No natural gas, more natural gas: what is the Wynne government’s game?

February 6, 2017

In April 2015 Brad Duguid, then Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure issued a press release stating: “Increased natural gas access, through the $200 million Natural Gas Access Loan and $30 million Natural Gas Economic Development Grant, will attract new industry, make commercial transportation and agriculture more affordable, help to create jobs, provide more energy choices and will lower electricity prices for businesses and consumers across Ontario.”

The focus was expansion in rural communities and the money offered would do wonderful things including lowering “electricity prices.”  The Duguid statement appears to have flowed from the 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP) released by Bob Chiarelli when he held the Energy Minister’s portfolio as noted in the OEB’s 2014-2017 Business Plan.

Just days ago, another press release was issued on the same issue by Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Infrastructure:  “Ontario is expanding access to natural gas for communities that do not currently have service, including those in rural and Northern Ontario and First Nations communities.”  It gave a “Quick Fact”: “Natural gas is the dominant heating source in Ontario and continues to be consistently less expensive than alternative sources such as electricity, heating oil and propane.” The Chiarelli announcement increased the “grant” amount to $100 million.

The recent announcement indicates the Duguid offer fell flat so perhaps Chiarelli’s announcement is an effort to see the claim he endorsed in the 2013 LTEP as one he is determined to follow through on, even if it raises Ontario’s debt by $100 million!

It is also ironic that Chiarelli is pushing expansion of natural gas consumption while our current Energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault is heading in the opposite direction. He recently instructed IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) to basically shut several of the NUG (non-utility generators) gas plants down. Minister Thibeault’s recent directive to IESO notes:  “Ontario has put in place legislation for its new cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas pollution while moving to a low-carbon economy.”   Most NUG contracts are gas generation units whose original contracts (executed in the Peterson Liberal government days) are close to expiry, and are “take or pay” contracts.  With the  surplus of power today, Minister Thibeault considers them expendable.  As a result the directive instructed IESO to renew contracts but only: “if the IESO is able to negotiate replacement contracts (IESO Contracts) with OEFC NUGs that incentivize them to operate in a manner that is better aligned with the integrated power system’s needs.”

As noted by Scott Luft some of those NUG contracts have been renegotiated, others ended, (the plants will be closed or mothballed) while some are in the process of  renegotiation.  One of those cancelled contracts offered to produce and sell power for 5.9 cents/kWh, but that offer was rejected even though it was way under prices paid for generation from industrial wind turbines and solar panels. Both those forms of power generation are unable to generate power when needed.

Is the objective of the Energy Minister to reduce emissions from gas plants so Premier Wynne can claim the “cap and trade” tax is working?

Meanwhile, if Minister Chiarelli is successful at handing out the $100 million tax dollars as grants to expand natural gas use, emissions will increase! Any increase will generate additional cap and trade revenue to help pay for the grants and the early shutdown of those gas plants.

Here’s the game: reduce emissions in the (already clean) electricity sector while pushing them up elsewhere and capture additional taxes along the way.

The topsy-turvy world of power policy in Ontario continues.

Advertisements

Amherst Island: perfect example of why wind power can be a bad choice

Ontario’s Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault, at the launch of planning for the next Long-Term Energy Plan, said “We have a robust supply of all forms of energy for at least the next 10 years.”  The month prior to the launch he announced the suspension of LRP II  slated to acquire another 1,000 MW of renewable energy.  His claim at that time was, it would save ratepayers $3.8 billion in electricity costs over the projected term of the contracts.

Cancel the contracts 

Why didn’t he go further and cancel contracts that have not broken ground and saved billions more?   Amherst Island’s “Windlectric” project, owned by Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., project is just one. On its own, cancellation could save Ontario ratepayers over $500 million in future costs.  Those contracts, signed years ago, either have not been built or are involved in litigation preventing them from breaking ground.   Their sunk costs are small in comparison to their full costs over 20 years and canceling them outright would represent a nominal cost to ratepayers while saving, birds, bats, butterflies and endangered species from harm as well as prevent human health effects, and depreciation to property values.

Cancellation would reduce the amount of surplus energy that is exported at a cost to ratepayers or simply curtailed, but paid for by ratepayers. Savings would be in the billions.

