least five government “Funders” so presumably receives lots of taxpayer dollars however, they don’t disclose or publish financial statements.  Reviewing the Federal government’s search websites for grants and contracts however does disclose two contracts awarded in 2020 and 2121 for approximately $86K and one grant in 2020 for $380K.

Another charitable institution; The Natural Step, Canada, (an arm of an international group) are going full bore on “climate change”.  They have Elgie listed as a Member of the Board, along with Lorne Johnson, VP, Ivey Foundation and a Board member. Coincidentally Bruce Lourie is President of the Ivey Foundation. A quick review of Federal Government contracts discloses; The Natural Step received four contracts with a value of about $110K over the past few years and four grants of about $775K. When one looks at the CRA filings for The Natural Step they fail to disclose the foregoing facts about receiving those funds from the Federal Government.  As a result, I reported the information to the CRA but I seriously doubt the CRA will actually admonish them.

Now, let’s have a quick look at the CICC’s latest report; “THE HEALTH COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE“! It’s a totally scary document to anyone who has not followed the tripe about fossil fuels and how CO2 emissions will cause “peoplekind” to be expunged from the face of the Earth. Funnily enough this document says nothing about those emissions! If you search for CO2 you get zero hits and if you search for “global warming” you get only 4 hits however if you search for “climate change” you get 382 hits! It begs the question is “global warming” no longer an issue. The following is one excerpt that suggests the climate activists are trying their best to alter the landscape perhaps because they are having difficulty trying to prove their cause and justify their government funding?

As ground-level ozone increases, so do deaths and healthcare costs. Unless action is taken, future healthcare costs of ozone exposure could increase to one quarter of current healthcare costs linked to cancer. The costs of death and lost quality of life are even greater—we estimate these costs will be $86 billion per year by mid-century and $250 billion per year by the end of the century.” So, the CICC “experts” think their skillsets are sufficient to make a 79-year forecast! Inflated egos are rife in the CICC!

The report rambles on about “wildfires” “floods” “heatwaves” and increased deaths from heat and “mental health” but avoids attacking carbon emissions or blaming “global warming. The report says nothing about less deaths from the cold except to state “we have not tried to estimate the effects of climate change on cold-related mortality and morbidity in this study.” 

The report also states: “Not accounting for climate change, the direct costs of mental illness in Canada are expected to grow to some $291 billion per year by 2041 (a 590 per cent increase), with cumulative costs over that 30-year period reaching more than $2.3 trillionIt goes on to state: “Even if climate change only moderately increases rates of mental illness, this could be among the costliest climate-related health impacts for Canada.”

What the foregoing extraction from the report suggests is this taxpayer funded organization with the reputed numerous “experts” presumably involved in producing it have no confidence in what they have been pushing for the past few decades. The cost of “mental health” they suggest, has been exacerbated by their flogging “peoplekinds” reputed influence on raising earth’s temperature through the use of fossil fuels.  The time has come to defund these misdirected “expertly” dominated soothsayers!  As Greta might say:  “How dare you”!

In summarizing the foregoing it’s obvious the cabal of “climate change” experts are directing politicians to do what they want, not to save the world from a future pandemic, but simply to keep the money coming to support their “the sky is falling” indulgence.  

As a taxpayer I suggest “once bitten, twice shy” so let’s turn off the tap!

Fees to finance net-zero are net-positive and rising

My latest in the Financial Post looks at how costs are rising for services from financial institutions at a rate well in excess of the cost of living. They are rising due to the actions some of them are taking to satisfy publicly funded international organizations pushing the three-decade long “climate change” forecast.

Read it here: https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-fees-to-finance-net-zero-are-net-positive-and-rising

Hydro One shareholders make bank as taxpayers get dinged

I was treated to another Marc Patrone radio interview on SAUGA 960 AM to discuss my recent article about Hydro One’s record profit in the 1st Quarter of the current year. We also looked at what the Ford led government has done to try to curb the rising costs of electricity as compared to his pre-election promise to lower rates. The big question is did he deliver or did those McGuinty/Wynne contracts for renewable energy cause him problems?

You can listen to the podcast starting at 1:24:02 of the May 25, 2021 show here:

Or, if you ae a subscriber to NEWSTALK RADIO you can listen here:

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

Hydro One Shareholders Should Thank Ontario’s Taxpayers and Premier Ford for Seemingly Embracing the Circular Economy

Hydro One earlier this month released their 1st Quarter 2021 report and EPS (earnings per share) were up from 0.38 cents per share to 0.45 cents for an 18.4% increase and the highest 1st Quarter earnings since becoming a publicly listed company.  The net profit after financing costs and taxes of $273 million also appears to be a record as far back as Hydro One post their first Quarter financials which appears to be 2015.

Hydro One’s report noted the reasons behind the increase as: “Revenues, net of purchased power, for the first quarter were $74 million higher than last year, mainly due to higher distribution and transmission revenues as a result of OEB-approved rates including the timing of the OEB decision on the 2020 rates received in the second quarter of the prior year, and higher energy demand and consumption driven by favourable weather.  The reference to “favourable weather”, I believe, suggests it was colder and due to the Covid-19 lockdown meant ratepayers (particularly residential) consumed more kWh (kilowatt hours) then the prior year.  The results noted distributed power increased from 7,484 GWh (gigawatt hours) to 8,156 GWh for an increase of 9%. Average transmission “60-minute peak demand” also increased by almost 6%.

