Time to tax the wind?

March 19, 2018

Ontario electricity consumers are already on track this year to pay more for wind, and for the cost of wasting (clean) power from other sources due to surplus power — is it time for some fairness in the electricity sector?

The science on using wind energy to generate electricity is branded as innovation, but it’s actually very old.

Power generation via windmills was technology developed by Scottish engineer James Blyth (1839-1906). “In 1887, while a professor at Anderson’s College in Glasgow (an ancestor of the modern Strathclyde University), he constructed a windmill attached to a dynamo to light his cottage in his home village of Marykirk.”

In Ontario, government brought us the Green Energy Act touted as a revelation to clean our air and create 50,000 jobs. The government claimed: “Ontario wants green energy business. These regulations will help ensure industry and municipalities that jobs will be created, investment is committed and that the renewable energy industry grows across the province.”

To try to make that happen, we were saddled with the FIT (feed in tariff) program offering payment for generation by wind and solar generators at multiples of power already in place. Additionally, to attract the investment in renewable energy, developers and operators were granted tax breaks. Examples follow.

Tax Breaks                                                                                                                                    The Finance Minister instructed MPAC to limit their assessment of wind turbines to $40,000 per/MW of capacity, meaning municipalities would receive meagre realty taxes and had no say in accepting or rejecting them. Subsequent to that direction it was changed for large installations (over 500 kW) of both wind and solar to: “10.7% to the industrial tax class.”

Additionally, the federal government granted wind developers the ability to allow them to accelerate deductions (depreciation) of the capital costs under “Class 43.2 of the Income Tax Act.” And those rights were recently extended by the federal government, as noted by CanWEA here to 2025.

So, wind and solar power developers are paid high prices for generation classified as “baseload” power meaning the grid operator, IESO, is obliged to accept and pay for the power. That’s a guarantee whether the sun shines or the wind blows they will be paid the contracted prices, or paid slightly less for curtailed generation. At the same time, developers walk away with the cash and pay almost no taxes except for meagre realty taxes.

Cashing in                                                                                                                                    Ontario’s ratepayers have been adversely affected by the continued addition of wind capacity as IESO and its predecessor, the OPA, follow[ed] ministerial directives and continue to contract for more and more capacity. As CanWEA notes, “Ontario remains Canada’s leader in clean wind energy with 4,900 MW of installed capacity.”

The cost of grid- (TX) and distribution-accepted (DX) wind and curtailed wind in 2017 was more than $1.6 billion, and that’s without factoring in the additional ratepayer costs of steamed-off nuclear, spilled hydro, subsidized exports of surplus generation or idling gas plants (built to back-up the wind and solar generation). So far in 2018, the costs of wind (generated and accepted plus curtailed) versus 2017 for the months of January and February are $447 million — $44.7 million higher than 2017.

Evidence clearly points to wind power generation occurring during low demand hours, days and months, rather than high demand hours causing waste of nuclear and hydro power, still paid for by ratepayers.

Time for a tax?

If industrial wind power plants can’t generate power when needed, maybe it’s time to reconsider the pricing model, or find a way to recover some of those additional costs. As noted, above the only tax paid by wind power operators is realty tax at a rate of about $4,000 per turbine annually (estimated) which collectively, returns tax revenue of about $2 per ratepaying household.*

That $4,000 tax, however, is really not much more than the taxes paid for an ordinary house in Ontario. For a home assessed at $300,000, for example, the average realty tax is $3,300. Not far off from a huge, industrial-scale wind turbine which is reaping hundreds of thousands in income each year for its owners.**

The state of Wyoming has found a way to increase tax revenue: it simply levies a tax per MWh (megawatt hour) of generation.  Wyoming is currently looking at increasing that tax from $1/MWh to $2/MWh and had considered levying it at the rate of $5/MWh.

If Ontario used the Wyoming model, for example, a $5/MWh tax for grid-accepted generation (9.2 TWh) and a $20/MW tax for curtailed generation (3.3 TWh) in 2017 would have generated approximately $60 million in tax revenue. Even at those rates, it would only represent 2.2% of what ratepayers are paying for intermittent and unreliable wind power.

Perhaps it would be more fair for wind power developers and operators to pay up for the constant subsidization by the ratepayers and taxpayers of Ontario, and bring more revenues to Ontario’s stressed municipalities — tax them!

© Parker Gallant

* Ontario has approximately 4.9 million households.

