Ontario Power Generation report: good news and bad news

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) just released its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2016.

It’s a mix of good and bad news.

For example, gross revenue (net of fuel expenses) increased by $137 million and $34 million of that increase found its way to the bottom line, for a $436 million profit.

Generation from 2015 increased slightly from 78 terawatt hours (TWh) to 78.2 TWh, with nuclear generation increasing by 1.1 TWh and hydro decreasing by .9 TWh, which was further exacerbated (see next paragraph) by spillage due to surplus base-load conditions.

The bad news was that 4.7 TWh of hydro was “spilled” or wasted in 2016, up from 3.7 TWh in 2015. Those wasted 4.7 TWh of power could have supplied more than 500,000 (approximately 11% of all residential ratepayers) average Ontario homes with electricity for the full year.

The spillage by OPG didn’t affect their revenue, however, as they are paid for spillage at an average of about $44/MWh or $44 million/TWh. That means they received $207 million for wasted power and paid the Ontario Ministry of Finance the “water rental” fee for the spillage (although the latter wasn’t disclosed in the report).

Other “good/bad” news indicates OPG sold their Head Office on University Avenue in Toronto with closing scheduled for the second quarter of 2017. They expect the sale will generate an after-tax profit of $200 million.  The bad news is, OPG is obligated to turn over the profit to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The land, building and maintenance costs fell to the ratepayers of Ontario to pay for via the electricity rates, yet the profit generated on its sale will be tossed into the bottomless pit of the Finance Ministry, instead of going towards reducing OPG’s costs of generation which could have benefited ratepayers.  That $200 million won’t even pay the interest on Ontario’s debt for a week!

SOLD! But the money won’t help you ..

The previous Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli on June 9, 2016 (four days before he was replaced by Glenn Thibeault) also issued a “declaration” to OPG instructing them: “to transfer, sell, dispose of or divest all of the Corporation’s interest in the Lakeview Site, comprised of the Municipal Park Lands and the Uplands”.  The Lakeview site is 67 acres running along the Lake Ontario shoreline and the Municipal Park Lands are the remaining 110 acres of the Lakeview Site.  Any excess revenues associated with the sale is to be transferred to the Government (Consolidated Revenue Fund), again rather than going to reduce electricity rates.

Ontario’s ratepayers absorbed the impairment costs of closing the coal plants in 2003, absorbing a “loss of $576 million as a result of the termination of cash flows from these stations after 2007.” The ratepayers of the province deserve to benefit from any recovery resulting from the write-off of the plant closings!

All this is more evidence of the “shell game” being perpetrated on Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers and the continuing legacy of the McGuinty/Wynne-led governments.

More to come …

Advertisements

Where did our $50 billion go? Or, how Ontario citizens lost $18 mil in just 2 days

Premier Wynne making her announcement: no accounting for costs [Photo: PostMedia]
Almost a week after Premier Wynne announced her plan to reduce our electricity bills by 25%, the wind was blowing!  On March 8, six days after the cost shifting  announcement (from ratepayer to taxpayer), potential power generation from wind was forecast by IESO to produce at levels of 80/95% of their capacity, for many hours of the day.  IESO was concerned about grid stability and as a consequence, curtailed much of the forecasted generation.

When the Premier made her announcement about reducing hydro bills, she also claimed “Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.”

It is worth noting that much of that $50 billion was spent acquiring wind and solar generation and its associated spending on transmission, plus gas plants (to back them up because the power is intermittent), and distribution assets to hook them into the grid or embed them with the local distribution companies. It would have been informative if Premier Wynne had had Energy Minister Glen Thibeault provide an accounting of exactly what the $50 billion was spent on.

As it turned out the amount of curtailed wind generated on March 8 was 37,044 megawatt hours (MWh) was just short of the record of 38,018 MWh set almost a year ago on March 16, 2016 (estimated by my friend Scott Luft).  The curtailed wind on March 8, 2017 cost Ontario’s ratepayers $120/MWh or $4,445,280.

The cost on March 16, 2016 was $4,562,160.

What does it mean? Curtailing or restricting power output but paying for it anyway means a portion of the $50 billion spent was simply wasted money. It went to the corporate power developers that rushed to sign those above-market contracts for renewable power.

