Which is it, Mr Manley?

John Manley of the Business Council of Canada is complaining that cancelling wind power contracts is bad for business. But he says high electricity costs are bad for business, too.

Business spokesperson John Manley doesn’t get it: high-priced wind power contracts aren’t good for business

July 27, 2018

The unwanted and unneeded 18.45 MW White Pines wind power project being erected in Prince Edward County is receiving a lot of attention. The people in “The County” have been fighting the project for years with some success and were continuing that fight.  Nevertheless, IESO granted wpd Canada an NTP (notice to proceed) after the writ for the Ontario election was drawn up, and the power developer charged ahead.

They did so knowing the newly elected Premier Ford-led government were proceeding with a “special act” in the Ontario Legislature to stop the project. German owned wpd ignored the backdating of the “act” to July 10, 2018 and in response to the “act” (noted in a CBC article) responded: “The company has indicated that it will seek to recoup $100-million that it has sunk into the project, but it is not clear how much the provincial government will agree to pay. The legislation requires wpd to cover the cost of decommissioning the project and to restore the land to ‘clean and safe condition’.”

The action caused Berlin’s ambassador to Canada Sabine Sparwasser to suggest the move to cancel the project represents a black mark for the province in the eyes of foreign investors: “Obviously, every incoming government has the right to change policy direction. But to have a unilateral cancellation pushed through by law that way is unsettling for the company, but is also something that will unsettle other potential investors.”

Shortly after, John Manley, President of the Business Council of Canada, wrote a letter to Premier Ford in which he said: “(The Act) would revoke permits several years after the proponent obtained them from the appropriate regulatory bodies, cancel contracts with the Independent Electricity System Operator that were negotiated in good faith and unilaterally set the terms upon which the proponent may be eligible for compensation.” What Mr. Manley failed to note is that wpd were facing three charges under the Environmental Protection Act and the NTP was issued after the writ period, so it was in fact the proponent who failed to act in “good faith”. Mr. Manley did not fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the proposed act and simply sided with the developer without consideration of the other contentious issues.

Interesting is a letter Mr. Manley sent to Premier Wynne, last June 15, 2017 in which he noted: “According to the Ministry of Finance’s Long-Term Report on the Economy, Ontario’s average annual growth rate is projected to slow to 2.2 per cent between 2016-2020. At the same time, businesses in Ontario are adjusting to sharply higher electricity rates, higher CPP contribution rates and the implementation of a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas reductions.”

Yet another letter Mr. Manley sent to Glen Murray, then Ontario’s Minster of the Environment and Climate Change back in March 2015 stated: “Ontario firms are facing a number of challenges, not the least of which is higher electricity costs as a result of policies already adopted by the government.”

It would appear Mr. Manley, a former Liberal MP and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, failed to realize how industrial wind turbines helped cause those “higher electricity costs.” At the same time, he seems to condone the actions of parties who fail to follow legislation meant to protect voters and our environment.

Mr. Manley and the Council he represents cannot have it both ways.

Advertisements

Ontario’s wind turbines demonstrate what they can’t deliver: reliability

The wind power lobbyist makes impressive claims but reality is a different story

Ontario turbines at Belle River: power not there when needed

 

In a bid to be assertive after the Speech from the Throne last Thursday and Premier Ford’s pronouncement of the upcoming demise of the Green Energy Act, CanWEA’s (Canadian Wind Energy Association) President Robert Hornung issued the following announcement

He made some impressive claims.

Maintaining investor confidence in the Ontario marketplace is important for Ontario’s short- and long-term economic prosperity. The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) shares the Ontario Government’s commitment to an affordable and reliable electricity system that benefits Ontarians. CanWEA notes that wind energy projects in Ontario are an important source of sustained revenue for municipal and Indigenous partners. Ontario’s wind energy projects are providing long-term, stable pricing for Ontario ratepayers. Wind energy is now the lowest-cost option for new electricity supply in Ontario, across Canada, and throughout much of the world.”

Focusing on the weekend immediately following Mr. Hornung’s announcement is an interesting exercise. Examining his use of the words “reliable electricity system” is worthwhile to see if it has any bearing on generation from industrial wind turbines (IWT).

As it turns out, both Saturday July 14th and Sunday July 15th delivered pretty average summer days with Ontario demand of 837,000 MWh and total demand (including net exports) of 910,000 MWh. Over those two days, grid-connected IWTs in Ontario delivered 11,329 MWh.

