Universities and the Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration

Examining the “collaborators” named by the Government in the original announcement about the winning bid for the $20 million in Federal funding to “generate, communicate, and mobilize trusted information, policy advice, and best practices for Canadians, governments, and stakeholders,” is an interesting exercise.  Eight of the names on the list can be directly connected to eight universities.

As one would expect those eight claiming research capabilities on the “Environment and Climate Change” issue, have, in the past, demonstrated support for the narrative of the Federal Government and its “climate emergency”.  No “climate change” deniers, were or are, discernable in any of the 21 names in the collaboration meaning the message emanating from the research, will confirm, what the former Minister, Catherine McKenna of Environment and Climate Change has repeated time and time again as she reiterated at a bar in Newfoundland:  “But you know, I actually gave them some real advice. I said that if you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it,” claims McKenna.”

The Universities on the list connected to the collaborators in no particular order are:  Carleton, Winnipeg, Victoria, Memorial, Waterloo, McGill, Calgary and Simon Fraser.  The collaborators linked to the various universities managed to get six provinces represented.

Efforts to determine the monies dedicated to the university connected “collaborators” is elusive.  The best that could be determined (it lacks specifics) was by examining the various universities charitable foundations etc. on the CRA’s Charities filings.  It seems surprising that universities are classified as “charities” but they are in most cases. Certain of the university charities/foundations are specific in nature (eg: religious or gender based) but the bulk are general.  Here is what the CRA tells us in respect to the various general filings for the 2018 year.

Gross revenue for the eight universities charitable foundations: $6,850.6 million

Total revenue from Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments was: $3,310.0 million

Percentage of gross revenue – 48.3%

Total charitable receipts issued by all eight universities was: $139.2 million

Percentage of gross revenue – 2.1%

Total revenue received from other charitable institutions* was: $144.3 million

Percentage of gross revenue – 2.1%

Total amount claimed by the universities as “charitable activities” was: $5,709.2 million

Percentage of gross revenue – 83.3%

The last one is the real shocker suggesting these eight (8) universities somehow handed out the equivalent of $170.00 in 2018 to every man, women and child in Canada.  It appears those professorial salaries/compensation (about 60% of annual revenue) are somehow considered charitable?

The CRA Charities filing appears to require each and every charity to complete, Form T1236 “Qualified donees worksheet” listing the individual donations made.  Only four (4) of the universities out of the eight (8) above completed the form and those four claimed they had only 63 donees who received $9,065,300.00 which is about .27 of 1% of the total amount claimed as “charitable activities”!

There is no problem with Universities being tax-free institutions, however, claiming they engage in charitable activities to the extent reported seems to fly in the face of transparency particularly when governments use them to sermonize the general population with our tax dollars.

Is it perhaps time for the CRA to require our schools of upper learning to report facts rather than myths!

 

*Other collaborators such as the Ivey Foundation, Trottier Family Foundation and other members of the Bruce Lourie creation; Environment Funders Canada are major contributors to several of the universities connected with the collaborators and are specific on the intended recipient(s) of their grant(s).

October, another month with climbing electricity costs

IESO just released their October 2019 Monthly Market Report and it contained more bad news for taxpayers and ratepayers in the province.  The all-in cost to Class B ratepayers, without inclusion of delivery and regulatory charges, produced a “weighted average” cost of $144.05/MWh or 14.41 cents/kWh for the “Electricity” line on your bill. The HOEP was $7.25MWh and the GA $136.80/MWh.

Consumption by Ontario ratepayers dropped by 366 GWh (gigawatt hours) or 3.2% compared to October 2018 but the cost per kWh jumped 1.03 cents/kWh (up 4.7%). Net Exports, compared to October 2018 were almost flat and totaled 1,405 GWh versus 1,381 GWh!  Our net exports in 2019 however cost us quite a bit more as the HOEP price was 7.25/MWh versus $13.84/MWh in 2018 and the cost to Ontario Class B ratepayers, reflected in the GA, came in at $136.80/MWh in 2019 versus $120.59/MWh in 2018.  The differences added about $26 million to the monthly costs raising our losses on net exports to $192.3 million in October 2019 versus $$166.5 million a year ago.