The other interesting aspect of the surplus power generation on March 16, 2016 and March 8, 2017 is revealed in IESO’s Daily Market Summaries: the hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP)  March 16, 2016 was negative at -$1.25/MWh and on March 8th, 2017 was also negative at -.49 cents/MWh. This meant ratepayers paid for surplus exports sold to our neighbours in New York and Michigan, etc. Net exports (exports minus imports) on March 16, 2016 were 52,368 MWh, and on March 8, 2017 were 37,944 MWh. Total costs of their generation (HOEP + GA) fell to Ontario’s ratepayers along with the cost of any spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear and idling gas plants.

Millions here, millions there = a whole lot of wasted money

So, bear with me here, if we price the cost of the net exports at $110/MWh for those two days, ratepayer costs were approximately $9.8 million with $5.7 million for March 16, 2016 net exports and $4.1 million for March 8, 2017 net exports, not including the $84,000 we paid our neighbours to take our power.

How much did it cost you? Two days out of 729 (2016 was a leap year) cost Ontario ratepayers about $18.1 million for power not delivered (curtailed wind) or needed (net exports).

I hope this helps Minister Thibeault in his calculations for a long overdue accounting to Ontario citizens as to where the other $49.982 billion went.

 

Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

While the Premier was promising relief for Ontario electricity customers (and blaming lots of other people), more proof of the government’s mistakes was occurring …

The press conference and press release on March 2nd for Premier Wynne’s announcement on reducing electricity bills by 25% took a full hour — she and Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault hung around to answer questions from the media.

The speech and the press release were a mea culpa — she apparently hadn’t noticed rates had climbed and referred to those high rates as the “elephant in the room.”  She laid the blame on all previous governments in her answers to questions, for example:

Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.

The decision to eliminate Ontario’s use of coal and produce clean, renewable power, as well as policies put in place to provide targeted support to rural and low-income customers, have created additional costs.

If the premier was genuinely interested in the cause for high electricity bills she could have looked no farther back than her immediate predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty brought Ontario the Green Energy Act and the misinformed, unfounded belief that getting power from industrial wind turbines and solar panels, while paying at price multiples of other available reliable power, would work!

Those wind turbines and solar panels were generating power out of phase with Ontario demand even during her news conference, for which ratepayers are paying as much as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh).

During the news conference hour, Ontario ratepayers consumed 17,300 megawatt hours (MWh); 85% of that consumption was provided by nuclear (10,000 MWh) and hydro (4,900 MWh).  The balance came from gas, wind, solar and biomass. The average generation cost of nuclear and hydro generation was about $59/MWh (5.9 cents/kWh) and $191/MWh (19.1 cents/kWh) for the 15% provided by gas, wind, solar and biomass.   The former costs include the “water tax” on hydro generation and the “decommissioning and fuel disposal” costs of nuclear whereas the latter does NOT include the cost of curtailed wind, idling costs of gas plants or the costs of moving those two gas plants from Oakville and Mississauga to save Liberal seats during the McGuinty era!

Also during that hour, Ontario exported 1,075 MWh to Michigan and 1,203 MWh to New York.  Those 2,078 MWh (20% of Ontario’s demand) were sold to our neighbours at an average of $11.38/MWh (1.14 cents/kWh). The exports cost about $202,000, under the contract terms, yet resulted in just $23,000 of revenue to offset that cost. Ontario ratepayers picked up the loss of $179,000.

In fact, for that whole day, “net exports” hit Ontario’s ratepayers with a cost of $2.4 million.

Admitting she made a “mistake” while blaming decades of previous “governments of all stripes” is not a solution. And the 25% reduction in bills isn’t real, either: Premier Wynne is kicking the can down the road and laying the burden of her mistake on taxpayers.  She still doesn’t appear to have the political courage to admit she, Mr. McGuinty and their governments made a mistake believing the environmental non-government organizations who persuaded them to believe in a green dream that has now, negatively affected all ratepayers in the province, driving away jobs in the private sector.

The herd of elephants is still in the room. Premier Wynne should start clearing them out by cancelling all wind and solar contracts that have not put a shovel in the ground!

