The Hydro One press release immediately following the decision by the State of Washington’s regulator denying them the right to acquire Avista Corporation was short but expressed “extreme disappointment.”
“TORONTO and SPOKANE, WA, Dec. 5, 2018 /CNW/ – Hydro One Limited (“Hydro One”) (TSX: H) and Avista Corporation (“Avista”) today received a regulatory decision from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), denying the proposed merger of the two companies. The companies are extremely disappointed in the UTC’s decision, are reviewing the order in detail and will determine the appropriate next steps.”
How did investors view the denial? Avista shareholders were definitely in the “extremely disappointed” crowd as their shares tumbled, but Hydro One investors were probably “extremely happy” as their shares had one of their very best days ever!
Remember, Hydro One offered to purchase Avista shares well over book value and at a high multiple to earnings ratio. While the prior Board of Directors of Hydro One and then CEO Mayo Schmidt, along with Glenn Thibeault, former Minister of Energy, were excited about the offer to purchase Avista, it certainly appears that shareholders weren’t!
Some media blame “political interference” by Premier Ford as the principal reason for the denial! One such individual was quoted in CBC article stating: “Ontario Liberal finance critic Mitzie Hunter said Ford’s “reckless conduct” at Hydro One continues to damage the province’s interests.” Apparently Hydro One’s investors are not buying Mitzie’s claim!
There will, however, be a cost to Hydro One. When the purchase was negotiated, they agreed to a “termination fee” of US$ 103 million (CAD$ 139 million) and will have to pay that to Avista for distribution to their shareholders. Hydro One will also have to unwind foreign exchange forward contracts and accumulated acquisition costs which will be expensed. They also have to deal with the large convertible debenture issue ($1,540 million) which has a 10-year maturity and interest payments above market rates prior to conversion.
I assume we ratepayers will have to sit on the sidelines until Hydro One’s year-end report in early 2019 is issued before we get an estimate on the costs of the denial by the State of Washington’s regulator.
We can then hope our regulator, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), doesn’t grant a rate increase to Hydro One to cover the costs of their ill-considered attempt to acquire a company 3,200 kilometres away at an inflated price.
Or, how she might have benefitted from listening to opinions (and saved Ontario millions)…
The following tweet from TVO reporter John Michael McGrath reflects the attitude of former Premier Kathleen Wynne to a question she was asked about an estimate of energy costs from yours truly:
“John Michael McGrath @jm_mcgrath Tories introduce an estimate of energy costs from Parker Gallant, Wynne declines to comment on “one person’s opinion, one person’s research.” 10:20 AM – 3 Dec 2018”
The Select Committee on Financial Transparency questioning Wynne is/was attempting to determine the actual reason (e.g., hide debt and push the current cost of energy generation into the future) behind the creation of the Fair Hydro Plan (FHP) by the former Ontario Premier and her Cabinet.
Ontario is now one and a half years into the FHP which provides an opportunity to review the estimated costs of the 10 years of deferral by the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) of Ontario and see what has actually happened so far.
The FAO’s forecast estimated the deferral would cost $18.4 billion over 10 years plus another $21 billion for interest. The average monthly deferral (before interest costs) would therefore average $153 million. Since the FHP first kicked in, IESO has posted monthly, what they call; the “Global Adjustment Modifier” (GAM) so, it is a relatively simple task to determine how the FAO’s estimates have played out, versus actual deferrals.
So far GAM deferrals (without interest costs) are $3,843 million for the 18 months — that’s about $770 per ratepayer. What that indicates is, the monthly average, so far, has been $214 million for the 17% of the GAM deferral versus the estimated $153 million in the FA0 forecast. Should those averages continue for the next 10 years the deferred amount will be $25.7 billion or $5,140 per Class B ratepayer without interest costs. The additional $7.3 billion of the GAM deferral would also drive up interest costs to approximately $29 billion adding another $5,800 per ratepayer that would need to be repaid.
What that means is, future ratepayers could be on the hook for as much as $54.7 billion!
How could that $54.7 billion transfer to future ratepayers have been avoided?