As if the foregoing wasn’t enough, wind generation, from both TX (transmission connected) and DX (distributor connected) sources and its curtailment for the month totaled 1,457 GWh as reported by my friend Scott Luft.  That means it was slightly more than our net exports.  At a price of $135/MWh for accepted generation and $120/MWh for curtailed generation the bill to ratepayers was $189.6 million and the dollar amount is very close to what we lost on our exports.  Ontario’s ratepayers were forced to accept those costs which for October generated an average of $192/MWh or 19.2 cents kWh. If one were to include costs for spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear along with gas plant backup, industrial wind generation costs would be even higher.

Now what was somewhat surprising for the month was not so much, the amount of the total GA of $1,209.6 million (it appears to be the 3rd highest since the GA was created) but the amount moved to the Variance Account (Ontario Fair Hydro Plan).  The amount moved to the Variance Account was only $159.1 and the lowest so far in 2019.  In September the GA was $1,082.9 million but IESO moved $493.2 million to the Variance Account.

There appears to be something amiss in the data used by IESO when executing the transfer to the Variance Account and it would be useful if they disclosed exactly where and how they messed up.

Transparency is something Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers should expect!

Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration, Phase Four

As Yogi Berra once said, “it’s déjà vu all over again”!

My somewhat relentless review of the electricity sector started about 10 years ago as Ontario embarked on the unmitigated disaster that was the Green Energy Act and its focus on acquiring unreliable wind and solar generation. I was recently reminded; many of the ENGO names and individuals associated with my research back then are still around and have become more verbose. They are imbibing in more of the panic exercised years ago and using more tax dollars in the process. That conclusion was reached by researching the “collaborators” participating in the captioned, connecting names, reviewing websites and CRA’s Charities files to see where the money comes from and where it goes.  Those ENGO and individuals have moved on from renewable energy worship to “carbon tax” endorsement!

One example was one of those chosen as an expert collaborator highlighted in Phase Three.  MaRS Discovery District, a creation of the McGuinty led, Ontario Liberal ruling party. In 2014, MaRS received $26.7 million from the province and zero from the Feds. In 2018 the province gave them $31.7 and the Feds coughed up $2.9 million.  In other words, our tax dollars to them increased $7.8 million (29.2%) in four years.  Most readers will recall Ontario’s taxpayers bailed out MaRS failed real estate deal to the tune of $308 million. MaRS also receives revenue from other charities ($2.8 million in 2018) and hands out money to other charities such as Evergreen, (somewhere between $100/$500 thousand) one of the other “collaborators” in the P-CEC group.  MaRS also handed out grants to CEGN (Canadian Environmental Grantmakers Network), a Bruce Lourie creation renamed Environment Funders Canada. Lourie is President of the Ivey Foundation another “collaborator” in the P-CEC group.

From outward appearances the chosen ones are destined to tell PM Trudeau’s government and his new “Environment Minister”, Jonathan Wilkinson, how much to UP the “carbon tax”!  MaRS, as noted in Phase Three, also received grants from the Trillium Foundation (provincially owned) and were granted money from another McGuinty creation; Friends of the Greenbelt (FOTG)–funded by taxpayers and another member of Environment Funders Canada. FOTG hand out grants to ENGO’s such as Environmental Defence where Lourie once held a vaunted position. As an aside the CEO of MaRS earns a salary north of $350,000 annually-not too shabby for a registered charity!

