The MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke in Ontario, Cheryl Gallant, made remarks in the House of Commons recently about the role McGuinty government operatives might now play at the federal level. She quotes my recent article on this issue.
People who live in Ontario have seen this all before. Canadians who follow my speeches in the House of Commons will have been warned about disgraced former prime minister top aide Gerry Butts, who was forced to resign over his role in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. As a principal political operative for Dalton McGuinty and whatever backroom dealings he had with McGuinty’s defeated party replacement, by trashing the Ontario economy, disgraced former PMO operative Gerald Butts can share the credit for the Toronto Liberal policy of “heat or eat” among seniors and others on fixed incomes.
… Well-informed observer Parker Gallant said this in the blog “Energy Perspectives”:
For the benefit of those who didn’t follow Ontario politics during the McGuinty/Wynne era, it’s worth pointing out both Gerry Butts and Ben Chin played significant roles in Ontario, especially the ill-fated electricity file.
Butts is credited as the mastermind behind Dalton McGuinty’s election as Ontario’s Premier: Butts was, according to the Toronto Star, “the man they call ‘the brains behind the operation’ and policy architect of the Liberal government since 2003.”
Butts left the McGuinty government in mid-2008, after he and the Ontario Liberal team set the stage for the Green Energy Act, by pushing for renewable wind and solar projects and to close coal plants. Butts went off to lead the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) for four years before joining [the Prime Minister] as his political advisor.
The article continues:
Ben Chin, engaged as a “political advisor” to Dalton McGuinty, was the McGuinty candidate chosen to run against the NDP’s Peter Tabuns in a byelection in 2006. Chin lost, but returned as a “senior advisor” to Premier McGuinty’s office where he again worked with Gerry Butts. Chin left for the private sector and a short while later was hired back as Vice President Communications for the OPA (Ontario Power Authority). The OPA was the creation of Dwight Duncan when he was McGuinty’s Minister of Energy and became the Crown corporation to enact the myriad of things mired in the Green Energy & Green Economy Act (GEA).
Chin later became embroiled in the “gas plant” scandal as the Premier’s principal contact with the negotiating team dealing with TransCanada et al on compensation issues related to the cancellation. Ontario’s ratepayers know how that turned out! While Chin occupied his position with the OPA, [former executive director of the environmental group Energy Probe] Tom Adams and I were investigating the gas plant scandal by reviewing thousands of documents.
Mr. Gallant goes on:
The following reveals some of our findings in an article I wrote about the “smart grid” and a Brad Duguid directive.
Co-incidentally (noted by Tom Adams), the Duguid directive is dated the same day as the e-mail exchange between Alicia Johnston (formerly a senior political staffer for Energy Minister Brad Duguid, later promoted to the Premier’s Office) and Ben Chin (a senior Ontario Power Authority executive).
Read the full record of MP Gallant’s remarks in the House of Commons here.
Ontario Power Generation or OPG reported their results for the year ended December 31, 2018 on March 7, 2019 and for the fourth year in a row profits were up.
Net income after taxes attributable to the “shareholder” set a record* coming in at $1.195 billion versus $860 million in 2017.
Both 2017 and 2018 net income were affected by the sale of OPG’s properties. Their Head Office sale generated a 2017 after-tax gain of $283 million, and the sale of the Lakeview property generated an after-tax gain in 2018 of $205 million.
Putting aside those one-time gains, the increase in net income of $335 million (up 39%) from 2017 to 2018 is attributable to the $379 million in additional revenue generated by OPG’s nuclear fleet and was, co-incidentally, their total revenue gain, raising OPG’s revenue from $5,158 million in 2017 to $5,537 million in 2018. The increase in nuclear generation year-over-year was nominal, rising from 40.7 TWh (terawatt hours) to 40.9 TWh.
While this may be good news for the province, there is a “catch” : this all means ratepayers will eventually have to pay for the bulk of increased revenue when the Fair Hydro Act ends. The revenue gain came about principally because the OEB granted OPG a substantial rate gain on their nuclear generation amounting to approximately one cent per kWh or about $9/MWh.**
Other good news in the financial report was the OMA (operations, maintenance and administration) costs remained relatively flat as did fuel expenses.