The hydro bill shell game plays on

shellgame

The shell game recently announced to the taxpayers of Ontario by Premier Wynne and her trained seals is contained in these statements: “Bringing down rates by 25% and fixing the system’s structure — that’s the approach that I believe in. I think it’s better for Ontario. And I know it’s fairer on families.”

The media isn’t buying it. They clearly describe how the rate reduction will happen, and the shifting of dollars to accomplish the claim of “fixing the system’s structure” has been widely discredited.  Wynne’s gambit is reported as a “shell game” or as “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  Perhaps the Premier should have gone about her plan without the fanfare associated with a news conference and press release and she may have avoided some of the negative attention!

Avoiding negative feedback was something Bob Chiarelli managed as Energy Minister when he shifted almost $500 million in electricity costs to the delivery line of our hydro bills, almost unnoticed.   All he had to do was make a simple change to regulation 275/04.

But there is no doubt that move, effective July 1, 2013, had an impact on the delivery line and was a concern mentioned by Premier Wynne in her speech on January 19, 2017, as reported by the CBC when she said, “The delivery charge is something that comes up repeatedly. I am hearing it consistently as I talk to people across the province.”

The July 1, 2013 change, as noted in the Search Laws Web page, simply added the following to the “Delivery” clause 3.(2) regulation:

“Note: On July 1, 2013, subsection (2) is amended by adding “and” at the end of clause (c) and by adding the following clause: (See: O. Reg. 405/12, ss. 1, 5) all charges related to losses incurred in the distribution of electricity, except for such amounts that are already included in regulatory charges under subsection 4 (2).”*

That simple regulation change effectively increased the delivery line costs by $500 million ** while reducing the electricity costs by the same amount. One should suspect Minister Chiarelli, at that time, recognized rates had increased 28% from May 1, 2009 to May 1, 2013 and would increase by another 40% over the next five years. In the latter case when he released his version of the LTEP in December 2013 the forecast for rate increases had climbed to 42%. Presumably by shifting the costs of “line losses” he felt he would be able to add more intermittent and unreliable wind and solar to the grid.

On June 27, 2013 the Ontario Energy Board issued their instructions to the local distribution companies telling them to comply with the regulatory change. That letter said: “Changes to the Bill Presentation Regulation that come into force on July 1, 2013 require that costs associated with losses be shown differently for billing purposes than they are today, as described in section 2 below.”*

The shift of moving “line losses” from the electricity line to the delivery line immediately increased distribution costs by 15%** so it should come as no surprise to the Premier that “The delivery charge is something that comes up repeatedly”.

Dalton McGuinty started this shell game when he was the premier; now Premier Wynne and her appointees to the Energy Portfolio simply follow along.

The Ontario Liberal government clearly believes we will never find the pea!

* My emphasis.

** Based on average line losses of 3.7% (4.628 terawatts) as reported by the OEB in the 2015 Yearbook of Distributors.

Energy Minister’s promise of action causes concern

Past ministerial promises haven’t worked out so well. Why should we have faith in a minister who admits mistakes but then says he is planning major change?

Glenn Thibeault, Minister of Energy, spoke at a breakfast session for the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa and admitted that “Ontario” (not the Liberal Party or his predecessors in the energy portfolio)  screwed up by paying too much for renewable energy.

Shock.

While that was a significant admission by Mr. Thibeault, recall that only three weeks earlier he claimed “We have the system of the future paid with yesterday’s dollars.”

His Ottawa remarks claimed Ontario’s leadership position in green energy was “absolutely the right policy,” yet the attractive fixed-term contracts handed out “created a bonanza” for wind and solar providers but “left ratepayers with a hangover.”   Minister Thibeault’s many claims made in that speech about eliminating “heavily polluting coal-fired power plants,” how “we drove significant investment in the province,” how “demand for electricity plummeted in the steep recession” of 2008, and how “Ontario had taken a leadership position in green energy,” have all been disputed by many. As just one example, the Green Energy Act (GEA), the feed-in tariff program and time-of-use pricing mechanisms were all policies copied from Germany and Denmark, and not a leading position.