Now let’s look at two more of the “collaborators” connected with the Ivey Foundation:

Evergreen and Future Cities Canada—a P-CEC “collaborator”

It’s unclear what Evergreen brings to the table as a collaborator as their focus for almost 20 years has been to convert an old brickworks plant into what is an urban farmer’s and garden market.  Their CEO doesn’t appear to have a degree related to “climate” issues but according to their filing with the CRA it appears he may be paid in excess of $250K per year. Evergreen have done a remarkable job at raising charitable funds over the years, so, maybe that is the key to being chosen.  Revenue in 2008 was $5.758 million and in 2018 was $21.762 million, an increase of 277% in only 10 years.  Their 2018 annual report shows they received over $1 million from both the Provincial and Federal governments and over $500K from the Trillium Foundation (Lourie was a former Director and Trillium are members of Environment Funders Canada). The J. W. McConnell Foundation is also included in the same contributing group as Trillium and also have been a major grantor to one of the Lourie creations (more on that one in the future) and are also members of Environment Funders Canada. They donated $1.1 million in 2017 and $775 thousand in 2018 to Evergreen. In reviewing the Trillium grants listing, it shows they have granted over $1.8 million over the past few years to Evergreen.  MaRS (another collaborator) is credited with donating somewhere between $50K to $100K in 2018 and the same in earlier years. The Ivey Foundation has granted them at least $60K in the past few years.

Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT), Simon Fraser University—a P-CEC “collaborator”

Often when researching individuals involved in predicting the end of the world due to “climate change” one finds the parties leading the predictions have little or no affiliation with the sciences needed to logically develop that line of thought.  In the case of ACT, it is led by Deborah Harford.  Ms. Harford is the Executive Director of ACT and her formal training indicates she holds an SFU “Bachelor of Communications and English, Communication and Media Studies”.  Ms. Harford is active in posting any articles favouring the concept of “climate change” as one would expect from her degree, but she posts none on the ACT website with a differing view. SFU prides itself on its affiliation with similar institutions including Clean Energy Canada (launched by Tides Canada) as they attract donations from charitable institutions such as the IVEY Foundation* (over $1 million since 2014), $900K from the McConnell Family Foundation, $2.3 million from the Trottier Family Foundation (another P-CEC “collaborator”!   Both of the latter are members of Environment Funders Canada.

Perhaps if one augments the perceptions of those handing out the grants, the money will continue to flow, to those who produce the prejudicial and supportive reports the grantor sought!  Just an abstract thought!

While Phases one through four of this series have raised the connection concept of the Ivey Foundation’s relationship with six of the P-CEC named “collaborators” there are a few more of interest. The tale of the tangled web will continue in the next Phase!

*A few hundred thousand dollars was also granted to Tides Canada.

Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration, Phase two

The objective of the first in this series was to make the reader aware of how the announcement of April 9, 2019 and the creation of the captioned came about. The Federal Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, under Minister McKenna was the visible creator but was she the puppet or the puppeteer?  The suggestion in the first of this series implied perhaps a background force played a key role in its creation. The Ivey Foundation and its President were highlighted as that possible force.

The President of the Ivey Foundation, Bruce Lourie, and his past activities, demonstrate he played a significant role in the confines of Ontario’s political landscape!  He and cohorts were very instrumental in creating the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), responsible for more than doubling Ontario’s cost of electricity.  Some of the players (Gerald Butts, Katie Telford and Ben Chin) associated with the McGuinty led Ontario government moved on to the Federal level and it appears Lourie and the Ivey Foundation may have also moved (not physically) where their influences would be readily accepted.

The captioned “collaboration” will be headed up by Kathy Bardswick, former CEO of Co-operators Group (2018 revenue $2.962 billion). Ms. Bardswick appears to be a believer in “climate change”, based on a 48 page brochure (referenced by Bardswick as a “toolkit”) issued in 2011 by the Co-operators. It has David Suzuki quotes and thanks his foundation for help in its creation. The brochure casually endorses Bruce Lourie’s co-authored book; “Slow Death by Rubber Duck”. Her message in the brochure included a remark indicating her belief in climate change: “Sustainable solutions for our world are going to require the collective participation of us all—government, businesses, non-governmental organizations, community groups, and families—working together.”