Amherst Island—Owl Capital of North America

 In the July/August 2003 copy of “Wildbird”, Kevin T. Karlson wrote this article “Owl Capital of North America.” and said “An occasional glance at these ‘owls in wonderland’ always brings a smile to my face.” The Owl Woods is the only place where it is possible to see ten species of owls in one day.

Amherst Island, 66 square kilometers in size, is situated west of Kingston along the northeastern shore of Lake Ontario close to the St. Lawrence River and considered a “Hidden Cultural Gem.” The island is the first of the world famous 1,000 islands based on the water flow. The permanent population of about 450 residents swells to over 1,000 during the summer months and attracts visitors from all over the world. People come to see the culture and history of a settlement dating back to the late 1700s by the Empire Loyalists and the Irish immigrants who followed. Many also come to see the birds as the island is on the IBAs (Important Bird Areas) list. Amherst Island is home to “as many as 34 different species at risk known to rely on the Island’s natural environment for survival.” including the threatened Blandings turtle.  

The foregoing paragraph should make the reader wonder exactly why, back in 2011 the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) granted the contract to a shell company (Windlectric) established by Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Subsequent to the contract award the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), since relabeled the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), granted a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) with some modifications to the original contract.  One wonders why the REA was granted as Amherst Island was already designated as an IBA and known as the Owl Capital of North America.  Was it simply because the OPA (now merged with IESO [Independent Electricity System Operator]) gave them a contract, or was the MOECC unconcerned about the heritage of the island and the many species at risk?  

For over 10 years, residents of Amherst Island and their onshore supporters have battled proposals to blanket the Island with industrial wind turbines. The support received by APAI (Association to Protect Amherst Island) has been overwhelming coming from many different groups and individuals, including those who support wind power as renewable energy. Among them are Nature Canada and Ontario Nature who jointly wrote an 18-page letter to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in March, 2013. Their logical defence of wildlife had no effect on the outcome of the appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

In fact, the decision of the Tribunal in August of 2015 was a major failure according to Nature Canada: “The Amherst decision is a reminder that we are missing adequate government policy that both promotes renewables in the right places while recognizing and protecting our key biodiversity areas including Canada’s nearly 600 Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBAs) such as Amherst Island and the South Shore of Prince Edward County.” 

Organizations as diverse as Heritage Canada The National Trust, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Kingston Field Naturalists, the Dry Stone Wall Association of Ireland, BirdLife International, the Maryland Ornithological Society, the Hawk Migration Association of North America, Pennsylvania Ornithological Society, and Brereton Field Naturalists’ Club all oppose turbines on Amherst Island.

Economic impact

 The Windlectric project proposes 26 wind turbines with a capacity of 74.3 MW and according to the specifications, would be Siemens turbines each with a total height in excess of 500 feet with a hub height of about 330 feet and a blade radius of almost 180 feet. If they generate electricity at the anticipated norm of 30% of capacity, they will produce about 195,000 megawatts (MWh) intermittently and out of synch with Ontario demand. Windlectric will be paid $135 per/MWh plus cost of living benefits up to 20% more, so as much as $162 per/MWh in the latter years of their contract term. At an average of $140 per/MWh, the gross revenue to Windlectric will be $27.3 million annually, or about $550 million over the life of the contract.

Loyalist Township, where Amherst Island is located, was obligated to allow the Windlectric project to proceed because the Green Energy Act in 2009 stripped all municipalties’ local land use planning powers as regards an energy project. The best the township could do was reach agreement on a “Community Benefit Fund” for an annual payment of approximately $520K. Added to that will be realty taxes of around $240K. Ontario limits the assessed value of wind turbines to only $40K per MW. The assessed value of the 26 turbines will be less than $3 million, but their capital cost is over $200 million.

All-in, the township will get about $760K annually — 2.8% of the revenue to Windlectric. Obviously, the contributions Algonquin Power and other large renewable energy companies gave to the Ontario Liberal Party were worth the money.