Billions spent without proper planning: AG

The apparent surprise, “Ontario was paying too much for renewable energy,” was already noted by Auditor General Jim McCarter in his December 5, 2011 report: “Billions of dollars of new wind and solar power projects were approved without many of the usual planning, regulatory, and oversight processes.”

The AG report came over a year after then Energy Minister Brad Duguid released his Long-Term Energy Plan, calling for 10,700 MW of  renewable energy from wind and solar. Minister Duguid also directed spending on the Niagara Tunnel ($1.5 billion) and the Lower Mattagami River ($2.6 billion) hydro projects which presumably are some of those “yesterday’s dollars” Thibeault mentions.   Just before his LTEP was released, Minister Duguid pulled the plug on the Oakville gas plant and said, “As we’re putting together an update to our Long-Term Energy Plan, it has become clear we no longer need this plant in Oakville.”  More “yesterday’s dollars”!

As the electricity rates started spiraling upwards, Minister Duguid gave us the OCEB (Ontario Clean Energy Benefit) in February 2011, which took 10% off electricity bills for the following five years, and also added over $5 billion to the province’s debt.

Now many critics (me included) of the GEA said renewable energy would drive up electricity prices soon after the GEA was passed. One of the first articles I pointed this out in appeared seven years ago (February 24, 2010) in the Financial Post where I commented,  “As expensive electricity coming from wind and solar power slowly works its way through the system, many more rate increases will follow.”  (Several months later Minister Duguid labeled me as  a “self-appointed guru” on the Goldhawk Live TV show.  Perhaps he considered my forecasts to be “fake news”.)

Promises, promises

Back to Minister Thibeault’s speech: the remark we should all be concerned about is, “In the coming weeks you’re going to hear about out plan, how it will impact businesses and families, and most importantly, how it will provide structural changes that ensure both immediate and lasting relief.”

We ratepayers have seen claims like that before. On February 17, 2011, Minister Duguid promised: Creating more than 50,000 jobs in the clean energy economy” and “Helping reduce costs for consumers and making the power system more efficient through conservation”. 

Those jobs were never created and we reportedly reduced our consumption by the 7,100 MW Duguid had as a target, but our electricity bills increased.  In February 2011, the average electricity rate was 6.84 cents/kWh; and in Feb. 2017 it is 11.1 cents/kWh — an increase of 62.2% in just six years.  Off-peak rates are up over 70%.

The “structural changes” promised by Minister Thibeault may well turn out like past promises and fail to deliver anything close to what is promised.

Minister Thibeault and the Wynne government should instead cancel unfulfilled wind and solar contracts, LRP II (currently suspended), move the Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and stop the annual spending of $400 million on conservation programs.

Leave the planning to the experts!

 

More Global Adjustment: what the costs are

February 21, 2017

The Global Adjustment (GA) charge in 2016 was responsible for 85% of the cost of electricity billed to all of Ontario’s ratepayers, less for large industrial clients.  The cost of the GA is for the cost of generation of electricity at the door (metaphorically) of the generation unit.  It does not include “line losses” which are found in the “delivery” lines of our bills and represented a cost of approximately $400 million at an average 3% line loss!

In dollar terms, IESO reported the 85% cost of the GA was $12.333 billion in 2016.  Because of the size of those GA costs the question on many minds is, what is it?   Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues defines it this way: “It is simply a price recovery mechanism. It is the difference between the price the government promised any particular electricity generating company and the ‘market’ price of electricity.” 

So what are the relative parts of the GA which place the biggest burden on the climb in costs in the “electricity” line we have experienced.

The IESO published a News Release  on January 18, 2017 providing statistics on:  generation by fuel type and its percentage of contribution; ratepayer costs per kilowatt (kWh) for both the GA (9.66 cents per  kWh) and for the HOEP (1.66 cents/kWh) or market price;  and, imports and exports and provincial demand (137 TWh).  IESO don’t provide generation produced within the DX (distributor connected) sector.  The following are best estimates of some of the DX generated electricity and curtailed wind.