Looking back: As noted above, OPG achieved record profits in 2018, but revenue was still not a record. If we look back and compare 2018 with their results for 2008, we find that revenue was actually higher, coming in at $6.082 billion or $545 million (9.8%) higher. In 2008 however net income was affected by a substantial increase in income taxes and by the recession which affected bond and stock markets (down by 35%) and OPG’s income from the $9.2 billion “Nuclear fixed asset removal and nuclear waste management funds”.
The year 2008 is the year prior to introduction of the GEA and the FIT and microFIT programs which drove up the cost of power in the province and affected OPG’s ability to increase its revenue and net income. First-to-the-grid rights granted to FIT and MicroFIT participants (wind and solar) meant OPG suffered the effects of the HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity pricing) in respect to their unregulated hydro.
In subsequent years the HOEP fell, resulting in OPG’s appeal for that capacity (3,631MW) to become regulated. The appeal was granted!
Another aspect affecting hydro generation profitability is fuel costs which were $254 million for the 2008, 36.4 TWh generated and climbed to $334 million for the smaller 29.8 TWh generated (not including the 3.5 TWh spilled) in 2018. OPG were forced to write-off their fossil fuel (coal) plant costs in 2004, but in 2008 they were still contributing to Ontario’s energy needs supplying 23.2 TWh out of a total of 107.8 TWh from OPG’s generating sources.
If one looks at a simple pricing cost per kilowatt hour, in 2008, dividing OPG’s gross revenue of $6.082 billion by the 107.8 TWh generation the per kWh cost for ratepayers was 5.6 cents/kWh. Doing the same simple calculation for 2018 using gross revenue of $5.537 billion for the 74 TWh generated provides a cost of 7.5 cents/kWh for a 1.9 cents/kWh (up 33.9%) increase. Over the ten years, in simple terms, the average annual increase is approximately 3% and above the inflation rate; however, without the GEA and the FIT/microFIT programs, it is likely that OPG’s costs would have been much closer to annual inflation rates. The foregoing is borne out if one looks at the IESO year-end reports for 2008 when they state the cost per kWh averaged 5.8 cents/kWh compared to 2018 when their year-end report shows a cost of 11.5 cents/kWh. That translates to a 5.7 cent/kWh increase — a jump of 98.3% over the same 10-year period, or triple OPG’s costs.
In retrospect one wonders if the proponents for renewable energy (industrial wind turbines, solar panels and biomass) such as Gerald Butts, who held sway over George Smitherman (former Ontario Minister of Energy) and former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty seriously contemplated the results of their pilgrimage?
Did the damage done to the province benefit or hurt peoplekind?
Dalton McGuinty is back, but did he ever really go away?
Former Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty has recently reappeared in public. He has launched a university lecture tour with the theme “Climate Change: Can We Win This? Be Honest”. He has already addressed audiences at University of Toronto, Queens and more recently at the University of Windsor. He is scheduled to appear at Western University in March.
Having resigned in disgrace as Ontario’s Premier in October 2012 due to the gas plant scandal, McGuinty has kept a very low profile since. Perhaps he now feels Ontarians have forgotten not only that affair but all the other bad policies he brought us. Those other policies included the promise of no tax increase which was followed by the imposition of a health tax, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), which resulted in Ontario having the highest electricity prices in Canada and a doubling of Ontario’s debt. There were others.
McGuinty was recently honoured by a Liberal colleague, Ottawa Mayor, Jim Watson who promised him the “key to the city” in 2019. Mayor Watson of course held various cabinet positions in the McGuinty government before abandoning the ship to return to Ottawa.
Mr. McGuinty’s seminars demonstrate he is still a firm believer in “climate change” and is convinced he and the province’s taxpayers should do more. In a CTV Windsor news report, he is quoted as saying that while current Premier Doug Ford is fighting the carbon tax,: “we should embrace it” because “it is the most effective and efficient way to demonstrate a commitment to addressing climate change”.
He must view taxpayers as bottomless pits with surplus cash.
Not only has McGuinty re-entered public view, he has also accepted appointments as a director to several corporations. He is on the Boards of Innergex Renewable Energy Inc, Pomerleau Inc., and Electrovaya Inc. He also became a lobbyist for Desire2Learn as well as being appointed “a special advisor”.