** From The Toronto Star: “A turbine with a feed-in tariff contract receives 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour, or $135 a megawatt hour for its output. A two-megawatt turbine running at full speed, 24 hours a day for a year, would therefore produce 17,520 megawatt hours of power. Assuming it operates at 35 per cent capacity, in the real world it will produce about 6,132 megawatt hours. At $135 a megawatt hour, that means revenue of $827,820 annually. Assuming a more conservative capacity of 27 per cent, it would generate revenue of $638,604.” There are capital costs of course, like the “rent” paid to the landowner which might be $15,000 to $40,000 per year.


Stuff that drives me crazy…

Tall tales about electricity management in Ontario

March 13, 2018

What drives me crazy are false claims from the proponents of renewable energy (wind and solar) and bureaucrats running Ontario’s electricity system. Here are a few examples of false claims and, dare I say, “fake news.”

  1. Hydro One and all other electricity distributors submit an annual report to the OEB and the information is posted under the heading “Yearbook of Distributors”. Hydro One’s 2016 filing states “Total Service Area (sq km) 962,274 sq km”. In a video Ferio Pugliese, VP Customer Care & Corporate Affairs, clearly states during a Regulatory Commission of Alaska special public conference/panel discussion that “we have a very large base in Ontario with over 650,000 square kilometers of territory”! Mr. Pugliese was trying to convince the Alaska regulator and the concerned citizens that nothing related to their electricity bills would change if, and when, they acquire Avista. I think most would agree that losing 362,000 sq. km of service area is major.
  2. CanWEA the wind power trade association claims “Wind is delivering clean, reliable and low-cost electricity,” but express their unmitigated thanks for the recent Federal Budget by noting: “The Canadian Wind Energy Association commends the federal government for extending the ability of investors to utilize Class 43.2 of the Income Tax Act by five years, from 2020 to 2025. This fiscal measure allows investors to accelerate deductions of eligible capital costs associated with clean energy generation. This helps renewable energy developers to lower their costs”! This effectively means owners of industrial wind projects get to write off their capital costs fast and don’t have to pay income taxes. One must assume they need taxpayer support to deliver their claimed “low-cost electricity.”
  3. The government suggests “cap and trade” revenue is being handed back to us: “We’re investing all of our carbon market proceeds into projects to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.”   When the announcement was made in May 2009 about passing legislation, the press release noted: “The United States is moving to put a national program in place that could begin as early as 2012.” But that never happened, so Ontario has little company in North America with only Quebec and California also collecting this tax. The press release from the MOECC on February 28, 2018 bragged about the first joint auction with Quebec & California stating: “Ontario is now part of the largest carbon market in North America.” To the best of this writer’s knowledge it is the only carbon market in North America! Reviewing the Ontario-based companies on the recent auction list, one notes those compelled to purchase allowances include Hydro One, OPG, greenhouse operators and municipalities amongst others. Those allowances will find their way into the cost of living stream resulting in increases to electricity bills and any product emitting CO2; and will even raise your municipal taxes. The Cap & Trade tax will touch our lives in many ways. While the press release said, “All of the proceeds raised from the carbon market are being invested into Ontario’s economy through green initiatives that fight climate change and help make life better for Ontario residents.” Most taxpayers would disagree the “cap and trade” tax will make life better!
  4. IESO, which manages Ontario’s electricity grid and negotiates generation contracts with private and public companies, seems to talk out of both sides of their mouth. As an example, their forward looking planning documents suggest wind generation’s capability of delivering power (referred to as “capacity factor”) to the grid during peak demand periods is a miserly 12.9% whereas CanWEA claims: “Capacity factors of potential wind plants range from 34 per cent in British Columbia to 40 per cent in Nova Scotia.”. Additionally L. Kula, IESO’s COO and VP Planning Acquisition and Operations in a February 28, 2018 speech stated: “Ontario is at the forefront of decarbonizing our grid, something we should be proud of.   In the almost two decades since the market was established, we have retired coal as a generation source. In doing so, we have increased the amount of variable generation on the transmission system and on the distribution system. At the wholesale level alone, wind and solar combined met about seven percent of Ontario’s supply needs in 2017.” While generating 7% of Ontario’s supply wind represented 12.5% of installed capacity and performed poorly during our summer’s high demand periods. During June, July and August of 2017 it generated an average of only 4% of demand and generally when it wasn’t needed in the middle of the night! Decarbonizing our grid at a huge cost to ratepayers should not be something IESO brags about.
  5. IESO also makes claims which support the 100+ “directives” from the Minister of Energy responsible for driving up energy prices as the following example illustrates. Terry Young’s (VP, Policy, Engagement and Innovation), speech of January 23, 2018  to ROMA stated: “The conservation and energy-efficiency programs we offer help consumers of all types take greater control of their energy use and reduce energy costs. This is the most cost-effective supply resource available, at less than four cents per kilowatt-hour. Conservation savings, growing embedded generation and demand reduction programs have offset increased demand.” Mr. Young has obviously not noticed “increased demand” is fake news as it has fallen 10.7% since 2008, but the average price for Class B ratepayers has increased 99%. Most voters are under the impression bureaucrats are supposed to be neutral and just execute the directions of their political bosses and not brag about results. Spending $400 million annually on “conservation” is a direct hit to ratepayer’s pocketbooks.
  6. IESO now considers it is better to pacify their political masters rather than work to keep costs from rising. Recent examples include their ability to cancel contracts for non-compliance but for some reason they ignored their legal right to do so. Examples include: the Windlectric 75 MW wind development on Amherst Island (a major pathway for migratory birds and bats) and an 18.4 MW wind project known as White Pines in Prince Edward County. Those two projects alone will cost ratepayers almost $700 million over the 20 years in their contracts. Generation from wind turbines continues to be a waste of ratepayer dollars as easily seen in 2017 data. During the high demand months of June, July and August, wind power generation amounted to 4% of demand despite representing over 12% of Ontario’s generating capacity. During those three months turbines generated 1.355 TWh, yet Ontario exported 4.731 TWh to our neighbours in New York, Michigan, etc. at bargain basement prices. Despite the obvious, IESO’s current President and CEO Peter Gregg of IESO said in a speech to the Ontario Energy Network on January 19, 2018: “With respect to the development of new resources, we are cognizant of some of the concerns expressed by representatives of renewable resources like wind and solar and emerging technologies like storage.” Perhaps Mr. Gregg could be more “cognizant” of the effects of wind turbines on such things as human health, the killing of birds and bats and the economic hardship caused by electricity prices that have climbed by over 100% over the past few years caused by the addition of wind and solar generation being added to the grid and embedded within local distribution companies.