Just after the P-CEC was announced, Bardswick was named as the “head” of it.  She became “perturbed” shortly thereafter, “by a recent partisan attack from the office of Ontario Premier Doug Ford”. The article in the National Observer (they receive grants from the Ivey Foundation) noted: “Bardswick also sat on the government’s North American Free Trade Agreement Council on the Environment,” and, ”The body was formed in 2017 to advise Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna on the environmental protections Ottawa was seeking in the trade talks to replace NAFTA.”

The partisan attack reported was; “David Tarrant, Ford’s executive director of strategic communications said that description was all “Liberal spin.” In a tweet, Tarrant cast a skeptical eye on the institute’s independence, calling it an “elite pro-carbon tax ‘institute’” that contained “puppets.” Based on Bardswick’s views expressed in the Co-operators “brochure” and her NAFTA engagement one would be inclined to agree with Tarrant.  It’s clear her views are aligned with those of the Environment Minister; she believes in “climate change”, advocates for “sustainable solutions”, presumably, coupled with a “carbon tax”! Ms. Bardswick rebuttal that she “did not join this institute and agree to initially lead it unless I was assured that this would be independent, and arms-length,” can’t be taken on its merit, based on her views! She also has no discernable scientific education that reflects on her ability to be non-partisan in her role as “head” of the P-CEC much like the “adaptation Chair” Blair Feltmate!

One of the “collaborators” taking part in the P-CEC is the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation and the connected Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change, University of Waterloo. The Intact Centre is fully funded by Intact Insurance.  Intact Insurance had annual revenue (2018) exceeding $10 billion.  The concept of floods, ice storms, hurricanes, etc., linked to “climate change”, allows insurance companies to create other perceived insurance needs resulting in increased premiums to cover potential future losses.  The head of the “Intact Centre”, Blair Feltmate was appointed Chair of the “adaptation” arm of the “collaboration” research team. Feltmate was recently called out.  He was at a conservation event and claimed, “climate change has triggered a surge in flood events in recent years.” As Feltmate put it during his comments at the meeting: “The elephant in the room, from a climate-change perspective, is… too much water in the wrong places.” The CBC supported the claims by Feltmate and due to diligence from Robert Muir, a civil engineer, were required to perform a mea culpa.  Feltmate was also quoted in a National Observer article claiming, “flooding is the number one cost to Canada, relative to extreme weather risk driven by climate change”. The National Observer does not have an Ombudsman like the CBC and have not retracted Feltmate’s claims!

Both Feltmate and Lourie were speakers at the 2014 and 2016 Globe Series conferences so they may very well be acquainted.  The purpose of the conferences is summed up as: “GLOBE Series convenes world-renowned events that accelerate the clean economy.”  It matters not if they are or aren’t acquainted, however, as it’s safe to assume they both endorse the reputed “climate emergency”.

It appears conclusive the outcome of the report/recommendation’s forthcoming from the Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration will be heavily influenced by Ms. Bardswick and Mr. Feltmate! Ms. Bardswick’s claim the “collaboration” will be “independent” is laughable as the likely recommendations from the P-CEC will surely endorse the “climate emergency” related to the bill Minister McKenna got Parliament to pass June 17, 2019!

We can all look forward to “carbon tax” increases and higher insurance rates that will simply make life more difficult for the average family.

PS:  Just received our natural gas heating bill for the month which included the “Federal carbon charge”. HST was also charged on the carbon tax amount raising the percentage of taxes (compared to gas and delivery costs) to 24.8%.  Over 67% (3.5 million) of Ontario households heat with natural gas based on the 2016 census.

Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration Phase 1

Back on October 30, 2018 the Federal Ministry of Environment and Climate Change issued a press release telling us they intended “to partner with independent climate experts to support ambitious action on clean growth and climate change”.

