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.

Advertisements

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.

Hydro One: can it deliver on its dividend promise?

The headline on the Hydro One February 10 press release was:  “Hydro One Reports Positive Fourth Quarter Revenue and Operating Cost Trends.” Annual “revenues, net of purchased power” came in at $3,125 million, an increase of $37 million (.4%) over 2015, while Net Income rose from $714 million to $746 million, and “adjusted” earnings per share increased to $1.21/share up from $1.16/share.

If you believe the reporting by Hydro One, you are led to believe a small increase in revenue translated to an almost identical increase in after-tax income.

A closer look is necessary to determine how that happened. As it turns out, transmission revenue was up $48 million and distribution revenue was down $11 million, accounting for the revenue increase. Regulatory assets1. climbed $130 million while operations, maintenance and administration (OMA) apparently fell by $66 million. It is not clear how many millions of OMA expenses were placed into “regulatory assets,” but we should assume a portion of salaries, pensions and benefits were.

As a result, it is impossible to determine whether Hydro One has become more or less efficient, despite this claim in the press release: “Our fourth quarter results demonstrate favourable revenue growth and operating cost control.” We can quickly see “favourable revenue growth” was small potatoes!

There are ways of using information in that press release and annual report to allow for calculations. One area that affects ratepayers is “delivery” costs which is reflected in Hydro One’s “distribution” business line. The annual report indicates the amount of electricity distributed to their 1.3 million residential and business customers fell 8.6% from 28,763 gigawatts (GWh) to 26,289 GWh while distribution revenue fell by $11 million from $1,499 million to $1,488 million. Using simple division one is able to calculate the cost of distribution per megawatt (MWh) increased from $52.05/MWh to $56.60/MWh for an increase of 8.7% or $4.55/MWh.

Everyone pays

Not all of that increase was paid for by Hydro One customers, however, as Hydro One receives revenue from all of Ontario’s ratepayers via the OESP (Ontario Electricity Support Program) which presumably resulted in the year over year drop (at a minimum) of $26 million in Hydro One’s “Allowance for doubtful accounts” from $61 million to $35 million. As well, all Ontario ratepayers pick up the costs of the RRRPP (rural and remote rate protection plan) which was $125.4 million for Hydro One in 2016 and will increase in 2017 to $243.4 million. Adjusting the distribution revenue to reflect contributions to Hydro One by all Ontario ratepayers would reduce their distribution costs to about $54/MWh (5.4 cents/kWh) and bring it almost in line with the claim by Hydro One their distribution/delivery costs represent about 37% of their customer’s electricity bills before HST. If one does the calculation on the OEB’s website however the actual cost of the “delivery” line for a “medium density” Hydro One ratepayer is 43%!

Another asset that showed a big jump on Hydro One’s balance sheet in 2016 was “goodwill” which more than doubled to $327 million, despite their having recovered $60 million in goodwill from the provincial acquisition of Hydro One Brampton before Hydro One went public. This also occurred just before the arranged merger of Hydro One Brampton with PowerStream, Horizon and Enersource. Hydro One has been snapping up some of the small local distribution companies (LDC) such as Norfolk Power, Woodstock Hydro, Haldimand for the past few years and recently applied to the OEB for acquisition of Orillia Power. Hydro One also just completed acquisition of Great Lakes Transmission improving the monopolistic control they hold in this business line to over 98%.   The LDC acquisitions were made well above book value and many of them had their delivery rates frozen for five years.

With Hydro One’s success at being the second most expensive hydro distributor we should expect the ratepayers in the locales of the acquired LDC will see their future delivery rates jump significantly.

On the liability side of Hydro One’s ledger, 2016 saw the acquisition of about $1.7 billion of increased and mainly long-term debt yet, their negative working capital position only improved $716 million. The additional debt raised during the year caused their Debt/Equity ratio to rise from 1.45:1 at the end of 2015 to 1.52:1 at the end of 2016 and brought with it increased interest costs. A rising D:E ratio often precedes a credit rating drop!

Dividend promise impossible, unless …

All this points to a company whose future is dependent on the OEB granting their every wish to increase delivery/distribution rates. If not, the promise to dividend out 70/80% of their annual net profits becomes impossible unless they either: forgo proper maintenance of the infrastructure, or reduce OMA costs via either staff reductions or salary cuts, or sell off assets!