The reference to “purchased power” signaled costs dropped dramatically due to the Ford government changing the former Wynne led government’s “Fair Hydro Plan” into the Ford government’s “Ontario Electricity Rebate” increasing the taxpayer subsidization. What that did was, decrease the cost of “purchased power” for Hydro One from $1,007 million in 2020 to $894 million in 2021 (despite the 9% consumption increase) dropping the cost per kWh (kilowatt hour) from 13.5 cents/kWh to 11 cents/kWh.  That represented a taxpayer subsidy of around $203 million for the quarter (Hydro One customers only) more than doubling the Wynne subsidy! 

It also meant Hydro One’s ROR (return on revenue) and ROA (return on assets) look much better then past returns which presumably helped drive up the share price.  As an indication Hydro One’s stock exchange price closed at $30.40/share on May 21, 2021 whereas back when Ford declared the March 12, 2020 lockdown the share price was $24.50. What the foregoing $5.90 per share increase suggests is the (approximately) 40% ownership the province holds in Hydro One is now worth about $1.44 billion more (up 24%) than it was worth just over a year ago and will presumably reflect itself favourably on the province’s financial statements when they are released. To make matters even better Hydro One’s quarterly dividend on their shares increased from the comparable quarter and resulted in an approximate $60 million dollar payment to the province.

Boiling it down   

By using taxpayer debt to subsidize electricity costs the Ontario government has increased the value of the assets held in the monopoly where we taxpayers own 40%.  Couple the additional taxpayer debt incurred (to subsidize the per kwh charge), plus the OEB granting rate increases for transmission and distribution of electricity and Hydro One’s profit should increase further! Logically that should drive up the market (share price) value even more in the future!

Is this really what our Federal and Provincial politicians had in mind when they referenced the “Circular Economy”?

Ontario gifts Michigan cheap energy as US state threatens Line 5

I was on Sauga Radio 960 AM at the invitation of Marc Patrone for his morning show on May 19, 2021. Our discussion was related to the cheap power we have been exporting to Michigan and other locations and Michigan’s threat to shut down Line 5.

You can listen to our chat starting at 1:22.18 of his show on the podcast here:

Podcasts

You can also listen to our discussions at NEWSTALK CANADA if you are a subscriber here:

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

Hey, Premier Ford, did Michigan Governor Whitmer at least say “Thanks” for the Free Electricity we gave her April 30th?

Several days ago, a friendly contact alerted me to some facts about electricity generation on April 30th, 2021.  He noted wind exceeded hydro in 5 of the hours and as much as 81% of wind generation was curtailed in a single hour. He also pointed out the HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) market price was zero or less for 22 out of 24 hours and the two hours it was positive it climbed all the way up to 41 cents per MWh* (megawatt hour)!  The foregoing is a frequent occurrence in the Spring and Fall as Ontario demand is generally low and when the wind is blowing it must be both curtailed and exported.

With curiosity piqued it led to a review of IESO data for actual wind generation, its curtailment and exports for the day.  As it turned out wind generation accepted into the grid by IESO was just shy of 56,000 MWh and curtailed wind was very close to 34,000 MWh. What that meant is owners of the approximately 4,800 MW of grid connected wind capacity will be paid $7.560 million ($135.00** per MWh) for the accepted wind generation and $4.080 million ($120.00 per MWh) for the curtailed wind.  That implies the cost per MW of grid accepted wind generation was almost $208/per MWh versus about $56/MWh for hydro and $80/MWh for nuclear.  It also appears nuclear was steamed off by Bruce Nuclear and we should suspect hydro was also spilled.  Both of those are paid for so their costs would clearly be caused by wind’s propensity to generate power when it’s not needed.

To make matters worse IESO were forced to offer surplus generation via the market and needless to say our neighbours were happy to get it for free.  We exported almost 68,000 MWh to our neighbours in New York, Quebec and Michigan presumably to avoid possible grid failure. The state of Michigan received 24,000 MWh for free.  We basically supplied about 800,000 average Michigan households (approximately 20% of Michigan households) with free electricity for the day!

Ontario has been selling Michigan our cheap electricity exports for years and since we added intermittent and unreliable wind and solar to our grid the amount, we sell to them for pennies of its cost (what Ontario’s ratepayers pay for it) has increased. 

Michigan should recognize what nice neighbours we are! Instead, Governor Whitmer wants to shut down the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline which supplies them, several neighbouring states, as well as Quebec and Ontario with oil for refineries, propane for winter heat, aircraft fuel, etc. etc.

Perhaps the time has come for Premier Ford to give Governor Whitmer a call and tell her if she shuts down Line 5, she will need to fire up more of those (current) 9,300 MW (approximate capacity) of coal plants Michigan has; versus Ontario’s zero coal plant capacity.  

The time has come for Governor Whitmer to recognize and admit Michigan ranked # 8 in 2018 by the US EIA (Energy Information Administration) in respect to CO2 emissions from coal generation and 10th overall for total CO2 emissions.  Once she solves that problem, she can consider shutting down Line 5!

*One MWh is equivalent to 1,000 kWh (kilowatt hours) or what an average Ontario household would consume in a month and a half.

**The contracts signed with those industrial wind generation companies also included a maximum COL (cost of living) allowance of 20% so were presumably paid more than the $135/MWh.