Confronted with the word “expert” takes one back in time to a British comedy.  Benny Hill, of the Benny Hill Show, frequently provided humorous definitions of words in his show and his take on the word “expert” stood out.  Merriam Webster’s first definition of the word is “experienced” and breaks the word into two syllables which are “ek-spert”.  Benny Hill went further suggesting; “ek” is the unknown and “spert” is a drip under pressure therefore an expert is an “unknown drip under pressure.

From all appearances we have far too many experts in politics, bloated bureaucracies (federal, provincial and municipal) and ENGO who exhibit those comedic traits on a regular basis. The 21 organizations who got together, to create the “Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration” (to partake of the $20 million of tax dollars Minister McKenna promised), are all on the same page;  ie: climate change is the end of the world.  No “experts” with differing views appear to have been invited to join the “Collaboration”!

Award of the contract was obviously slated to align with the views of Minister McKenna and her “climate emergency”.  One wonders if the “collaboration” was in point of fact orchestrated and if so, who was the conductor?  My vote goes to Bruce Lourie!

Reasoning on the foregoing is related to how McKenna endorsed Bruce Lourie’s views disclaiming Doug Ford’s cancellation of the Ontario “cap and trade” tax as noted in the below tweet!

Catherine McKenna 🇨🇦Verified account @cathmckenna “Scrapping cap and trade and the Green Ontario Fund will do nothing to lower electricity rates, what it will do is cause huge disruption and costs to Ontario businesses.” Smart analysis by @brucelourie of the Ivey Foundation nationalobserver.com/2018/06/21/analysis/bruce-lourie-doug-fords-scrap-and-pay-plan-explained …

Lourie’s article in the National Observer appeared shortly after the Ford led Ontario Conservative Party, were elected and the “carbon tax” was about to be killed. Co-incidentally the Ivey Foundation, where Lourie holds the title of President, has provided grants directed to the National Observer.  Mckenna and Lourie were also together as speakers in Ottawa in October 2016 at the Canadian Climate Forum’s annual symposium shortly after the Federal “carbon tax” was announced.  One would assume they are well acquainted and hold similar beliefs in the “climate change” religion.

In the midst of the recent Federal election campaign, Lourie had another article appear on October 18, 2019 in the National Observer noting, amongst other negative comments:  “If Scheer wins” then “leaders who seek to delay action will dig in on dismantling climate policies, ensuring that Canada returns to global pariah status on the international stage.”  Lourie has apparently labelled all conservatives “pariahs’”.

On April 9, 2019 Minister McKenna’s Ministry; Environment and Climate Change Canada, announced the winning bid to create the “new independent climate institute”, was the Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration. There among the twenty-one (21) names in the “collaboration” was the Ivey Foundation and several others Mr. Lourie either helped to create or presumably supported by providing grants via his position as President of the Ivey Foundation. One example is the “Ecofiscal Commission” (one of 21 “collaborators”) where Lourie also holds an “Advisor” title alongside political luminaries such as, Paul Martin, Michael Harcourt and Jean Charest. Needless to say, the Ivey Foundation made substantial grants to the Ecofiscal Commission to possibly (?) ensure the right message was forthcoming!

The Ivey Foundation is a charity/foundation registered with the CRA. A review of the information filed by them for their December 31, 2018 report indicates they had five employees one of whom makes somewhere between $250,000 and $299,999.  One would assume that individual is the President.

The Ivey Foundation, issued zero (0) tax receipts and did not complete the CRA’s “Schedule 7–Political Activities”.  In the filings with the CRA, charities/foundations are obliged to report; “Amounts provided to other organizations” and to name the organization and the “gift amount”. They must also indicate if it is an “Associated charity” with a simple “YES” or “NO”.  In all cases the 2018 report (and prior ones) of Ivey’s filings state, “NO” to that question!  Was that a true response, particularly as it applies to the Ecofiscal Commission, the grants they received from the Ivey Foundation and the “advisor” position their President holds in the Commission?