So, Ontario has a “robust supply” of electricity, wind turbines will harm the 34 endangered species, and we are exporting surplus generation at pennies on the dollar while curtailing wind, spilling hydro and steaming off nuclear energy.   Ontario doesn’t need the intermittent power from the turbines on Amherst Island. We don’t need them in Prince Edward County either (White Pines) (or Dutton-Dunwich, or La Nation, or North Stormont). The Minister should demonstrate that he means what he said recently in North Bay:  “There are some families in this province that are struggling to meet their energy bills. It’s why I’ve recognized and the premier has recognized that we need to do more …That is why we’re making sure we can find ways to reduce bills. Everything is on the table within reason.”

The Minister has an opportunity to save ratepayers $1 billion dollars in future rate increases by simply canceling the Amherst Island Windlectric project and the Prince Edward County White Pines project, to name two.

He should take it.

Back room conversations at the Ontario Liberal Party?

With recent polling results in Ontario putting the Ontario Liberal Party in third place and almost 60% of those polled suggesting Premier Wynne should resign, we imagine there might be some hand-wringing going on among party executives and senior MPPs.

The following is my take on how one of the strategy sessions to plan for the upcoming 2018 election might go.

The players:

VB—President of the party

SG—Liberal strategists

GM—Environment Minister

GT—Energy Minister

PW—Premier

CS—Finance Minister

VB: OK, folks, I’ve called this meeting because we are down deep in all the polling results and we only have a little over a year to turn things around.  I felt after our last planning session the announcements by the Premier and the Energy Minister to drop the 8% provincial portion of the HST and the reduction offered to rural ratepayers would do the job.  That hasn’t happened and the media have kept presenting bad news stories about hydro rates despite those two actions.  We need to do more so I need some ideas!

SG: As I see it the start of the “cap and trade” tax sure hasn’t helped the parties image either, in spite of how we painted it as Ontario “leading the world in a climate change environment.”   We also got both the environmentalists and the Prime Minister himself to bless it!  The good thing though is the tax will pull in lots of money so we should think about how we can use it.  Just a warning Charles—you may have to be imaginative when you present the budget to show it coming to balance in 2018 and Glen—most of the funds won’t be at your disposal either! We need to get voters back on side in the urban centres now too.  We are looking weak in Ottawa, Windsor and even Toronto in a few ridings.   We have to get electricity costs off the front burner!  So, how?

GM: I’m OK with not getting a chunk of the money—we are so far ahead of everyone else on this issue.

GT: Well, as you suggest, the electricity sector is at the top of the list among voter’s concerns so we have to do something to show rates going down.  We have made some noises about looking at the distribution rates and can, to a certain extent, blame the municipalities who own the local distribution companies. Or, we could blame the OEB so maybe we should focus on getting those down?  Could we use some of the “cap and trade” tax for that purpose?

PW: We have kind of teased the media that we will use some new money for exactly that, looking for more ways we can get rates down so let’s do it.  Glenn, I am glad you followed through and got some of those old gas plants shut down as that should mean the electricity sector emissions will show a slight decrease, and let’s pray for no smog days in 2017 so we can brag about it.  It also makes it look like we know what we are doing!   One thing I should tell you though, Glenn: stay away from O’Leary. Your letter to him didn’t do so well in social media.  I probably shouldn’t have gone after him either, so from now on let’s just pretend he doesn’t exist!

Now Charles, how much do you think we can put towards getting those rates down, oh, and don’t forget, as soon as we are re-elected we can put the 8% right back on those electricity bills?

CS: I figure we can throw $1.2 to 1.3 billion into the Energy Ministry pot to help get rates down. It’s less than 1% of the budget.  Glenn and I figure it will get distribution rates down quite a bit—possibly as much as $300 a year for residential ratepayers.  That would be $25 per month and should win us back a bunch of those voters that are ticked off with us.  Even if we get, say, 1 million voters back, that will go a long way to bringing us another majority.   I’m pretty sure I can find a way to come up with what looks like a balanced budget for 2018 even without that money.  Thank God the economy is showing some signs of life as that is helping to push revenues up a little bit. Some of those recent fee increases for licenses, etc. also help, not to mention the HST tax on the cap and trade tax.

SG: OK, I think this plan makes sense so let’s keep our fingers crossed and make it happen.  We will help the Premier coordinate the news releases to make sure the media can’t do anything but praise her and the party.  Timing will be key so let’s keep this under wraps for a little while and just offer some snippets to give the sense that good news is coming.  Later this year we can deliver the goods!