The latter two companies; Desire2Learn and Electrovaya both received substantial Government of Ontario grants during McGuinty’s time in office as the Premier. Desire2Learn were awarded a $4.25 Million Grant from the Government of Ontario in January 2011 and Ekectrovaya received their $17 million dollar Grant in August 2009. Desire2Learn also received $3 million from the education ministry. In 2014 McGuinty was caught red-handed trying to lobby on behalf of Desie2Learn to certain members of the Wynne led government and was forced to register as a lobbyist.
While Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. is a Canadian company it is headquartered in Montreal and depends on Ontario for only 6% of its revenue. Its asset base in Ontario consists of one solar generation unit of 33.2 MW and three small hydro generation units totaling 36 MW. Its unclear what Ontario’s former premier brings to their Board of directors unless they were seeking a politician of his ilk.
Pomerleau Inc is a private Quebec headquartered civil works and building company and it appears McGuinty joined them as a member of their Board of Directors in the early part of 2016. They have been quite successful at winning contracts in Ontario including those with Provincial funding. A large waste water treatment plant in Kingston was one such win. A report to Kingston Council October 5, 2010 contained the following: “The funded portion, as per the agreement, was reviewed with respect to the award of contract to Pomerleau Ontario Inc. and was considered to fairly represent the defined works. The total projected budget for the engineering and construction remains within the $116,325,000 approved budget envelope, which includes electrical co-generation, on-site biosolids storage, staff costs and allowances for furnishings and equipment to be purchased outside the construction contract.” And: “In June 2005, the Province of Ontario announced project funding of $25,000,000.”
There are more interesting connections: former Mayor of Kingston, John Gerretsen, who served in the McGuinty Cabinet and Gerretsen’s son was Kingston’s Mayor from 2010-2014 and is now an MP In the Justin Trudeau Liberal government. Pomerleau is working with SNC-Lavalin and other companies on the first “Infrastructure Bank” investment in respect to the $6.3 billion Montreal REM project. As reported, “Construction on the project is already underway. SNC-Lavalin, Dragados Canada, Inc., Aecon Group Inc., Pomerleau Inc. and EBC Inc. were all part of the winning consortium and broke ground on the project in April.” As the SNC-Lavalin Federal controversy unfolds it will be interesting to see what eventually happens to this project.
On April 7, 2017 Dalton McGuinty, joined the Electrovaya Board of Directors. At that time Electrovaya was being investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). In the OSC Proceedings one finds the following: “Between May and September 2016, Electrovaya issued five news releases that announced significant new business relationships in unbalanced terms. Electrovaya also did not disclose in its MD&A that revenue estimates announced in two previously announced commercial arrangements would not be realized.”
Just over two months later the OSC reached an agreement requiring Electrovaya Inc.’s CEO to pay a $250K penalty over OSC disclosure violations as noted in the Financial Post on June 30, 2017. Is it possible Electrovaya’s new Board Member played a role in getting their CEO and the OSC to reach that agreement?
Clearly Mr. McGuinty has value to those companies he handed out grants to, and perhaps they saw the value he could add to their business if appointed as a member of their board or as an “advisor”. One might assume he is being rewarded monetarily for both his board/advisory positions and for those speaking engagements. The former appears to be the case as the December 31, 2017 Annual Information Form for Innergex Renewable Energy discloses that Mr. McGuinty is the holder of 8,505 Deferred Share Units with a current value of approximately $121,000.
Mr. McGuinty is presenting himself to the younger generation and university audiences as a father and grandfather who is simply interested in preserving the environment and influencing positive climate change. Many Ontarians however, will recognize him for the damage his Premiership created both in terms of making the province the most indebted sub-national government in the world as well as the province decimated with industrial wind turbines and solar panels causing electricity prices to be among the highest in North America.
P.S. The resignation of Gerald Butts from the PMO February 18, 2019 is noteworthy also for his role in both getting the Ontario Liberals elected in 2003 and for setting their policies: “Butts largely wrote the platform McGuinty successfully campaigned on during the 2003 Ontario election. It contained more than 100 promises, including pledges to cancel proposed tax cuts and increase social spending. It was also heavy on environmental protection: McGuinty promised incentives for renewable energy, and to phase out Ontario’s coal-fired power plants.”
Why ‘down’ is actually ‘up’ in topsy-turvy Ontario
Last month, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) released the grid-connected 2018 Electricity Data. Under the “Price” heading the IESO said this: “The total cost of power for Class B consumers, representing the combined effect of the HOEP [2.43 cents/kWh] and the GA [9.07cents/kWh] was 11.50 cents/kWh”.