What that means: wind turbines operated at a capacity value that was 5.4% of their rated capacity of over 4,400 MW. Peak output was at 12 AM on July 14th when they generated 969 MWh or 22% of rated capacity. The lowest output was at 10 AM on July 15th when they were probably consuming more than their output of 26 MWh, or 0.6% of their rated capacity.

Wind power generators represent 11.9% of total grid-connected capacity in Ontario according to IESO, so if they are promoted as part of “reliable” electricity, it’s not too far a reach to expect them to demonstrate their reliability.

It appears CanWEA’s claim is false.

Over the two weekend days they generated 1.4% of Ontario’s demand and only 1.2% of total demand.

If that is considered a “reliable” electricity source, Ontario’s ratepayers have been taking it on the chin since the wind contracts were awarded. Those contracts have had the opposite effect of bringing Ontario “short- and long-term economic prosperity” as our electricity cost increases have been more than double those of our neighbours.

All Ontario’s ratepayers are grateful that nuclear and hydro generation, (supported by gas generators during peak periods) were up and running over the past weekend.

Now all we ratepayers need is for the President of CanWEA to finally confess: wind power is intermittent and NOT reliable, and, oh yes, very expensive!

 

Should the Pickering nuclear plant be closed? Not based on cost and performance…

Pickering: working at 95% capacity during the heat wave [Photo: OPG]
July 6, 2018

Wind power a failure during recent high demand during heat wave; dependable power needed

I got a call at 11 a.m. on June 25th from the producer of the Scott Thompson show on CHML 900 AM to appear on the show to discuss the suggestion by NDP leader Andrea Horwath about closing the Pickering Nuclear plant.

Essentially it was about her statement during the election campaign indicating the NDP’s position on Pickering:  “we will begin the decommissioning process immediately, which will bring more jobs to the area — as opposed to the Liberal plan, which is to mothball that facility for 30 years and allow the next generation to figure out the decommissioning”.

Doug Ford, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, on the other hand stated: “The Pickering plant can continue to safely operate until at least 2024. We can generate 14 per cent of Ontario’s power needs right here”.

The producer suggested Scott wanted to explore the opposing issues with me.

Aware I was scheduled to be on his show at 12:35 p.m., and remembering that a Brady Yauch article a few months earlier in the Financial Post had suggested closing Pickering, I felt I should do more research before the call back.  Brady’s principal point was Pickering was a poor performer and the estimated costs ($300 million) of the extension would prove to be negative for ratepayers.

OPG’s website describes Pickering as follows: “Pickering Nuclear has six operating CANDU® (CANadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors. The station has a total output of 3,100 megawatts (MW) which is enough to serve a city of one and a half million people, and about 14 per cent of Ontario’s electricity needs.”.

Pickering Nuclear traces its roots back to 1971 when it first commenced operation with four units and expanded to eight units in 1983.  Two of the first four units have been in voluntary lay-up since 1997.  The CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) awarded OPG’s Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations its highest safety rating in 2017.

Combined, the Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations generated 10.4 TWh (terawatts) of power for the 1st Quarter of 2018 at a combined cost of 7.2 cents/kWh (up from 5.8 cents/kWh in the comparable quarter).  The 10.4 TWh was sufficient to supply the 4.6 million average residential households in the province.

Directing my research to IESO’s hourly Generator Report I was able to discern Pickering at hour 10 of June 25th had just generated 2,308 MWh out of 10,457 MWh produced by all the nuclear plants in the province.  Pickering nuclear represented 22% of nuclear generation at that hour, 15.6% of Ontario demand and 14% of total demand (including exports).   At hour 10, wind turbines were generating 452 MWh or 10% of their capacity versus Pickering nuclear which was operating at about 74.5% of its capacity.

Both nuclear and wind are classified as “base-load” generation!

As it turned out, when I was on Scott’s show the bulk of our chat was related to his prior guest’s discussions about Premier Ford’s cancellation of the “cap and trade” tax.  Only a couple of questions were raised about Pickering which I responded to.

Interestingly enough, now that the Ontario July heat wave has passed, I felt the urge to look at the performance of Pickering and IWT over the seven days when peak demand was high.  Pickering nuclear performed well generating close to 3,000 MWh each and every hour over the period meaning it was operating at over 95% of capacity.  Wind power generation, however was all over the map reaching a high of 2,769 MWh (62% of capacity) at midnight July 1st and a low of 5 MWh (0.11% of capacity) at 10AM on July 4th!

It is obvious that wind fails miserably as “base-load” generation when needed and the relative cost of generating power (sans back-up costs) is over 17 cents/kWh.