VB: OK.  I agree with SG that this should be a major plank in our comeback bid and we can hopefully see those polling numbers change for the better.  I have a good feeling that we will be able to get those supporters back and come through the 2018 election with another majority.  This meeting is over!

END

 

Now we taxpayers and ratepayers can sit back and watch as the Ontario LIberals do what they continue to do before the next election, or we can push for real change to reduce the burden on households rather than simply watch the shell game unfold.

As Abraham Lincoln once said: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

 

Surplus power: the other side of wind’s “success story”

Napanee gas plant: more flexible resources needed to offset intermittent wind -- trouble is, they also push emissions up
Napanee gas plant: more flexible resources needed to offset intermittent wind — trouble is, they also push emissions up

January 23, 2017

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) summarized their submission on Ontario’s long-term energy plan (LTEP) to the IESO on their website.  “Ontario is the Canadian leader in clean wind energy with 4,781 megawatts of installed capacity, supplying about 5 per cent of the electricity that Ontarians depend on,” CanWEA said. “Wind has been the largest source of new electricity generation across Canada over the past decade. Over this time, costs have come down as capacity factors have increased.”

Here’s the other side of that apparent success story. It’s not as rosy as CanWEA, the wind power industry lobbyist, would like you to believe.

The IESO just released the 2016 Electricity Data indicating industrial wind turbines (IWT) were responsible for the generation of 9.0 terawatts (TWh) of power, representing 6% of Ontario demand of 137 TWh.

What IESO doesn’t say about wind power generation, however, is annoying.  IWT generation in 2016 was actually10.7 TWh when DX (distributor connected) industrial-scale wind turbines or IWTs are included.  If the 2.2 TWh of “curtailed” wind is added, the bill to ratepayers was for 13 TWh.  The estimate of curtailed and DX wind comes from Scott Luft who does a remarkable job of tracking what is actually happening with generation.  IESO fails to disclose either curtailed or DX generation for whatever reason as they are the settlement agent for all generation in the province.

They have the data available to supply the public with those details.

Surplus baseload means possible grid failure

Not surprisingly IESO continue to run “stakeholder committees” that generate reports disclosing concerns about the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind (and solar), referencing it as “Variable Generation.” They note the production of Surplus Baseload Generation (SBG) which may cause grid failure leading to brownouts or blackouts. One of those reports from May 2016 noted: “SBG in ~65% of hours in 2015, even with 2 major nuclear outages” and “So far, SBG in ~88% of hours in 2016”.

Interestingly enough the current Minister of Energy, Glenn Thibeault on December 16, 2016 issued a directive to IESO instructing them to negotiate an exit from some of the NUG (non-utility generators) gas contracts labeled as “baseload” generators. IESO obeyed the directive as noted by my friend Scott Luft in his recent post “Ontario’s IESO steps off the gas”. We should suspect this action was not aimed at reducing SBG, but instead is aimed as trying to give credibility to the addition of the “cap and trade” tax that took effect January 1, 2017 by showing some negligible reduction in emissions.

The oxymoron in that is also to be found in a June 2016 IESO report titled: “Review of the Operability of the IESO-Controlled Grid to 2020” which suggested:

“We recommend enhancing the flexibility of Ontario supply resources to ensure that there are increased quantities of resources able to address the hour-ahead VG forecast inaccuracy, 95% of the time. This translates to needing ~1,000 MW of additional flexibility. The additional flexibility needs to be located in unconstrained parts of the system to ensure they can operate without restriction. Methods to enhance the flexibility of Ontario resources could include: increased utilization of existing resources, enabling simple cycle operation at combined cycle plants, or adding new peaking generation, grid energy storage or demand response resources. Methods chosen, which are expected to happen through open competitive processes, must ensure that they are cost effective and can meet expected operational duty requirements – given that these resources are required in the near-term to address reliability needs.”

Serious problems with wind

What IESO’s concerns and subsequent recommendations suggest is the variable and unpredictable nature of wind generation has created serious problems in the eyes of those entrusted to run Ontario’s electricity system.

So, here are the facts: power generation from wind cost Ontario’s ratepayers over $1.7 billion (approximately 12% of total generation costs) in 2016 for just over 6% of demand, and will cause ratepayers hydro bills to be further affected negatively.   IESO’s responsibility to manage the system through the exercises suggested in their recommendations will cost the system more money, increasing costs just to ensure industrial wind developments are able to extract money from the pockets of Ontario’s ratepayers.