In 2017, that combined price was 11.55 cents/kWh, so there has been a slight decline. That slight decline represents an annual savings to the average household consuming 9,000 kWh per annum of—wait for it—$5.00.
If Bob Chiarelli was still Minister of Energy, he would probably suggest you could now purchase two “Timmies” with that much money!
The price drop isn’t very much but, the question is, how or why did the average price drop?
Ontario’s overall consumption in 2018 increased from 2017 by 5.3 TWh (terawatt hours) or 4%. In 2017 the IESO reported grid-connected consumption was 132.1 TWh and in 2017 it increased to 137.4 TWh. This is increase is a “good thing.” Here’s why:
Curtailed (paid for but not used) wind power fell by 1.207 TWh, which saved around $145 million!
Nuclear maneuvers (steam-off) or shutdowns declined by 791 GWh (gigawatt hours) and saved approximately $60 million.
Net exports (exports less imports) also fell by 2.318 TWh and, combined with the higher HOEP average for the year, saved ratepayers approximately $320 million.
Foregone hydro generation was probably lower as the first three quarters reported by OPG show it dropped from 4.5 TWh to 2.4 TWh (down 2.1 TWh). That saved around $90 million.
Taken together, that $615 million ratepayers had to absorb in 2017 comes to much more than Class B residential ratepayers benefited in 2018. There are only 4,665,000 of them so total net savings was only about $25 million.* Other Class B ratepayers presumably received some very minor benefits, too.
The reason these benefits were not more is because additional costs were levied in 2018, absorbing most of the remaining $590 million. The Ontario Energy Board approved large rate increases for OPG for the regulated hydro and nuclear generation segments. The rates for the latter rose substantially and will also increase further in 2019 and 2020 before falling back in 2021 as the OEB used their power to attempt to “smooth” the nuclear refurbishment costs over several years.
Despite the fact that increased consumption in 2018 helped to, ever so slightly, reduce costs, the IESO continued their efforts to get us to reduce consumption by spending upwards of $350 million on conservation programs.
The small price drop for Class B ratepayers turns the economic law of “supply and demand” which is: increased demand will increase prices. Somehow that law works in reverse in Ontario’s electricity sector!
Enjoy your two extra “Timmies” this year!
*These savings have nothing to do with the 25% reduction under the Fair Hydro Act which eliminated the 8% provincial portion of the HST and provides a 17% reduction for residential ratepayers. The FHA amortized assets over a longer timeframe than normal in the rest of the electricity generation world.
People in Ontario have seen some of this before … it didn’t end well
Part one in this series dealt with the creation of the Ecofiscal Commission and had a short review of its commissioners (economists), advisors and funders. Part Two looked at the Chris Ragan/TVO interview with Steve Paikin and several of the claims made by Mr. Ragan, Chair of the Commission.
Today, I deal with the significant influence the Ecofiscal Commission and its economists/commissioners have had in respect to the Pan-Canadian Framework and various government documents created in support of “pricing carbon pollution”. The Pan-Canadian Framework gives special mention to “Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission” in a call-out on page 7: “Carbon pricing is the most practical and cost‑effective way to lower GHG emissions while encouraging low‑carbon innovation — Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission”. The only other non-government credit handed out is to the World Bank. That alone speaks volumes about Ecofiscal’s influence!
Chris Ragan’s influence was obvious in his appearance at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development November 1, 2018 where he dazzled them! In his presentation he suggested: “The proposed federal backstop is also a quite well-designed policy,” and went on to say: “there are two main challenges that you need to address. One is the impact on business competitiveness. The second is the impact on household purchasing power.” He also claimed “you can however, design policies in a way that address those challenges head-on” and “This is the output-based pricing element of the federal backstop”.
(Mr. Ragan’s views on this echo what Ontarians were told when the Green Energy and Economy Act was presented. Consumers, both residential and businesses, would become innovative in order to reduce the use of electricity. We know how that worked out!)
The questions posed to Ragan were gentle and he handled them with conviction. Ragan answered one question by saying: “I am not an expert on the number of tonnes we have to go, basically because that’s not our focus.” Huh?