It sure looks like we should keep Pickering nuclear operating, as Premier Ford suggested.

Parker Gallant

Should we rip Ontario’s wind turbines out of the ground?

During the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership race, candidate Tanya Granic Allen declared “I’m going to rip those turbines out of the ground!”  Many folks in rural communities suffering from health effects caused by those industrial wind turbines (IWT), and people who have trouble paying their electricity bills probably cheered that statement. They might have wondered what doing that would cost.

Let’s ponder that question and try to put a dollar figure on it!

The capital cost of IWT suggested by AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) was approximately US $1.3 million per megawatt (MW) which equates to about CDN $1.7 million/MW. IESO’s recently released 18th month Outlook Report (July 2018 to December 2019) indicates we have 4,400 MW (rounded) installed “grid connected” IWT and 600 MW of “embedded” IWT wind generation.  What that suggests is, the total capital cost of grid and embedded IWTs is in the neighbourhood of $6.5 billion.  In addition, there are outstanding contracts for another 375 MW.

Looking at the current installed capacity of 5,000 MW and a capacity factor of 30% those 5,000 MW should generate 13,140,000 MWh yearly. Now, assuming the average price paid for IWT-generated power is $135/MWh* (megawatt hour), those 5,000 MW would earn annual revenue of approximately $1.8 billion.  Over the 20-year term of the contracts they would result in revenue of about $36 billion.

Because of the unreliability of wind power** it must be backed up with natural gas plants. E.ON Netz Gmbh claimed in a 2005 Wind Report that a “back-up provision of 90% of the wind would be necessary”.  What that means is, the 5,000 MW of IWT require the back-up of 4,500 MW of natural gas plants.  Those gas contracts call for payment when idling in order to amortize the capital costs over the 20-year term of the contracts.  The approximate cost to ratepayers is $10,000/MW of capacity per month.  That back-up annual cost is approximately $600 million and over 20 years $12 billion.

That brings the annual cost of the 5,000 MW of IWT and its back-up of gas plants to about $2.4 billion. Not included in that $2.4 billion are costs for spilled hydro (6 TWh in 2017) or curtailed wind (3.3 TWh in 2017) which were spilled/curtailed due to wind generation presenting itself when unneeded. The latter two add another $650 million to the costs of IWT generation bringing the costs of the 9.2 TWh of IWT generation in 2017 to $3.050 billion. Grid accepted wind in 2017 was 9.2 TWh and gas generation was 5.9 TWh meaning collectively those 15.1 TWh cost ratepayers $202 million per/TWh or 20.2 cents/kWh (kilowatt hour)!

Based on the above, “ripping those turbines out of the ground” would mean spilled hydro alone could replace 65% of the grid accepted IWT generation. The remaining 9.1 TWh (wind + gas) could have been easily supplied by gas generation at a nominal cost of approximately $300 million.   The annual savings would be $1.5 billion without the IWT generation!  What that means is the IWT capital costs ($6.5 billion) could be repaid in under 4.5 years without considering the fact that many of them have depreciated in value since installation.

So, just maybe, this is an idea worth consideration. Rip the turbines out and pay the developers the capital costs, and refinance the monies over five years via our electricity bills.  I would suggest we call it the SDRC (Smitherman Debt Retirement Charge) to recognize the Ontario Minister of Energy who created the Green Energy Act.

The biggest obstacle to ripping the turbines out of the ground is the knowledge the contracts were written in favour of wind developers, not ratepayers. So, you could expect “ripping them out” would result in a myriad of lawsuits seeking full restitution for the remaining terms of the contracts, meaning the developers would seek to be paid the $36 billion noted above.

My recommendations are simple:

  1. Cancel the wind power projects in process (375 MW) awaiting the REA from the MOECC or those being fought before the ERT (Environment Review Tribunal) and the Ontario court system and
  2. Tax the hell out of those already up and running.

Parker Gallant

*The average cost is actually higher as all of the FIT contracts contain escalation clauses allowing for annual increases equal to the cost of living escalation to a maximum of 20% or $27.per MWh.

**IESO’s 18th Month Outlook report forecasts IWT capacity at peak demand periods at only 13.8% and a peer reviewed paper by Marc Brouillette indicates IWT only produce power of value to the grid 35% of the time they are generating power.

Ontario’s electricity export tariff

Special to The PostMedia Network, June 14, 2018

BY PARKER GALLANT, GUEST COLUMNIST

Former Energy Minister Chiarelli and his claim of a $6B profit on surplus electricity exports. “You can verify it.” No, you can’t.