The points I’ve raised are not all the fake or false news emanating from the electricity bureaucrats, but hopefully the reader will understand the gist of what has happened to the electricity sector in Ontario.

Parker Gallant

How much does wind power cost us?

March 5, 2018

Ontario turbines near Comber: wind is not free

Being asked to do a presentation at Wind Concerns Ontario’s annual conference this past Saturday to describe the costs associated with industrial wind turbines was something I relished!

The presentation I developed used IESO information for 2017.

Discovered in the preparation of my presentation was the fact that nuclear and hydro power alone could have supplied over 100% of all grid-connected consumption for 2017, at a average cost of about 5.9 cents per kilowatt hour.

The cost for Class B ratepayers in 2017 however, was almost double, coming in at 11.55 cents per kwh.

So why the big jump? Have a look at the presentation to see why and look at Slide 6 in particular where you get an inkling of how IESO views the reliability of industrial wind generation in their forward planning process!



Ontario’s IESO: keeping the lights on (and the champagne flowing for some)

Mild weather might mean lower power demand and savings for electricity customers … but not in Ontario

February 28, 2018

The IESO has responsibility for ensuring the electricity system in Ontario keeps the lights on. They must manage the flow of generated electricity and keep it within the confines of producing too much or too little which could lead to either brownouts or blackouts.

That task has become more difficult as frequent Energy Minister directives, mandating the acquisition of more and more intermittent and unreliable wind and solar power generation, have made reliability an issue of concern, particularly during times of low demand. They are concerned with “surplus base-load” which in the past generally meant nuclear and “must-run” hydro. Wind and solar generation joined that latter group under those mandated directives pushing the potential “must run” power generation much higher.

Higher base-load on low demand hours/days could cause the system to fail.   And, it’s obvious that managing the system today has a much higher cost.

Example: February 25, 2018

The 25th of February saw higher than normal temperatures in Ontario, resulting in lower demand.  Demand in one hour was only 12,716 MW and the average was 14,390 MW/per hour for the day according to IESO’s daily summary.  Total Ontario demand for the day was only 345,000 MWh.  The IESO summary discloses the market valued all generation (including surplus exports) on that day at “0” meaning our net exports (exports minus imports) of 48,000 MWh were sold at a substantial loss.