The numbers are up in IESO’s website reflecting how much grid-connected wind power generation has been delivered for the first 9 months of the current year. My friend Scott Luft has provided the estimate of curtailed wind: the collective 8.98 TWh (terawatt hours)** translate to costs of $1,190.7 million. If one extrapolates the first nine months to a full year, the estimate of costs are $1,587.6 million for wind power. IESO does not publish solar output (except for grid-connected) as most of solar is embedded within the distribution system. Despite the lack of data, one can assume solar will have generated 15% of its capacity (380MW are grid-connected [TX] and 2,081 are distribution connected [DX]) meaning the 2,461 MW of capacity should generate approximately 3.23 TWh annually at an average cost of $448/MWh. That adds about $1,450 million to renewable’s costs. Wind and solar together will therefore add $3.038 billion (rounded) annually to electricity costs assuming their capacity levels and annual generation remain at current levels.
As you can see, the estimated cost of wind and solar at $3.038 billion exceeds the adjusted annual GAM costs of $2.562 billion (18-month costs of $3,843 million/18 months X 12 months = $2,562 million) by $476 million. At the same time TX- and DX-accepted wind (7.52 TWh) and solar (3.23 TWh) is assumed to come in at 10.75 TWh which presumably would need replacement. In that regard the Ontario Power Generation 2018 3rd Quarter report indicates they spilled 2.4 TWh in the first nine months, which will probably transition to 3.2 TWh for the full year (ratepayers pay for spilled hydro so no additional costs) leaving a shortfall of just 7.55 TWh to be supplied to replace ALL wind and solar generation!
Without knowing, at this point, if nuclear generation had been steamed-off or exports could have been reduced, the question becomes: could gas plants*** have provided the 7.55 TWh (net after allowing for spilled hydro) wind and solar will probably provide for 2018?
Gas plants for the first nine months of 2018 generated 7.89 TWh; If extrapolated to 12 months, gas could generate 9.22 TWh and represent about 12.4% of its total capacity (8,500 MW). Adding another 7.55 TWh of generation would mean they would be required to operate at 22.5% of capacity so they could have easily replaced wind and solar generation. The additional costs of that generation would be fuel costs plus a small mark-up. Even if fuel costs and the mark-up were as much as $50/MWh the costs of the 7.55 TWh would amount to slightly less than $400 million.
What the foregoing suggests is that with no wind and solar generation, the costs of generation could have been reduced by $2,638 million (wind and solar costs of $3.038 billion less $400 million for additional gas generation of 7.55 TWh).
Coincidentally, the cost reduction of $2.638 billion per annum is remarkably close to the above noted GAM costs of $2.562 billion that will accumulate in the OPG Trust every year for the next 10 years along with the interest on that debt.
So, without wind and solar, former Premier Wynne might have avoided the public outcry about electricity costs and her party might have been re-elected.
Just “one person’s opinion, one person’s research”!
*Based on 5 million ratepaying households and Class B business consumers. **Grid accepted: 7.52 TWh plus curtailed of 1.46 TWh = 8.98 TWh at a cost of $135/MWh for grid accepted and $120/MWh for curtailed. ***Gas plants are paid to idle at a rate as low as $4,200/MW per month (Lennox) to over $15,000/MW per month.
IESO wants residential ratepayers to “Set the mood”
It’s true! Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) in a recent posting on their SaveOnEnergy site suggested we “Cut the lights and light some candles to set the mood for a cozy evening.”
IESO spends approximately $400 million annually on conservation initiatives, and they come up with this? They even go so far as to describe the event as a “Hygge, a Danish word: (pronounced hue-guh not hoo-gah) used when acknowledging a feeling or moment, whether alone or with friends, at home or out, ordinary or extraordinary as cosy, charming or special.”
I personally find it ironic that the word chosen by IESO is Danish. Denmark is where electricity prices for residential homes is the most expensive in Europe* at EURO per kWh of 0.3126 or Canadian 0.48 cents per kWh. Doesn’t that make all Ontario residents feel cosy!
Denmark is home to VESTAS and their product line is exclusively wind turbines. Vestas employs over 24,000 people which makes them one of the 10 largest employers in the country. Vestas’s website claim they have installed 97 GW (97,000 MW) of industrial wind turbines (IWT) globally. All those noise-emitting, bird- and bat-killing, intermittent and unreliable wind turbines might make the Danes “cosy” but somehow I doubt it, with the price they are paying for electricity.