Many will recall Bob Chiarelli, when in the position as Ontario’s Minister of Energy, was questioned on the costs of exporting our surplus electricity on TVO and stated: “since 2008, the province of Ontario – and you can verify it with the IESO – has made a $6 billion profit on the trading of electricity.”

Needless to say Minister Chiarelli was called out by the media and opposition parties for making such a spurious claim.

Let’s look at Ontario’s 2017 electricity exports and see what he would claim about them. The U.S. Energy Administration Information (EIA) in a recent release, had the following information posted from data supplied by Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB):

“Electricity accounts for a small, but locally important, share of bilateral trade. In 2017, the value of U.S. imports of electricity from Canada increased for the second straight year, reaching $2.3 billion*. The United States imported 72 million megawatt hours of electricity from Canada in 2017 and exported 9.9 million megawatt hours, based on data from Canada’s National Energy Board.”

As it turns out, Ontario’s exports of 19.1 million megawatt hours (MWh) in 2017 represents 26.5% of the 72 million MWh reported as exported by the NEB and those 19.1 million MWh generated “revenue” of $496.6 million (approximately) made up of the $15.80/MWh of the yearly average HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) as reported by IESO and another $10.20/MWh for transmission** costs.

The implied revenue generated represented 16.6%* of total Canadian electricity revenue versus 26.5% of total Canadian electricity exports. The Ontario based generators of that 19.1 TWh of power were paid a yearly average of $115.5 million/TWh (yearly average includes HOEP plus global adjustment based on the IESO’s December 2017 monthly summary.

That means the cost to Ontario ratepayers for exported power was $1,709.5 billion and the credit (net of the monies to Hydro One of $194.8 million for transmission) resulted in Ontario’s ratepayers picking up the missing revenue of $1,507.7. Anyone with a small math knowledge would not refer to that as a profit as it would represent a cost of about $300 per Ontario household.

Export tariff?

The cost to ratepayers of electricity exports in 2017 at over $1.5 billion and prior years played a significant role in driving up electricity rates and represented almost 10% of total generation costs. To put that in current context, Ontario’s ratepayers were slapped with an “export tariff” by our Ontario government of 88% which greatly exceeds the US tariffs recently announced by the US government on Canadian manufactured steel and aluminum.

Getting slapped with only a 10% or 25% tariff would be a net benefit to Ontario’s ratepayers.

*Presumably US dollars so would represent approximately $3 billion CDN dollars at a $1.30/$1.00 exchange rate.

**A large part of these revenues ($194.8 million estimated) went to Hydro One who control about 99% of all transmission in the province.

If I were Ontario’s new Minister of Energy …

 

One initiative: look at why an expensive expansion to hydro isn’t being used

On June 8, after the Ontario election, Ontario’s new premier – whoever that is – will be thinking of selecting a new Minister of Energy. With the challenges in that portfolio, the immediate question for anyone considering accepting the job would be, how can one fix the electricity side of the portfolio after the damage done over the previous 15 years by my predecessors?

Here are a few “fixes” I would take that to try to undo some of the bad decisions of the past, if I were the new energy minister.

Green Energy Act

Immediately start work on cancelling the Green Energy Act

Conservation

Knowing Ontario has a large surplus of generation we export for 10/15 per cent of its cost I would immediately cancel planned conservation spending. This would save ratepayers over $433 million annually.

Wind and solar contracts

I would immediately cancel any contracts that are outstanding, but haven’t been started and may be in the process of a challenge via either the Environmental Review Tribunal) or in the courts.                                 This would save ratepayers an estimated $200 million annually.

Wind turbine noise and environmental non-compliance

Work with the (new) MOECC Minister to insure they effect compliance by industrial wind developers both for exceeding noise level standards and operations during bird and bat migration periods. Failure to comply would elicit large fines. This would save ratepayers an estimated $200/400 million annually.

Change the “baseload” designation of generation for wind and solar developments

Both wind and solar generation is unreliable and intermittent, dependent on weather, and as such should not be granted “first to the grid rights”. They are backed up by gas or hydro generation with both paid for either spilling water or idling when the wind blows or the sun shines.

The cost is phenomenal.

As an example, wind turbines annually generate at approximately 30 per cent of rated capacity but 65 per cent of the time power generation comes at the wrong time of day and not needed.                                                                 The estimated annual ratepayer savings if wind generation was replaced by hydro would be $400 million and if replaced by gas, in excess of $600 million.