Another issue facing IESO on the 25th was the fact it was a windy day. The forecast was for wind turbines to generate 89,100 MWh.  But only 49,500 MWh were accepted into the grid and the balance (39,600 MWh) were curtailed (paid for but not used).  Ratepayers pick up the costs for both accepted and curtailed wind.  It is worth noting our net exports of 48,000 MWh for the day, were only slightly less than the grid-accepted wind power generation.

Because of low demand and excess wind power generation, OPG were no doubt spilling water at IESO’s instructions. IESO don’t disclose spilled water, but a reasonable estimate for this day would be 45,000 MWh — which ratepayers are obliged to pay for.

Yet another source of power would have been our gas plants which receive payment(s) for idling at a contracted amount (payable monthly per MW of capacity). As one would expect, they were not called on to produce any power for the day which would have been cheap (fuel costs plus a small markup). Gas plants are essentially the back-up for the approximately 7,700 MW of intermittent wind and solar capacity now either grid- or distributor-connected in the province.

So let’s look at what ratepayers paid just for wind power for the day:


One day’s cost for unreliable intermittent wind!

Wind accepted: 49.500 MWh at $135/MWh =                                      $ 6,682,500.

Wiind curtailed: 39,600 MWh at $120/MWh =                                    $ 4,752,000.

Total wind costs:                                                                                $ 11,434,500.

Spilled Water (estimated): 45,000 MWh at $45/MWh =            $   2,025,000

Gas plant idling costs (estimated):                                                       $   2,500,000

Gross wind costs:                                                                                $ 15,959,500


Less: Recovered from net exports (estimated):                                  $     720,000

            True net wind generation cost:                                                     $ 15,239,500


Cost per MWh: $15,239,500/49,500 = $307.87/MWh or 30.8 cents/kWh


If all the days in a year were like last Sunday, annual costs would be well over $5 billion for unneeded high priced generation from wind power projects.

This all just goes to show, Ontario ratepayers were filling the pockets of IWT developers so they could sip the champagne while IESO kept did its best to keep the lights on!



NB: All of the numbers above are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Who is the real hypocrite in electricity sector?

Hydro One and a little distributor in Niagara On The Lake have different ways of doing business … and serving customers

Niagara On The Lake Hydro president Tim Curtis: honest effort for customers

February 20, 2018

It is interesting to compare a relatively small Ontario-based local electricity distribution company (LDC) against a much larger one such as Hydro One. If you do, you get some idea of what’s behind rate-paying electricity customers concerns.

Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro (NOTL) had the gall recently to brazenly ask, Are we hypocrites?  They asked that question because they installed 70 kW of solar panels on the roof of their building and it will, at 15% generation capacity, produce revenue of about $21,400 annually.  Their news release made this bold statement:

“A reasonable question to ask is whether the Board of NOTL Energy can be considered hypocrites for accepting a FIT contract while they publicly called for the cancellation of the FIT and MicroFIT programs? 

“The short answer is, yes, we are hypocrites.”

Now, contrast NOTL’s honesty with Hydro One and their efforts to convince U.S. electricity regulators they are deserving of acquiring Avista. It’s a strange path Hydro One is taking. Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt recently traveled to Juneau, Alaska to plea for approval in respect to Avista’s ownership of Alaska Electric Light & Power Company.  Their appeal included a 444-page submission to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, one of several required to convince regulators in four western states that the takeover of Avista would not negatively affect customers.

So it wasn’t a private island in the Caribbean Schmidt traveled to, but hopefully Ontario ratepayers won’t be picking up the tab for Schmidt et al in their efforts to win approval for Hydro One’s Avista takeover.

But we are paying: Hydro One’s December 31, 2017 Financial Statement was released February 13, 2018 and had an unusual “after tax” income claim of $36 million on page 34 referenced as: “Costs related to acquisition of Avista Corporation”.   Accounting rules allow Hydro One to claim expenditures related to Schmidt’s travel costs along with consultant and legal fees plus prep time for submissions made to the regulators in the states where Avista operates. As a result, Hydro One reported “Adjusted Net Income” of $694 million versus $721 million in 2016. Putting aside the $36 million, net income was actually down $63 million, or 8.7%.

Also, as a result of the dividend increase announced in May 2017 (quarterly at 22 cents per share), the payout of the 4th Quarter net income of $155 million (net of the above Avista expenditures of $36 million) resulted in a payout ratio of 89% (in excess of the maximum of 80% announced) of quarterly income — that doesn’t leave much for the oft-touted reinvestment in infrastructure.