Lourie was the key speaker at the York University; Dr. David D. J. Bell Lecture on October 22, 2019 and his biography, appearing on the web-page, outlines some of his creations as well as a few of his past and present executive titles and directorships. It doesn’t however, highlight his myriad connections or influences on politicians in the past or present times.

The President of the Ivey Foundation, by all appearances and actions, is well connected with several of those who received grants from the Foundation and are now part of the collaborating family! Were they, and the other 20 collaborators, chosen because they will recommend a higher carbon tax than the one previously announced?

Remember, as Minister McKenna has stated, we are in the midst of a “climate emergency”, so perhaps, we should anticipate they will look to increase the tax!

Consuming less drives up costs for Class B ratepayers

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) released their September 2019 Monthly Market Report last week.  Ontario’s total consumption was 10.319 TWh (terawatt hours).  Looking back as far as September 2010 for comparison (the year following enactment of the GEA) Ontario consumption in September 2019 was lower than every year since then.  Consumption by Class B ratepayers this past September was down 8.7% (690.000 MWh-750,000 average households’ annual consumption) from September 2018. Class A ratepayers also consumed less (102,000 MWh or 3%) compared to September 2019.

Consuming less means lower costs, right?

The foregoing question/assertion certainly applies to pretty well everything we consume, if the price remains stable.

Due to the perplexity of how the electricity system functions in Ontario consuming less has a limited ability to reduce our costs.  Each and every generation source is basically treated differently in respect to their rank; on access to the grid, pricing (guaranteed or set by the OEB), length of contract term(s), and their perceived effect on global warming!  Both solar and wind generation, as examples of the latter, are granted “first to the grid” rights meaning they rank higher than nuclear plants and hydro generation units.  Additionally, original contract(s) offered prices in 2010 guaranteed for 20 years with large solar at 63.5 cents/kWh and wind at 13.5 cents/kWh along with a 20% guaranteed escalation clause related to increases in the cost of living (CoL).  At the same time IESO must contend with a trading market referenced as HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price). IESO buys or sells generation based on shortages or surpluses to our grid connected markets such as New York, Michigan, etc.   What the HOEP values generation at and what we pay for it via those contracts evolved into what is known as the GA (Global Adjustment Mechanism) ie; contract value minus HOEP = GA.  Contracting for unreliable intermittent generation like wind and solar has made Ontario a supplier of cheap power for Michigan, NY, Quebec and other connected markets as the GA is not a part of the HOEP sale price.

As noted, Class B ratepayers consumed 8.7% less power in September 2019 versus 2018 and IESO reports our all-in cost (GA+HOEP) was $136.97/MWh versus $115.78 in 2018 for a jump of $21.19/MWh or 18.4%!  In the case of Class A ratepayers, because the HOEP fell from $29.94 in 2018 to $14.34 in 2019 they saw a reduction in their cost per MWh falling 7.7% from $77.70/MWh in 2018 to $71.73 in 2019.  The methodology of Class A pricing results in Class B ratepayers paying more of the GA when the HOEP is lower.

The next question one should ask is why is the HOEP lower if we consume less?

That question is related to facts such as, wind and solar generation get “first to the grid” rights.  As noted, September was a low consumption month as are most spring and fall months but that is when wind (in particular) generates the bulk of its power and is surplus to our needs.  The result is IESO is obliged to accept it and sell via the HOEP market or curtail it, which we also pay for.  IESO will also steam off nuclear or spill hydro both of which we also pay for.  When they are selling off the surplus our neighbours may not need the power but if it is really cheap, they will snap it up.  In September, as an example TX (transmission connected) and DX (distribution connected) wind combined was (according to my friend Scott Luft) 948,951 MWh including 141,485 MWh of curtailed wind.  Together the costs of unneeded generation was $126 million. The accepted wind generation was HOEP valued at less than $7.4 million adding $118.6 million to the GA pool. As it turned out accepted wind represented 75.7% of our net exports of 1,067,040 MWh and 50.9% of our total exports of 1,586,880 MWh in September. We clearly didn’t need wind generation in September nor since we started handing out those contracts!