The IESO post suggests we: turn off the phone, unplug appliances and devices, eat comfort food and use energy-efficient cooking methods like a pressure cooker! ** The message to the reader goes on to suggest pulling on wool socks and using our favourite blanket to get cosy and then to “get lost in the moment” by reading our favourite book!
IESO should stop the wasted spending on conservation efforts of this ilk. Does IESO not understand we are all billed monthly for our cost of electricity usage and have been doing our best to “stay cosy”? For many it has been an effort to simply avoid energy poverty.
Stop lecturing us, stop wasting our money and focus your efforts on managing the grid in a manner that will reduce the costs of electricity.
More enlightening facts from the Lennox gas plant, and how billions have been wasted
My earlier article briefly described my recent tour of the Lennox natural gas power facility in Bath, Ontario, and also provided the costs of wind power generation—including what was “curtailed” (wasted; paid for but not used).
The period covered was nine years (2009 to 2017) during which grid-delivered wind power generation was 53.1 TWh* (terawatt hours) and its costs (including 6.9 TWh curtailed) were approximately $8 billion.
What I didn’t note earlier was, as we were paying for power generated by wind turbines and curtailed power, we were also paying for spilled hydro and steamed-off nuclear which added additional costs to the GA (Global Adjustment) pot, driving up electricity costs. We started paying for “spilled hydro” in 2011 when the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) allowed OPG to establish a “variance” account. Since that time 18.7 TWh have been spilled by OPG and the cost of $875 million (4.7 cents/kWh) was placed in the GA and paid for by Ontario ratepayers.
Likewise, the cost of 2 TWh of steamed-off nuclear was (about) $140 million (7 cents/kWh) and also became part of the GA. Adding that to the $8 billion costs of wind power in those nine years brings the total to slightly more than $9 billion, as the hydro spilled and nuclear steam-off were due to “surplus baseload generation” (SBG)!
In 95 percent plus of the surplus events, SBG conditions were caused by wind power generation because it is granted “first to the grid” rights.
So, you might ask on reading this, is, how does/could Lennox fit into this situation?
Well, the fact is Lennox is treated as “the leper” in generation sources within the province and is called on only when something untoward or unusual happens, despite its ability to generate power at relatively low cost. Examples of Lennox doing more than idling include this past summer’s Lake Ontario algae problem which caused the shutdown of a Pickering nuclear unit (the water intake was clogged) and the winter of 2014 when we experienced the “polar vortex” causing gas prices to spike. As it happens, wind wasn’t there for either event and Lennox was called on to provide the power necessary to keep our electricity system functioning. (Wind turbines cannot be turned on when demand suddenly increases when the wind isn’t blowing.)
Ontario without wind
If the then Liberal Ontario government had decided not to proceed with the GEA (Green Energy Act) which focused on wind and solar sources, one could justififably wonder how the cost of electricity might have been affected. If we had instead focused on reliability and reasonable costs, Lennox coupled with our other sources, could have easily replaced the intermittent and unreliable generation from wind turbines.
The math: Taking the wind power generation of 53.1 TWh over the nine years out of the picture would have meant those 18.7 TWh of spilled hydro and the 2 TWh of steamed-off nuclear could have reduced the net contribution of wind to 32.4 TWh. That would have saved ratepayers $1.8 billion i.e., (cost of 20.7 TWh of IWT generation @ $135 million/TWh = $2.8 billion, less the cost of 18.7 TWh of spilled hydro @ $46 million/TWh [$875 million] and less the cost of 2 TWh steamed off nuclear @ $70 million/TWh [$140 million])
The remaining 32.4 TWh of wind power generation could have been provided by generation from the OPG Lennox plant (capacity of 2,100 MW). It would have eliminated the $800 million cost of the 6.9 TWh of curtailed wind as it would have produced power only when needed. Now if it ran at only 20 percent of its capacity (gas or oil,) it could have easily generated the remaining 32.4 TWh generated by IWY and accepted into the grid.
Note: No doubt much of that 32.4 TWh wind power generation was presented at times IESO were forced to export it at a substantial loss. For the sake of this calculation we will assume Ontario demand would have required it.
More math: As noted in the earlier article “idling” ** costs for Lennox are fixed at $4.200 per MW per month, making the annual idling costs about $106 million or $8.8 million per month. Running at 20 percent of capacity would result in idling costs per MWh of generation of about $30/MWh.