Wind

IESO report wind generated 9.3 TWh and Scott Luft reported 1.7 TWh were generated by DX connected wind turbines making total generated generation 11 TWh at a cost of $135 million per TWH (3.5 cents/kWh). An additional 2.2 TWh were curtailed at a cost of $120 million/TWh.

Total cost of wind capacity in 2016

11 TWh @ $135MM/TWh: $1,485 MM

2.2 TWh curtailed wind @$120MM/TWh: $264MM

TOTAL cost wind: $1,749 MM

LESS HOEP value of 11 TWh @$16.6MM/TWh: $183 MM

NET COST of wind to GA $1,566 MM

Solar

IESO reported solar generated .46 TWh in 2016 and the best estimate of DX generated solar at 15% of rated capacity for the 2,100 MW is 2.76 TWh for a total of 3.22 TWh. The average cost of solar generation in the province (roof and ground mounted) is about $480 million per TWh (48 cents/kWh).

Total cost of solar capacity in 2016:

3.22 TWh @480MM/TWh: $1,546MM

LESS HOEP value of 3.22 TWh @$16.6 MM/TWh: $53MM

NET COST of solar to GA: $1,493 MM         

Gas

Due to the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar generation it must be backed up by other reliable generation capable of providing generation when the wind isn’t blowing or the clouds cover the sky. The back-up is generally provided by gas plants.  With 6,800 MW of wind and solar capacity the suggested replacement is 90% of capacity or about 6,120 MW of gas generation representing about 62% of its installed capacity (9,943 MW per IESO).  Gas plants are viewed as “peaking” plant capacity so contracts call for a monthly payment related to the amortized cost per MW and reputedly ranges from $10/15,000 per month per MW.   This calculation will use $10,000 per month/MW!

Total cost of gas generation as back-up for Wind and Solar in 2016

 6,120 MW @ $10,000 per month (6,120 X $10,000 X 12): $ 734 MM

Conservation

Another portion of money included in the GA is conservation spending allocated to all of the LDC based on commitments to reduce their demand over the 2015-2020 period. The total budget over those six years is about $2 billion so equates to $300 million per annum with a significant portion allocated to businesses and upgrades for low-income households.  The LDCs are allowed to apply for rate increases associated with their decline in revenue as a result of the conservation once achieved.

Total cost of conservation spending in 2016

Estimate based on 2015-2020 budget of $2B over 6 years: $ 300 MM

Ontario Electricity Support Program

The Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) launched on January 1, 2016 is aimed at low-income households who have suffered from the climb in electricity rates. The OEB study released in late 2014 estimated the cost of the program at $200/$225 million.  Logically, if the province was responsible for driving an estimated 571,000 ratepayers into energy poverty, the program’s cost should have been allocated to the Ontario Ministry of  Community and Social Services, but instead it has become another cost to all Ontario ratepayers.  At this point, the estimate of the first year’s costs are unknown, but if one assumes the OEB’s estimates were close they will impact all ratepayers.

Total cost of the OESP

 Estimate based on OEB’s study: $ 200 MM

GRAND TOTAL COST all of the above: $4,293 MM

Cost per terawatt hour of 14.22 TWh from wind, solar, conservation and OESP added to the GA  $302 million/TWh or 30.2 cents per kWh

 Missing from the above calculation is spilled hydro and nuclear power steamed off at Bruce Nuclear due to surplus base-load generation from wind and solar. The latter would add about another 5 TWh and another $300 million driving the per kWh cost to 32.5 cents per kWh.

If one deducts the 14.22 TWh from total Ontario generation (including DX) in 2016 one is left with 140.1 TWh and if the $4,293 million is deducted from the $12.333 billion of the 2014 GA cost the 140.1 terawatts from nuclear, hydro and gas generation cost was 19% of the GA or                   $57.38 million/TWh or 5.74 cents per kWh

The time has come to kill the Green Energy Act and return to sanity!

Definition of the Global Adjustment: confusing

February 20, 2017

Can it be that even the Minister of Energy (at the time) didn't understand it?
Can it be that even the Minister of Energy (at the time) didn’t understand it?

The term “Global Adjustment” (GA) made its appearance on certain electricity bills on January 2011 and created confusion among those with a “retail” contract. (Previously, there had been a line item called the Provincial Benefit.)   The definition of “global” is “relating to the whole world” and “adjustment” is “alter slightly” — no wonder people are confused!