One of the issues ignored by the media in respect to the Pan-Canadian Framework is how it is really more than just “pricing carbon pollution” via the carbon tax. It also established “clean fuel standards” which “would promote the use of clean technology and lower carbon fuels, and promote alternatives such as electricity, biogas, and hydrogen.” Additionally, the federal government will establish a “methane regulation” and “energy efficiency/building code amendments”. Along with that array of additional costs for businesses and households in Canada, the government would be able to purchase foreign “carbon offsets” using our tax dollars. In effect, the Pan-Canadian Framework adopted by the First Ministers of the 10 provinces and three territories on March 3, 2016, referred to as the “Vancouver Declaration on Clean Growth and Climate Change,” created as many as five ways Canada’s taxpayers and businesses will be hit with costs.
On October 3, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada issued a press release containing a quote from Minister McKenna stating: “Pricing pollution is one of the most efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to stimulate innovation. Already 80 percent of Canadians live in a province where there is pollution pricing. We want to continue this trend and cover the final 20 percent.”
As most people now know, that 80 percent has fallen significantly with the election of the Ford government in Ontario and is likely to fall further pending the outcome of the upcoming Alberta election.
Needless to say, the Environment and Climate Change Ministry put out several documents to augment their views and the wonders of “pollution pricing” in driving down emissions. One of those documents was referenced as “Estimated impacts of the Federal Carbon Pollution Pricing System”. Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission is touted for its recommendations and is cited three times in the “Endnotes”.
One of the ENGOs, the Pembina Institute, also gets two nods in the Endnotes, one of which states:
“Pollution from coal power plants results in health issues that cost the health care system over $800 million annually, according to a study performed by the Pembina Institute in 2014.” Now in yet another Pembina Report a year earlier they had this claim: “According to the analysis, climate change impacts from coal-fired power range from $1.1 to 4.5 billion annually.”
Pick a number, any number, seems to be the theme, so politicians and ministry officials apparently do nothing to confirm what they are told!
The Ecofiscal Commission is also to be an intervenor in the Ontario Court of Appeal in respect to “the matter dealing with the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA)”. Their “Factum” was handled by none other than Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa, and director of the University’s interdisciplinary Environment Institute and founder of Ecojustice. The latter is also scheduled to be an intervenor. The factum clearly indicates Ecofiscal’s support for the Federal carbon tax and makes this assertion under 12 (a) of the factum: “The use of price-based regulation minimizes the costs to provincial economies — saving an estimated $70 billion per year across Canada, compared to prescriptive regulations, based on the CEC’s economic modeling.”
The suggested $70 billion seems like a stretch but perhaps as the bulk of the commissioners in Ecofiscal are quasi-government employees perhaps they are confident that the annual costs would be 225% more than the combined 2018 budgets of both Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Perhaps they are trying to make the case that by 2022 the carbon tax priced at $50/tonne will only extract $35 billion (based on Canada’s 2016 emissions of 704,000 tonnes). Their argument apparently is that we would be saving $35 billion annually by simply accepting their “economic modeling.” As a former banker, I have trouble buying into their suggestion.
As an Ontarian, It is hard for me to believe this is anything more than our experience from the creation of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA). It even includes some of the players involved in that fiasco via the GEAA (Green Energy Act Alliance) whose goal was: “to make Ontario a global leader in clean, renewable energy and conservation, creating thousands of jobs, economic prosperity, energy security, and climate protection.” The GEAA basically wrote the GEA for the McGuinty government.
Last week, a news article appeared in the Nation Valley News reporting the local Conservative MPP, Jim McDonell’s response to a question asking on why the government hasn’t cancelled the 100-MW Nation Rise wind power project. Mr. McDonell said, “We’ve always been clear: We would cancel any project we could cancel economically,” and he added “… we just can’t spend a billion dollars to cancel a project and get nothing from it.”
The same day, a press release from the Ford government noted that Premier Doug Ford told people attending the annual Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) conference, that “We’re lowering electricity costs”
I am at a loss to explain Mr. McDonell’s suggestion that cancellation of the Nation Rise IWT project would cost the same as the McGuinty/Wynne gas plant moves, but that’s what he said. It’s worth a look back at how this power project came into being, as it illustrates the disaster that has been Ontario energy policy for the last 15 years.
The Nation Rise wind project was one of five awarded contracts in March 2016; after that, its history gets really interesting … and very political.
Cost of the project
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) at that time noted the average price for all the projects proposed was $85.90/MWh (or 8.5 cents per kWh). Over 20 years that would produce revenue of about $450 million, or less if their bid was lower than the average..