The government of Ontario led by Premier Wynne will (in the near future) claim their actions on the electricity file were instrumental in reducing emissions, but here’s the thing: the flexible resources IESO seeks will push the emissions up again.

The trick is, that won’t be seen until after the 2018 election.

Letter to Energy Minister Thibeault: facts not insults, please

The Honourable Glenn Thibeault, Minister of Energy

Dear Minister Thibeault:

I just read your “Guest Column” in the Toronto Sun headlined: “Energy minister rips report on closing coal plants.”

Your article seeks to discredit the work of the Fraser Institute referring to it as a “right-wing” institution, and the principal author as a “climate change denier” despite their record of achievements!

Interestingly enough, you don’t stop there to insult the authors, but ramble on with further insults and launch into rhetoric without any discernable facts.   You cite a variety of organizations without offering any specifics on how they; either researched the relationships between Ontario’s coal plants and those in neighbouring jurisdictions, or the effects of what those plants were spewing that wound up in Ontario’s air.   If you bothered to actually research the information the report contains you will see the authors effectively proved closing Ontario’s coal plants did little to improve air quality but what was effective turned out to be the switching of electricity generation in our neighbours’ land from coal generation to gas generation.  The prevailing winds did the rest! 

Throwing insults around is not an effective way to make a point.

It is interesting that you pick one year only to note the number of “smog days” Ontario experienced.  If you had checked with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change you would have learned that in  2012 we had 30 such days, in 2009 we had only five, but in 2007 we had 39.  If you are going to cite statistics you should not just pick one that makes the weak point you are striving for unless you can prove it wasn’t an aberration.

Your closing was presumably meant to show your compassion (like the Prime Minister’s hug the other night) and it does a nice job but I would note a lot of people remember back in July, August and September when all the bad news was hitting the press about energy poverty, people having to choose between eating or paying their electricity bill.  At that time Ontarians found out that at the end of 2015 there were 566,902 ratepaying households in arrears and 60,000 ratepayers were disconnected.  Those households in arrears represented over 12% of all of Ontario’s ratepayers and the many of the 60,000 households cut off had some very sad stories that the mainstream media picked up on.

Your compassion at that time was not flattering and the fix you brought in has been mitigated by the advent of the “cap and trade” tax that will continue to cause energy poverty. 

It is time your Ministry accepted responsibility for the mess that has been created in this province, home to the highest electricity prices in the country and the fastest rising in the U.S. or Canada.

Yours truly,

Parker Gallant,

A concerned citizen

Outrageous: Ontario’s electricity CO 2 reductions cost

January 16, 2017

Ontario Premier Wynne: not to be outdone  (Lucas Oleniuk/Toronto Star via Getty Images)
Ontario Premier Wynne: not to be outdone

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on October 3, 2016 he would put a price on carbon starting in 2018, if the provinces have not put one in place. He also announced the price would start at $10 a ton and rise to $50 per ton by 2022.  As Ontario residents may already know, as of January 1, 2017 the Premier Wynne-led government already moved in that direction imposing a “cap and trade” tax they claim will burden us with a cost of $13 per month via a tax on gasoline and one on our home heating source of natural gas.

This new tax comes on top of one ratepayers in this province should already be aware of as we have been paying for carbon reduction for some time via our electricity bills.

A website providing the Ontario Energy Report states at the bottom it “was first produced in Q3 2014” and uses IESO as its data source.  The quarterly reports contain lots of information; however, they are generally not available until the end of the quarter following the one being reported on.  The reports provide: generation achieved from the TX (transmission connected) market and details on the capacity of both TX and DX (local distributor connected) sectors.  The report is also specific in terms of both exports of surplus electricity and imports and their respective destinations (exports) or sources (imports).  Contained in the 16 pages are many charts and graphs providing information on other facts such as the average hourly electricity price (HOEP), the Global Adjustment (GA) by ratepayer class (A and B), conservation initiatives, etc.