Brad Duguid was the Minister of Energy at the time of the name change which occurred the same time the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) began.  The OCEB followed the addition of the 8% provincial portion of the HST on hydro bills, along with start of the ICI (see below) and people were receiving bills with shocking increases.

At the same time as the name changed to GA from Provincial Benefit, the way billing occurred for ratepayers with peak capacity over 5 MW (large industrial companies) also started, providing a subsidy from other provincial ratepayers, and was called the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI).

In 2016 the GA represented $12.333 billion. On its own the GA, if it were a Ministry, would rank as third highest in provincial expenditures.

The Wynne government seems to have noticed this expenditure and its effect on households and businesses. CTV News on February 14, 2017 reported: “Senior officials told CTV Toronto that the plan will likely target the global adjustment fee, which fluctuates based on per-kilowatt-hour cost, and makes up approximately 85 per cent of the cost of electricity.

The news report went on to say, “The fee was introduced in 2005, to help the province pay for new power plants as well as for investments in new energy projects. Now the government is considering spreading out payment over a longer period.”

That statement is obviously incorrect: it is Ontario’s ratepayers who pay for investments in new power plants and new energy projects. Spreading payment over a longer period is unacceptable as “amortization” (estimating the life span of the plants and projects) is a predetermined factor and unlikely to be changed.  That is why the Darlington nuclear plants are being refurbished.

Clarifying the GA

Now if one is looking for a simple explanation of what the GA is, Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues defines it:  “It is simply a price recovery mechanism. It is the difference between the price the government promised any particular electricity generating company and the “market” price of electricity.”

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) describes it as “This charge accounts for the differences between the market price and the rates paid to regulated and contracted generators and for conservation and demand management programs.”

On the surface the “GA”sounds simple unless you get the definition from some politicians or even some bureaucrats within the Ontario Ministry of Energy.  Following are a couple of excerpts from the “Standing Committee on Estimates, Energy Ministry on October 6, 2015”.   Then Minister Bob Chiarelli and his Deputy Minister, Mr. Serge Imbrogno were asked about the GA.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: “—independently verified by the Ontario Energy Board, and it’s part of the all-in electricity price. Without the global adjustment, generators across Ontario would be unable to produce power. My understanding is that the global adjustment actually was initiated by the Conservative government when they were in office. I’ll turn it over—”

Mr. Serge Imbrogno: “I’ll be quick. The regulation price plan is calculated by the OEB. The OEB hires—I think they’ve had Navigant, in the past, to do the calculation. Partly it’s what’s in the global adjustment; partly it’s that they have a variance account, depending on if they collected too much or too little during the year. So it’s a calculation that the OEB makes. We don’t have that information to share with you at this point.”

Could it be that the two most senior people in the Ministry of Energy— where the GA was conceived — were unable to provide even a simple response? And the Minister himself was unaware it was his government that created the GA?

Premier thoughts

The September 2016 Speech from the Throne declared: “Since 2011, the Industrial Conservation Initiative has encouraged large electricity users — primarily large industrial customers — to take on-site steps to shift consumption away from peak periods and lower their electricity costs by up to one third. To benefit more businesses, your government will expand eligibility for the Industrial Conservation Initiative by lowering the threshold for participation and broadening participation to all sectors.”

What that means for Ontario’s households and the many small and medium sized businesses is pretty simple: the cost of subsidizing larger businesses will go up, meaning that benefit you may have received from the 8% reduction to your electricity bill will be wiped out.

Metro News Toronto, on December 19, 2016 quoted Premier Wynne about the issue of putting the GA on hydro bills. “I think being as transparent on bills as possible is a really good objective, but my challenge is greater than that,” she said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press. “It’s not just about breaking out the number on the bill, it’s actually figuring out how to reduce that number.”

Perhaps the Premier should concentrate on getting herself and her cabinet to understand what the composition of the $12.333 billion that constitutes the Global Adjustment is before she tries to figure out how to reduce it!

NEXT: a calculation of the partial makeup of the $12.333 billion in the 2016 GA.