If the project were cancelled, no court would award them the full contract amount; it is more likely the government would be on the hook for perhaps 5 to10 % of that amount (on the high side).
There is no doubt that cancelling this project would save Ontario citizens hundreds of millions.
Timing of the approval
According to the Environmental Registry the Nation Rise entry for the Renewable Energy Approval or REA is dated May 7, 2018 and indicates it was loaded to the registry May 4, 2018. That is just four days before the writ was drawn up by former Premier Kathleen Wynne, formally announcing the upcoming Ontario election. It was known* the voting date would occur on June 7, yet the REA — a major decision — was given by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). At that time, not only were polls forecasting a defeat for the Liberal government, “electricity prices” and hydro bills were a major election issue. The MOECC issued the decision anyway.
Is the power needed?
In 2015 (before the IESO called for more wind power proposals) Ontario had a huge surplus of generation. Our net exports (exports less imports) were 16.8 TWh (terawatt hours) or enough to supply almost 1.9 million average households (over 40% of all Ontario households) with their electricity needs for a full year. It cost ratepayers an average of 10.14 cents/kWh to generate that power which was sold for an average 2.36 cents/kWh, representing a cost of $1.3 billion to Ontario’s ratepayers.
Due to the highly intermittent nature of output from wind turbines, the IESO’s projections of long-term capacity use only 12% of the nameplate capacity for wind power installations when calculating their contribution to overall capacity. So for Nation Rise, the IESO is projecting that the useable contribution of the project will be 105,120 MWh — just .0765% of the IESO’s forecast power consumption of 137.4 TWh. That is a fly on the flank of an elephant, in my estimation.
Cancellation of Nation Rise would not affect the long-term supply of electricity for the people of Ontario.
Worse, adding more capacity, particularly from an intermittent source, could result in more spilling of hydro, more curtailment of wind power generation, additional nuclear shutdowns or steam-off, all of which would drive Ontario’s electricity bills rates higher.
Property value loss
The property losses in value caused by the presence of 33, 650-foot industrial wind power generators throughout the countryside in the Nation Rise project will be in the tens of millions of dollars according to a study which notes: “Using research completed recently by a land economist with the University of Guelph and published in Land Economics, Wind Concerns calculates that overall, the property loss for houses within 5 km of the 33 planned turbines could be $87.8 million. Using other research that is less conservative, however, the property value loss could be more than $140 million.”
A loss of either magnitude would impact North Stormont’s realty tax base leading to either significant drops in revenue for the township or realty tax increases as a multiple of the COL (cost of living).
And then there’s the water
One condition among many in the REA given to EDP/Nation Rise was related to identifying and mapping all water wells in the project area within a set range of any proposed equipment, meteorological tower or wind turbines. This was due to concerns about construction activities on the local aquifer. While EDP identified 444 wells, the community group says there are more than 800 homes within the immediate project. Water wells in other areas of Ontario and elsewhere have become contaminated allegedly due to drilling and vibrations from wind turbines. There is significant concern about contamination of the wells, and the assessment taking place.
North Stormont is dairy farm country, and each farm operation uses thousands of litres of water every day — what would be the effect on these businesses, and Ontario’s food supply, if suddenly, the water wells were not functioning?
Who is EDP?
EDP (parent of EDPR) is a Portuguese utility company partially owned by two of the Chinese government’s companies; China Three Gorges (23.27%) and CNIC Co., Ltd., (4.98%) and the former has been trying for several years to acquire the balance of the shares. That attempt is speculated to be off; however, a recent NY Times article suggested otherwise, based on discussions with Portugal securities regulator CMVM.
Where is democracy?
North Stormont, where the Nation Rise wind project is planned, declared itself an “unwilling host” in 2015, well before the award of the contract or the issuance of the REA. The people perhaps relied on promises made by former energy minister and Ottawa Liberal MPP, Bob Chiarelli, when in 2013 he declared: “It will be virtually impossible for a wind turbine, for example, or a wind project, to go into a community without some significant level of engagement”. Despite their council passing the unwilling host motion, and also joining the 117 Ontario municipalities demanding a return of local land-use planning for energy projects, the IESO still granted Nation Rise the contract.
There are many questions about this project and many reasons why it simply isn’t needed. Cancelling this contentious project is a perfect way to lower future electricity costs, directly.