Charge a fee (tax) for out of phase/need generation for wind and solar

Should the foregoing “baseload” re-designation be impossible based on legal issues I would direct the IESO to institute a fee that would apply to wind and solar generation delivered during mid-peak and off-peak times. A higher fee would also apply when wind is curtailed and would suggest a fee of $10/per MWh delivered during off-peak and mid-peak hours and a $20/per MWh for curtailed generation.  The estimated annual revenue generated would be a minimum of $150 million

Increase LEAP contributions from LDCs to 1 per cent of distribution revenues

The OEB would be instructed to institute an increase in the LDC (local distribution companies) LEAP (low-income assistance program) from .12 per cent to 1 per cent and reduce the allowed ROI (return on investment) by the difference.  This would deliver an estimated $60/80 million annually reducing the revenue requirement for the OESP (Ontario electricity support program) currently funded by taxpayers.

Close unused OPG generation plants

OPG currently has two power plants that are only very, very, occasionally called on to generate electricity yet ratepayers pick up the costs for OMA (operations, maintenance and administration). One of these is the Thunder Bay, the former coal plant converted to high-end biomass with a capacity of 165 MW. It would produce power at a reported cost of $1.50/kWh (Auditor General’s report). The other unused plant is the Lennox oil/gas plant in Napanee/Bath with a capacity of 2,200 MW that is never used. The estimated annual savings from the closing of these two plants would be in the $200 million range.

Rejig time-of-use (TOU) pricing to allow opt-in or opt-out

TOU pricing is focused on flattening demand by reducing usage during “peak hours” without any consideration of households or businesses. Allow households and small businesses a choice to either agree to TOU pricing or the average price (currently 8.21 cents/kWh after the 17% Fair Hydro Act reduction) over a week.  This would benefit households with shift workers, seniors, people with disabilities utilizing equipment drawing power and small businesses and would likely increase demand and reduce surplus exports thereby reducing our costs associated with those exports.  The estimated annual savings could easily be in the range of $200/400 million annually.

Other initiatives

Niagara water rights

I would conduct an investigation into why our Niagara Beck plants have not increased generation since the $1.5 billion spent on “Big Becky” (150 MW capacity) which was touted to produce enough additional power to provide electricity to 160,000 homes or over 1.4 million MWh. Are we constrained by water rights with the U.S., or is it a lack of transmission capabilities to get the power to where demand resides?

MPAC’s wind turbine assessments

One of the previous Minister’s of Finance instructed MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corp,) to assess industrial wind turbines (IWT) at a maximum of $40,000 per MW of capacity despite their value of $1.5/2 million each.   I would request whomever is appointed by the new Premier to the Finance Ministry portfolio to recall those instructions and allow MPAC to reassess IWT at their current values over the terms of their contracts.  This would immediately benefit municipalities (via higher realty taxes) that originally had no ability to accept or reject IWT.

Do a quick addition of the numbers and you will see the benefit to the ratepayers of the province would amount to in excess of $2 billion dollars.

Coincidentally, that is approximately even more than the previous government provided via the Fair Hydro Act. Perhaps we didn’t need to push those costs off to the future for our children and grandchildren to pay!

Now that I have formulated a plan to reduce electricity costs by over $2 billion per annum I can relax, confident that I could indeed handle the portfolio handed to me by the new Premier of the province.

Parker Gallant

Hydro One and “demonstrable consumer value”

Sorting out fact from fiction among Hydro One claims

The current media attention focusing on Hydro One and its executives is reminiscent of the not so distant past when Andre Marin was Ontario’s Ombudsman. In May 2015 an article in the Globe and Mail noted as a result of his report: “Hydro One issued faulty bills to more than 100,000 customers, lied to the government and regulators in a bid to cover up the problem, then spent $88.3-million in public funds to repair the damage.”

Hydro One installed Mayo Schmidt as CEO in 2015. Recent media reports have focused on why Mr. Schmidt was given a big raise ($1.7 million) to $6.2 million and how his termination (without cause) would cost $10.7 million. The current government signaled they were unaware of either the pay increases for the executives or the increased termination amount and the raises the Board of Directors gave themselves.

These issues were two of the items Hydro One’s Board of Directors had on the agenda for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) that required shareholder approval. As Andrew Willis of the Globe and Mail reported: “Shareholders voted 92 per cent in favour of Hydro One Ltd.’s executive compensation plan, which has faced intense scrutiny during the lead up to Ontario’s election campaign.” It appears that, of the shareholders who actually voted, only 8 per cent were against the increases.   But if the province had participated in the voting (they abstained) and used their 47 per cent shareholding, the motion could have been defeated with 55 per cent voting against it.