Also evident in the Financial Statement is the fact the Ontario Provincial Government received $150 million less by way of dividend payments in 2017 compared to 2016. That $150 million could have covered interest payments on over $4 billion of the provincial debt!

An interesting feature in Hydro One’s annual report is the first 15 pages are devoted to telling the reader how wonderful the company is and how much progress has been achieved. For example is the claim of customer satisfaction climbing to 71%. It is probably fair to assume this “climb” occurred after the launch of the “Fair Hydro Plan” which kicked up to 31% of “electricity costs” down the road, but promised electricity customers a 25% chop off their bills right now.   As a de facto monopoly, perhaps 71% customer satisfaction is somehow good? Forgotten in the bragging process is the fact Hydro One are spending $15 million to give their customers prettier bills containing less information. The $15 million spend is included in one of several outstanding rate application increases filed with the Ontario Energy Board.

So brave little Niagara On the Lake Hydro will increase spending and increase revenues (slightly) meaning less pressure on increased delivery rates, but Hydro One spends on frills that will increase pressure on their clients’ delivery rates.

I will let the reader decide which of the two local distribution companies is the true hypocrite.


Multi-million-dollar power contracts IESO style

Or, how the IESO could have saved Ontario ratepayers more than $400 million by cancelling one wind power project, but didn’t 

Surplus power in Ontario: why not get out of a contract if you could?[Photo: IESO]
February 6, 2018

On March 10, 2016 the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO announced the outcome of the “Competitive Bids for Large Renewable Projects” via a news release which, among other issues claimed, they said they would award “five wind contracts totalling 299.5 MW, with a weighted average price of 8.59 cents/kWh”. The news release also described the contracting process: “The LRP process was administered by the IESO and overseen by an external fairness advisor. Robust and transparent public procurement practices were followed throughout the process, and each proposal was carefully evaluated for compliance against a list of specific mandatory requirements and rated criteria.”

Fast forward to October 26, 2017 and the release of Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault’s “Long-Term Energy Plan 2017 Delivering Fairness and Choice,” which offers some context for power contracts currently.

“Due to the substantial decline in the cost of wind and solar technologies over the last decade, renewables are increasingly competitive with conventional energy sources and will continue to play a key role in helping Ontario meet its climate change goals.”


“Ontario is Canada’s leader in installed wind and solar power.”

Economics of power procurement

Further on in the Plan are examples of how the Ministry, via the institutions under it, is working with communities. This one suggests the IESO is cognizant of the costs affecting ratepayers: “Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Gull Bay First Nation (GBFN) are in the early stages of building an advanced renewable microgrid on the GBFN reserve on the western shore of Lake Nipigon. GBFN has an on-reserve population of 300 people and is one of the four remote First Nation communities that the IESO has determined to be economically unfeasible to connect to the provincial grid at this time.”

IESO recently issued their 18-Month Outlook for the period January 2018 to June 2019 and this report also noted the situation in respect to surplus power: “Conditions for surplus baseload generation (SBG) will continue over the Outlook period. It is expected that SBG will continue to be managed effectively through existing market mechanisms, which include intertie scheduling, the dispatch of grid-connected renewable resources and nuclear manoeuvres or shutdowns.”

Those manoeuvres or shutdowns in 2017 caused over 10 TWh (terawatt hours) to be wasted, but their costs were added to ratepayers’ bills and included 3.3 TWh of curtailed wind.

So, the province has a surplus of power, and the costs of wind and solar have become more competitive. Why would the IESO then not seize upon the opportunity to deal with a high-cost industrial-scale wind power project, when they had the ability to cancel it due to non-compliance with the original contract? At the very least shouldn’t they have renegotiated the contract to reduce the impact on ratepayers?

They did neither.

The White Pines story is a curious exercise in contract law, to be sure. A successful appeal* to the Environmental Review Tribunal by the community group the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County** resulted in the project being reduced from 59.45 MW to 18.45 MW last fall. IESO could have simply canceled it because it was clearly unable to meet a condition requiring delivery of 75% of the capacity agreed to in the contract. At the very least, IESO could have renegotiated the terms of the contract to fulfill the Energy Minister’s claim that “renewables are increasingly competitive”.

But the IESO amended the contract for the reduced project, and granted waivers to the original conditions of performance, it was learned in a Belleville courtroom recently.