To make the foregoing much clearer a read of Scott Luft’s recent post provides an excellent review of how much wind (accepted and curtailed) he calculated, was not exported.  It is truly shocking to see it is less than 10% in each year going back to 2006. Using September’s costs as the base to calculate how much it has affected ratepayers and taxpayers in Ontario for its output (over 37 TWh) since 2006 is a simple task.

Shockingly it represents a pocketbook cost of over $5.5 billion.

The electricity sector has taken $5.5 billion from the pockets of Ontario’s ratepayers/taxpayers just for wind related contracts.  The $5.5 billion could have actually been used to provide things like; better health care, tax reduction, infrastructure investments, electricity price reduction or flattening which would have attracted investments and created jobs.  Instead, we allowed our provincial government to hand out lucrative contracts to foreign wind and solar developers.  Many of those who rushed here to obtain those contracts have taken our money and sold their projects to our government pension funds and left Ontario for “greener” fields!

What the above shows is the Green Energy and Green Economy Act was a disaster for Ontario and will continue to negatively affect us until the contracts expire or our current government acts to cancel or amend them!

Wind turbines-clearly not needed

Noted in a recent article was the following admission by Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association); “wind, which tends to generate most of its power at night,”!  His reflection was related to the very strong probability CanWEA will merge with CanSIA and the merger will reputedly produce harmony as solar generates power when the sun shines.

What Hornung failed to admit was wind habitually produces power during low demand times which are a regular occurrence in Ontario during Spring and Fall months.  The month of October is confirming its bad habit which costs Ontario ratepayers dearly.

A recent example of the foregoing occurred on October 23rd when wind was blowing during the night and during the day.  IESO’s “Generators Output and Capability Report” discloses wind was blowing!  Approximately 47,000 MWh of wind was accepted into the grid and about 50,650 MWh were curtailed.  So, wind could have delivered 97,650 MWh when Ontario demand averaged 13,910 MW and peaked at 16,235 MW for the day.  Contracted nuclear at 10,700 MW of capacity could have easily teamed up with some of the 8,000 MW of contracted hydro and supplied all our needs.  During high demand periods in the summer and winter months gas plants can easily supply additional needs when demand exceeds nuclear and hydro’s capacity.

The IESO report also suggests we were steaming off nuclear (and paying for it) and probably spilling hydro (which we also pay for) but IESO don’t disclose either of the latter two events.  To top things off we were paying gas plants to idle (around $2.5 million per day). Many of them were originally contracted to back up wind and solar for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun doesn’t shine.

The effect on ratepayers, in simple terms, is, we picked up the costs of wind’s generation as well as the costs of curtailment.  We paid $120/MWh (megawatt hour) for curtailed wind and $135/MWh for grid accepted wind.  The total cost for wind (without factoring in costs related to spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear or idling gas plants) on the 23rd therefore was $12,423,000 or $264/MWh (26.4cents/kWh).

When IESO finally published their Daily Market Summary for that day it disclosed the average HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) was in negative territory at -0.88($/MWh).  It also disclosed Ontario’s net exports (exports minus imports) averaged 1,943 MW per hour so totaled approximately 46,600 MW or 400 MW less than grid accepted wind.

At the CanWEA conference where Hornung uttered his omission he also stated the following:  “This opens up some interesting opportunities for wind for two reasons: 1) wind energy can provide more services to the grid than just low-cost energy, and can support grid reliability if encouraged to do so as regulatory and market frameworks modernize; ”.  The activities on the day this article highlights and most other spring and fall days clearly demonstrate, wind energy is neither, low-cost energy or has abilities to support grid reliability (forced curtailment does)!

What the above clearly shows is the $12.4 million we paid for the 47,000 MW of grid accepted wind was simply Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers being forced to give our money away to NY, Michigan, etc. without the ability to stop it!

The time has come for Hornung to admit all the failings of industrial wind turbines!