One wonders why they chose not to participate.

Christie Blatchford of the National Post was present at Hydro One’s AGM and took part in a short scrum after the AGM ended, with other reporters. The Chairman of the Board, David Denison, along with CEO. Mayo Schmidt represented Hydro One.  Blatchford’s article notes questioning from one aggressive reporter! Asked if he’d take a pay cut or resign, Schmidt said, “It isn’t about pay cuts.” The hellion reporter snapped, “Of course it is.” He then reminded the motley press that the company is committed to “building this high-performing champion,” that Hydro One has reduced costs by 31 per cent, and “turned the power back on for the desperate people.”

Now the only allusion Schmidt made to where those reduced costs came from at the AGM was reported by Andrew Willis who noted “management said the main drivers of earnings growth will come from consolidating local distribution companies in Ontario and cutting costs — the company got rid of 1,000 vehicles over the past year.”

While Schmidt (according to media coverage) was subdued and apolitical during the AGM, a couple of days later he lashed out as reported in the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business in an article by Tim Kiladze. Mr. Kiladze reported that “Schmidt is warning that threats from politicians in Ontario’s election campaign are weighing on the business and will have consequences.” Later in the article reporter Kiladze noted: “Speaking to Hydro One’s latest quarterly earnings, he noted that profit was up by 33 per cent from the year prior, and that Hydro One has added 400 jobs while delivering $114 million in cost savings since its IPO. “Those are remarkable statistics for a company that’s in transition,” Schmidt is reported to have said.

Despite Mr. Schmidt’s claim of improving profits and generating cost savings, the market has moved Hydro’s One’s stock price in the opposite direction. It reached a new low of $18.93 and closed the week at $19.10.   It appears investors are not impressed with either the quarterly earnings jump or the reported “cost savings.”

Examining the first Quarter report tells some of the story.

As CEO Schmidt noted, profit was up by 33 per cent or $55 million above the first quarter of 2017. It appears almost all of the increase was related to rate approvals for the transmission part of the business which increased $54 million due to rate increases approved by the regulator — the Ontario Energy Board (OEB). Electricity transmitted in the quarter was up by only one tenth of one per cent!

Go further into the quarterly report to Note 10, the possible reason for investor concern is significant and relates to the OEB’s Decision and Order in respect to the “transition from the payments in lieu of tax regime under the Electricity Act (Ontario) to tax payments under the federal and provincial tax regime”.

The following comes from that note: “On November 9, 2017, the OEB issued a Decision and Order that calculated the portion of the tax savings that should be shared with ratepayers. The OEB’s calculation would result in an impairment of Hydro One Networks’ transmission deferred income tax regulatory asset of up to approximately $515 million. If the OEB were to apply the same calculation for sharing in Hydro One Networks’ 2018-2022 distribution rates, for which a decision is currently outstanding, it would result in an additional impairment of up to approximately $370 million related to Hydro One Networks’ distribution deferred income tax regulatory asset.”

The conclusion from the OEB’s decision is that they were simply doing their job and honouring their first listed mission statement which reads: “Strengthening the focus on demonstrable consumer value during a period of sector evolution.”

The decision is being challenged by Hydro One’s executives and (presumably) their Board of Directors who are upset the $885 million may not wind up in shareholders pockets. As a result, in October 2017 the Company filed a Motion to Review and Vary (Motion) the Decision and filed an appeal with the Divisional Court of Ontario (Appeal). On December 19, 2017, the OEB granted a hearing of the merits of the Motion which was held on February 12, 2018.

In both cases, the Company’s position is that the OEB made errors of fact and law in its determination of allocation of the tax savings between the shareholders and ratepayers. To put the $885 million in context; it exceeds the annual after-tax profit of Hydro One for a full year!  The results of the OEB hearing will determine whether Hydro One proceed with the appeal to the Divisional Court of Ontario.

Perhaps Hydro One’s Board of Directors and senior executives don’t comprehend they operate a monopoly that is regulated for the express purpose of ensuring their focus is “on demonstrable consumer value during a period of sector evolution.”

As ratepayers, we should hope the OEB continues to place an emphasis on “demonstrable consumer value.” Ordinary ratepayers do not enjoy the benefits Hydro One’s executive have awarded themselves.

Parker Gallant

May 22, 2018