*The Toronto Star reported in an article dated October 19, 2016 the next Ontario election would be on June 7th, 2018
Yesterday’s post in respect to honesty and energy policy examined a small city in Texas and how its mayor has been courted around the world by proponents of renewable energy — because his actions sit into their narrative. However, I also showed how incomplete information given to the media can lead to bad results for those directly affected, the people who have to pay the bills for the “virtue signaling”.
What follows is how the two parties (politicians and energy proponents) collectively stomped on Ontario’s taxpayers/ratepayers!
The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) recently published an article that carried this claim: “The Pan Canadian Wind Integration Study – the largest of its kind ever done in Canada – concluded that this country’s energy grid can be both highly reliable and one-third wind powered.”
The annoying part of the “study” is that it was completed by biased parties and used considerable taxpayer funds!
Perhaps Ontario’s grid operator, IESO, did make wind generation reliable but at what cost? As it turned out, in 2017, wind turbines delivered only 24.9% (9.2 TWh) of their capacity and curtailed* over 26% (3.3 TWh) of what they could have actually delivered. That generation also caused hydro spillage of 5.9 TWh and nuclear steam-off of one (1) TWh!
IESO’s 18 Month Outlook Report also indicates they only rate the capability** of wind turbines to deliver generation 12.9% of the time it may be needed. Wind power generation also contributes to a reduction in the “real market” (HOEP) price, meaning we sell our surplus generation into the export market well below its cost.
Virtue signaling from former Ontario Premier Wynne
Just over three years ago Ontario’s Auditor General released her report that noted the billions of dollars in extra costs Ontario ratepayers had to pay for the Liberal government’s green energy. The AG’s report said consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for 20-year wind and solar contracts signed by the Liberals than they would have under the former procurement system.
Premier Wynne’s response was: “There’s a cost associated with getting out of coal, of putting more renewables in place, and we’ve got other jurisdictions looking to Ontario as a model for how to do that,” said Wynne. “I’m happy to defend the changes that we’ve made.” She went on to say: “You only have to look at other jurisdictions that are struggling with air quality, with particulate matter in their air, with families that don’t feel they can let their kids play outside,” she said. “I know we weren’t in those serious straits, but the fact is we have reduced our pollution in this province.“
Apparently lost on her was the concept of the costs her government later imposed on those “kids” when in an attempt to win the last election she kicked in the neighbourhood of $50 billion down the road for them to pay via the Fair Hydro Act.
Premier Wynne earlier (about five years ago) got a pat on the head from Al Gore the climate crusader, when the last Ontario coal plant was about to be shut down. In her speech she also referenced the children who will be paying back the above costs when she said: “And I would contend it’s our moral duty to take action to protect our children, our grandchildren, and our fellow citizens. We’re lucky today to be in the presence of a man who’s been fighting on these fronts for many years.”
In another announcement with Al Gore present she claimed: “Becoming a coal-free province is the equivalent of taking up to seven million cars off the road, which means we’ll have cleaner air to breathe, while saving Ontario $4.4 billion in health, financial and environmental costs”
It has now been four years since Premier Wynne said that so it would be nice to know, from a ratepayer and taxpayer perspective, what has happened to that $17.6 billion, we were supposed to have saved?
We should suspect Premier Wynne’s remarks was simply political spin meant to preserve her position as Premier while driving up our cost of living for a necessity of life. Our health care system has not improved in the last four years and the province’s financial situation has only become worse!
The self-evident virtue signaling has simply resulted in increasing a future cost for “our children, our grandchildren and our fellow citizens”.
*Those 3.3 TWh of curtailed wind cost Ontario ratepayers almost $400 million or more than all of the curtailed wind in the UK which was estimated as costing them more than £100 million in 2017 to switch off their turbines and NOT produce electricity. The equivalent of the UK’s cost was about $174 million Canadian!
**Forecast capability of capacity for other major generating sources are: nuclear 81.9%, hydroelectric 68.4%, gas/oil 81.4% and solar 10%.
NB: If one wants to view what former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Glen Murray knew about the Ontario energy sector have a look at his interview at the COP 20 Conference in Lima, Peru here. You will see that Minister Murray gave many incorrect answers and even wrongly cites the Atikokan (200 MW) coal station as the largest in North America. It was Nanticoke (3,964 MW!