Adding fuel costs*** of about $40/MWh would result in total costs (on average) of approximately $70/MWh or 7 cents/kWh. Generation at 300,000 MWh per month on average would have generated 32.4 TWh over those nine years (2009–2017). The cost of that generation would be approximately $2.3 billion whereas the 32.4 TWh generated by IWT in those same nine years cost ratepayers about $4.4 billion.
So, without any wind power generation at a cost of $8 billion over the nine years, Ontario ratepayers would have saved almost $4.9 billion:
$1.8 billion using spilled hydro
$200 million using steamed-off nuclear
$800 million paying for curtailed IWT generation and
$2.1 billion by utilizing Lennox
Beyond the dollar savings, the lack of subsidized wind power would also have other effects like:
zero (0) noise complaints, instead of the thousands reported,
elimination of the slaughter of thousands of birds, bats and butterflies
prevented the possible disturbance/contamination of well water
Again, that cost-benefit study might have proved useful!
*1 TWh is about the amount of energy 110,000 average households in Ontario consume annually.
**Idling costs of the TransCanada gas plant next door to Lennox is $15,200 per month per MW or 3.7 times more costly than Lennox.
***Lennox has the ability to generate electricity using either natural gas or oil meaning if a fuel priced spikes, as natural gas did during the “polar vortex” in 2014, Lennox can shift to the cheaper fuel.
Ontario ratepayers should be worried about bad planning and whether the Ontario Energy Board will protect us from more rate increases
Why is the title above practically the opposite of Hydro One’s November 8, 2018 press release headline which claimed “Hydro One Reports Strong Third Quarter Results”?
While gross revenues for both the distribution and transmission businesses were up—quarter over quarter, by 6.1% ($63 million) and 4.7% ($22 million) respectively—Net Income for the quarter was actually down 11.4% or $25 million compared to the same quarter in 2017.
The revenue gains were a reflection of prior rate application approvals by the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) coupled with increased demand and the revenue was provided by the ratepayers of the province.
So, if revenue was up, what caused net income to fall?
“The increase of $35 million or 30.7% in financing charges for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 was primarily due to the following: • an unrealized loss recorded in the third quarter of 2018 due to revaluation of the deal-contingent foreign exchange forward contract related to the Avista Corporation merger”. [emphasis added]
It appears previous management believed finalizing the Avista purchase would occur sooner and that the Canadian dollar would remain where it was when the purchase offer was originally accepted by Avista’s shareholders. That would suggest poor planning!
As ratepayers in Ontario, we should be concerned about Hydro One’s financial results and how their spending impacts us via rate increases.
The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) on an annual basis sets the acceptable RoE (Return on Equity) for all distribution and transmission companies. The current RoE is 9% and Hydro One expects it will remain at that level. Right now, Hydro One has two pending transmission and one distribution rate application(s) before the OEB, and will file one transmission and five distribution rate application(s) later this year and into early 2019.
Here’s the question we ratepayers should ask: will the OEB protect us by ensuring we will not be picking up any of the costs associated with the Avista purchase such as the “foreign exchange forward contract” loss or the “financing charges” referenced above? Ratepayers should not be penalized for bad planning!
Hydro One’s quarterly statement under the heading ‘Risk Management” notes:
“Market risk refers primarily to the risk of loss which results from changes in costs, foreign exchange rates and interest rates. The Company is exposed to fluctuations in interest rates, as its regulated return on equity is derived using a formulaic approach that takes anticipated interest rates into account. The Company is not currently exposed to material commodity price risk.”
The “increased financing charges” and the “foreign exchange forward contract” costs related to the Avista merger were clear “risks” management should have foreseen!
On the surface, they could suggest part of the fall in net income is attributable to Canada’s inability to sell its oil at market prices which had a detrimental effect on the Canadian dollar’s exchange rate. But that claim would ignore the fact it was Hydro One’s management decision (blessed by former Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault) that led to the “foreign exchange forward contract” loss and the increased “financing charges.”
The blame should be shouldered by past management decisions.
Many said, at the time the planned acquisition of Avista was announced, that it made no sense. With that in mind, one would expect the OEB will indeed make the right decision and not allow rate increases that fail the test of bringing value to Ontario ratepayers.
An eye-opening tour of the Lennox plant in Eastern Ontario leads to starting calculations, too
Back in late May and just before the Ontario provincial election, I wrote a “what if” post titled; “If I were Ontario’s new Minister of Energy …” which was suggested how I would undertake to reduce the costs of electricity.