The report also has a graph specific to CO2 emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector starting in 2007 and identifies, by year, the Megatonne (MT) emissions.   If one looks at 2009, which is the year the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) was passed, total emissions were 16 MT. In 2015 emissions had dropped to 7 MT.  The 7 MT in 2015 were flat measured against 2014’s emissions and, based on results available for the first three quarters of 2016, it appears set to a level that will be around 5.5 MT!  The drop of 10.5 MT since 2009 suggests the Ontario electricity sector reduced CO2 emissions by 10,5 million tons.

How much have Ontario electricity customers paid?

Ontario ratepayers should suspect the foregoing results have been achieved via our electricity bills as they have climbed at multiples of inflation to accommodate renewable energy in the form of wind, solar, biomass, etc.   So, how much have we have paid, and continue to pay, for that achievement, and what does that translate to on a cost per ton basis?

That question can be answered in part by the Ontario Auditor General (Bonnie Lysyk) report of late 2015. That report noted ratepayers paid $37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014 for contracts negotiated by the Ontario Power Authority, and they will pay another $137 billion more by 2032 to satisfy those and other contract obligations through to their expiries.

That brings the cost to $170 billion.

The AG’s report noted wind and solar contracts were estimated to have been paid $9.2 billion over the actual market value, due to prices that failed to reflect the drop in a competitive environment.

So, using the $170 billion to calculate the cost per ton to reduce the 10.5 million tons of CO2 emissions, it appears ratepayers are paying about $16,000 per ton.   Using only the $9.2 billion (wind and solar) the cost per ton of reducing CO2 emissions comes in at over $835 per ton.  The latter cost does not account for the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar which requires back-up from gas plants and easily doubles the costs, raising the emission reduction cost to over $1,600 per ton.

What the ratepayers of Ontario have been paying to reduce emissions in the electricity sector makes the Prime Minister’s upcoming carbon tax of $10 a ton in 2018 and $50 per ton by 2022 look like chump change!

If he really is intent on driving the Canadian economy into the ground, he needs to take a lesson from Ontario’s Premier Wynne and her predecessor, Premier McGuinty.

Ontario electricity customers paid millions for wind in November

January 14, 2017

strongwindweather

The line of poetry “it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good” was a reality in November for Ontario ratepayers. The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) finally released their November 2016 Monthly Market Report on Friday, January 13, 2017 and there was not much good news in it.

While net exports* were down compared to the same month in 2015, it wasn’t related to the amount of wind power generated and curtailed (estimates of the latter from Scott Luft); that exceeded November 2015 by about 152,000 megawatts (MWh) and clocked in at 1,363,000 MWh.  Generated and curtailed power exceeded Ontario’s net exports in 2015, representing 102.7% versus 72.9% the previous year.  One should suspect November 2016 also saw spilled hydro and steamed off nuclear, but at 102.7% of our net exports, it is obvious that power generation from wind was clearly not needed.

November 2016 was not the month with the highest combination of generated and curtailed wind, but rather the second highest. The highest, according to Scott’s estimates, was December 2016, but we will save that report for another day.

Exported power could have served half of Ontario

Net exports in November 2016 were equivalent to the power that approximately 150,000 “average”** Ontario households would use in a year, or to put it another way, was sufficient to supply 2.4 million of those same households for the whole month of November. That is slightly more than 50% of all Ontario households.

The net exports of 1,326,960 MWh in November 2016 cost Ontario ratepayers $169 million to generate and sold at an average price of $16.69 per/MWh, resulting in income of  $21.4 million.  What that means is, Ontario’s electricity ratepayers subsidized the sale, picking up the difference of $l47.4 million, along with another $30.8 million for the 254,000 MWh of curtailed wind.  Past and present Energy Ministers in the Wynne-led government would probably claim the deeply discounted sale price for those exported MWh was actually a “profit” but most ratepayers recognize that claim to be untrue.

Cancel the contracts

Current Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault has a chance to make his mark by halting all planned acquisition of wind power generation in LRP I and LRP II, as well as cancelling any wind power projects that have not commenced construction, or which have passed their critical “operational” dates.

Time to treat industrial-scale wind power development as that “ill wind”!

© Parker Gallant

*Net Exports are total exports less total imports.

**The Ontario Energy Board claims the “average” Ontario household consumes 9 MWh annually, or 9,000 kilowatts.