Cancelling would save millions

If IESO had canceled the contract, the Ministry could have claimed they reduced future rate increases saving ratepayers $21 million annually or $420 million over the full 20-year term. Even if IESO had only renegotiated the contract to the 8.59 cents/kWh achieved via the competitive bidding process instead of the 13.5 cents/kWh of the original contract, the Ministry could have claimed savings of about $5 million over the full term of the contract based on the currently approved 18.45 MW of capacity.

Has the IESO forgotten this line in in its Mission Statement ?

“Planning for and competitively procuring the resources that meet Ontario’s electricity needs today and tomorrow”

Cancelling just this one project*** would have helped to reduce surplus baseload and therefore the costs kicked down the road under the Fair Hydro Plan to be paid for in the future.



*The appeal was one on the grounds that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to wildlife

**Disclosure: I am a member of the community group

*** The IESO has five contracts for more wind power projects totaling $3 billion, for power Ontario does not need.

Numbers don’t lie: intermittent wind and solar surplus to Ontario’s energy needs

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) released 2017 data for grid-connected* generation and consumption and, surprise! The data reveal that power from wind and solar is surplus to Ontario’s  energy needs.

IESO reported Ontario’s consumption/demand fell 4.9 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2017 to 132.1 TWh. That’s a drop equivalent to 3.6% from the prior year.

Nuclear (90.6 TWh) and hydro (37.7 TWh) power generation was 128.3 TWh, making up 97.1% of Ontario’s total demand (without including dispatched power from either nuclear or hydro). The cost to Ontario ratepayers for the 128.3 TWh was approximately $7.6 billion or 5.9 cents/kWh.

Spilled hydro (paid for by Ontario’s ratepayers but not used) reported by Ontario Power Generation or OPG was 4.5 TWh for the first nine months of 2017. Out that together with 511 nuclear manoeuvres and the number is 959.2 GWh (gigawatt hours) wasted but paid for by Ontario’s ratepayers. Add in three nuclear shutdowns and it means Ontario’s nuclear and hydro generation alone could have easily supplied more than 136 TWh of power or over 103% of demand.

That doesn’t include spilled hydro in the last quarter of 2017 which will probably exceed at least one TWh.

Nuclear and hydro does it all

Nuclear and hydro could also have supplied a large portion of net exports (exports less imports) had all the generation potential actually been delivered to the grid. Net exports totaled 12.5 TWh in 2017.  Grid connected wind (9.2 TWh) and solar (0.5 TWh) in 2017 supplied 9.7 TWh and their back-up generation: from gas plants, supplied 5.9 TWh.  In all, the latter three sources delivered 15.6 TWh or 124.8% of net exports.  Net exports were sold well below the average cost of generation. Exports brought in revenue of about $400 million, but here’s the kicker: that surplus power cost Ontario’s ratepayers $1.4 billion, which is really a loss of $1 billion.

Grid-connected wind, solar and gas generation collectively cost approximately $3.5 billion for the 15.6 TWh they delivered to the grid, included curtailed (paid for but not used) wind power generation of 3.3 TWh. The cost of the wind power was more than $220 million per TWh, or 22 cents/kWh. That’s almost double the Class B average rate of 11.55 cents/kWh cited in IESO’s 2017 year-end results.

The 9.7 TWh generated by wind and solar was unneeded. If it had been required, it could have been replaced by gas power generation at a cost of only around two cents per kWh. Why? Gas generators are guaranteed payment of  about $10K per MW (average) of their capacity per month to be at the ready and if called on to generate power are paid fuel costs plus a small markup.

Price tag: $2 billion

In other words, if no grid-connected wind or solar generation existed in Ontario in 2017 the bill to ratepayers would have been about $2 billion** less! Grid-connected wind generation (including curtailed) cost ratepayers in excess of $1.7 billion and grid-connected solar added another $250 million!

That $2 billion, coincidentally, is about the same cost estimate of the annual amount to be deferred, and paid by future rate increases via the Fair Hydro Plan! In other words the current government could have easily saved future generations the estimated $40 billion plus cost of the Fair Hydro Plan by having never contracted for wind and solar generation!

The IESO results for 2017 sure makes me wonder: why hasn’t the Ontario Ministry of Energy canceled all the wind power projects that have not yet broken ground?


*   Distributor connected solar (2,200 MW) and wind (600 MW) added over $1.4 billion to the GA.

** The first 6 months of the variance account under the Fair Hydro Plan in 2017 was $1,378.4 million.