So far, a few of my recommendations have actually happened.
I won’t linger over the enacted or missed ones but I will focus instead on my suggestion that we close the “Lennox oil/gas plant in Napanee/Bath with a capacity of 2,200 MW that is never used.”
I received an invitation to tour the Lennox plant and I accepted! The tour was led by John Hefford, VP Regional Operations-Eastern Region, who has responsibility for not only Lennox but for all the hydro generating facilities located in the eastern part of Ontario, which (including Lennox), totals about 4,800 MW — that’s about 30% of OPG’s total capacity.
Driving toward the Lennox plant one can’t help but notice, in the distance, the industrial wind turbines (IWTs) recently built on Amherst Island (“owl capital” of North America). That project is considered one of the most divisive wind power projects ever awarded a contract by IESO under the McGuinty/Wynne governments.
The tour combined with a takeaway “Overview” of Lennox was truly enlightening. The most noteworthy bits of information picked up were related to the ability of each of the four 525-MW turbines to ramp up quickly from their minimum load point of only 28 MW or 5%. To put that into perspective, the other gas plants operating in Ontario are mainly CCGTs (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines) and they have to idle at minimum loads that are six to 14 times higher.
The ramping load point at Lennox logically translates to much lower emissions than the units added to Ontario’s grid(s) backing up industrial wind turbines (IWT) and solar under the FIT (feed-in-tariff) program.
The other significant difference between the CCGTs and single-cycle Combustion Turbines (CTs) is in respect to idling costs: for Lennox the cost is about $4,200 MW per month versus CCGT generators with costs of $10,000 MW per month to $20,000 MW per month, and CTs which average about $10,000 MW.
Another impressive piece of information picked up on the tour is the ability of the units to operate on either natural gas or residual oil (or both). That means, if a fuel cost spikes due to high demand (e.g., gas in the “Polar Vortex” winter of 2014) Lennox can switch to the other fuel. Lennox was also recently called on when a Pickering nuclear unit was shut down due to the 2018 Lake Ontario algae situation.
IESO forecasted shortfall It appears likely Lennox will be called on to provide the capacity during the shortfall that the IESO projects during the upcoming nuclear refurbishment years. From a ratepayer perspective, it makes sense.
Carbon tax calculations
Completing the tour and driving home led me to the questions of how much Ontario’s ratepayers might have saved if Lennox had been deemed the back-up for wind and solar power generation or had been used to generate electricity instead of handing out high priced 20-year contracts under the FIT program. The first question would take an inordinate amount of research, so I opted for the latter!
A report (IESO prepared?) titled the Ontario Energy Report has a chart showing emissions generated by the electricity sector and the report for year-end 2017 indicated emissions in Ontario were 14 mt* in 2009 and 3 mt in 2017, for a decline of 11 mt in 9 years. The decline was touted by the Wynne government as attributable to renewable energy in the form of wind and solar.
Looking only at the wind power generation and its associated cost in those nine years provides an indication of just how much Ontario’s ratepayers have paid on a per ton basis to achieve that 11 mt drop! According to the IESO, from 2009 to 2017, wind turbines generated 53.1 TWh (terawatt hours) and since we commenced paying for curtailed power (paid for but not used), ratepayers picked up those costs for about 6.9 TWh.
So, the approximate costs of the grid-accepted wind power generation was about $7.2 billion, and for the curtailed generation was another $800 million. That brings the overall costs of the 11 mt reduction to about $8 billion!
The cost of that reduction of 11 mt looking at IWT (generation and curtailed) only and without solar, works out to $655/ton!
Ontario’s ratepayers have obviously done their bit to reduce emissions and will continue to pay more until the wind turbines and those 20-year FIT contracts finally expire.
We don’t need a carbon tax.
P.S. The second in this two-part series about Lennox will follow shortly, covering off how much we might have saved without wind power
While Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), was all smiles at the trade association’s recent conference and exhibition in Calgary he must be concerned that the world is wising up to the unabashed conclusion: industrial wind turbines do nothing more than drive up electricity prices! At the start of the conference Hornung launched “A Wind Energy Vision for Canada”, full of selective information aimed at rallying those present so they push the agenda and keep the gravy train rolling.
The CanWEA “vision” says nothing about how wind power projects affect humans by generating audible and inaudible noise along with infrasound or how they are responsible for killing birds and bats or even how they need back-up power when the wind is dormant. The latter means the costs of delivering a kilowatt hour (kWh) of generation needs fast response back-up power at the ready to ramp up within minutes. Failing available back-up generation (usually natural gas) to respond to IWT cyclical, intermittent and unreliable generation would impact electricity grids causing brownouts or blackouts.
The CanWEA “vision” links to an October 1, 2018 posting on their website that brags about a variety of different issues, making claims like as “New wind energy would help keep Ontario’s electricity supply reliable, as well as more affordable.” And, this one: “Canada can get more than one-third of its electricity from wind energy”. CanWEA backed this up by saying: “Other jurisdictions around the world are proving this – for example, Denmark now produces more than 44 per cent of its electricity from wind turbines on an annual basis”.
What they fail to mention is that Denmark has the most expensive electricity costs in the EU with prices equivalent to Canadian $0.45cents/kWh.
A “Vision” claim The “vision” makes many claims that are spurious, including this one about environmental sustainability: “Wind energy does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, air or water pollution, nor hazardous, toxic or radioactive waste.”
That is superficial. Why? The intermittent and unreliable nature of wind requires it to be backed up with responsive generation generally in the form of natural gas or coal plants. This is evident in particular in Germany (electricity prices are the 2nd highest in EU) where a recent article stated “Despite the billions spent on wind and solar, the country is still hooked on coal, relying on it for almost 40 percent of its electricity. Coal provides the backup power needed when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining, something that will become even more crucial when the last nuclear plants close in 2022.” The claim that wind turbines don’t produce greenhouse gases may be somewhat true, but due to their unreliable nature they cause greenhouses gases to be generated by their back-up fossil fuel plants.
The CanWEA statement suggesting wind turbines don’t cause “air or water pollution” can also be easily disputed. The spinning blades kill birds and bats and produce a range of noise emissions(audible and inaudible) which are linked to health problems.
We have also seen how construction and operation of turbines may be involved in the contamination and failure of wells as noted in Chatham Kent where well water was affected. Hydrologist Bill Clarke noted: “Simply stated, wind towers, for generating electrical power, should never have been constructed over the extremely fragile contact aquifer of the Kettle Point shale” where 19 families experienced distinct, observable changes in their well water, which expresses itself as cloudy and often includes dark particulates.
It should also be noted that while the fuel powering the turbines is non-polluting, the average 400 tons of cement securing the turbines towers and the turbines and generators along with those blades are simply full of both toxic and hazardous waste, some of which is not recyclable!
More rhetoric CanWEA wasn’t finished with the bombast.
On November 1, 2018 their blog carried this post: “Cancelling renewable energy contracts in Ontario will negatively impact investor confidence”! Why? Well, the lobbyist group said, “Investors rely on the rule of law and contract rights when they scope, build and operate projects in the province. Calls for cancelling contracts and stranding assets shakes investor confidence and risks undermining Ontario’s investment climate – and at the wrong time and for the wrong reason.”
CanWEA naturally ignored the fact that the rebellion on Ontario electricity prices was caused by renewable energy (wind and solar) being granted first to the grid rights and long-term contracts with prices exceeding what other markets were paying. Those excessive electricity costs have driven investment out of the province in droves commencing with the passing of the Green Energy Act when, shortly after passing, Xstrata announced it would close its Timmins smelter and move it to Quebec. One of the reasons for the closure was the high cost of electricity.
In a further effort to colour the costs to Ontario’s ratepayers of wind turbines, CanWEA proffered this reputed benefit: “The province’s wind sector will generate $12.5 billion in investment in Ontario in the 2006-2030 timeframe. Along with that investment will come 64,500 person-years of employment, $4.6 billion in earnings for Ontarians, and an additional $6.2 billion in provincial GDP.”
But that claim does not note the investment will extract approximately $45 billion from ratepayer’s pockets over the 24 years “2006-2030,” meaning the claimed investment will be returned four-fold! Likewise, those 64,500 person-years of employment with the claimed $4.6 billion in earnings amounts to a miserly $3,000 per job when spread over those same 24 years.
The time has come for companies involved in industrial wind projects to pack their bags and find another country with gullible politicians!