Dividends paid in 2016 on the 5,623,000 common shares were $577 million representing 80% of net income attributable to common shares with just over $400 million going to the provincial treasury leaving about $150 million2. in retained earnings for future investments in infrastructure repairs and refurbishment and the building and/or improvement to the transmission grid(s) and LDC infrastructure.

Something’s got to give, or future increases to Hydro One’s ratepayers will be even worse than the past!

 

  1. Regulatory assets “represent certain amounts receivable from future customers and costs that have been deferred for accounting purposes because it is probable that they will be recovered in future rates.”
  2. Capital spending in 2016 was reported as $1.6 billion.  

Mr Thibeault needs to go to energy minister school

Ontario Energy Minister Thibeault: listening to the earbuds, not really in the know on energy
Ontario Energy Minister Thibeault: listening to the earbuds, not really in the know on energy

Ontario’s Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault was in Port Hope February 8, 2017 and delivered a speech to the local Chamber of Commerce.  Based on a few of his quotes appearing in the local paper, Northumberland Today, he needs basic training in the electricity system. Clearly, he doesn’t get it.

The article said, “Except for one question from the floor at the Port Hope and District Chamber of Commerce event, all of the queries from chamber members to Thibeault were solicited and chosen prior to his arrival.” I guess he needed help from bureaucrats in the Ministry to ensure he could answer the questions!

Looking at one of the Minister’s quotes along with a message from his speech, one is blown away by what appears to be either ignorance or fabrications he thinks ratepayers will believe.

“Thibeault supported the refurbishment of nuclear power plants in Ontario, a 30% source of power in this province, he said.”  Nuclear refurbishment was approved prior to Thibeault’s appointment so that’s a meaningless message.  But it also failed to deliver the correct facts!

According to IESO, while the capacity of nuclear was only 30% it produced 61% of total generation in 2016 and 67% (91.7 TWh) of Ontario’s total demand of 137 TWh (terawatts).

The quote that makes absolutely no sense is his remark, “We really have built the system of the future with yesterday’s dollars,” he said.”   Was he suggesting “yesterday’s dollars” were money in the bank already? If so,

Why have electricity rates risen over 100% under this government?

Why does Ontario have the highest electricity rates in Canada?

Why does Ontario have the fastest rising rates in North America? And

Why were almost 567,000 households (12% of households) in arrears on their electricity bills as of December 31, 2015?

We could go on and on about the damage done to the electricity system in the province by the current government meaning, the Thibeault’s claim “yesterday’s dollars” were used to “build the system of the future” is either a bogus boast or an outright lie.

The time has come for the Minister of Energy to admit his and his predecessor’s mistakes, and get some basic training.

Hard to see through the fog of Wynne government energy promises

On October 21, 2013 Premier Wynne wrote a letter “To the people of Ontario” with a few promises.

“We must also unlock public data so that you can help us solve problems and find new ways of doing things. I believe that government data belongs to the people of Ontario and so we will make government data open by default.”

and

“Our Open Government initiative will help create the transparent, accessible government that the people of Ontario deserve. Over the months and years to come, we’ll be bringing forward additional initiatives that will improve transparency, accountability, and connectivity.”

Almost a year later, possibly in an effort to augment her promise of “transparency” she wrote “mandate letters” to her Ministers. To her Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli she said, “We want to be the most open and transparent government in the country. We want to be a government that works for the people of this province — and with them. It is of the utmost importance that we lead responsibly, act with integrity, manage spending wisely and are accountable for every action we take.” [Italics mine]

Premier Wynne’s “mandate letter” to the current energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault, September 23, 2016 said nothing about transparency but does say:  “At this halfway mark of this government’s mandate, I encourage you to build on the momentum that we have successfully achieved over the past two years, to work in tandem with your fellow ministers to advance our economic plan”.

After almost three and a half years since Wynne’s letter to the people, perhaps it’s time to look at the promise to “unlock public data” and how the “Open Government” promise has delivered on  “transparency”!

  • Two months after Wynne’s letter to her Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, in an appearance on TVO he claimed, “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.”
  • Current Energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault when asked in an interview with Global TV for information on how many ratepayers were behind in their hydro bills and how many had been disconnected, he had no idea! Neither did the OEB, or Ministry of Energy staff. Thibeault wouldn’t admit there was a crisis.
  • Less than two months after Thibeault refused to agree there was a crisis, Premier Wynne admitted rising hydro bills were “an urgent issue”. Loss of a critical byelection finally opened her eyes.

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operators) website dazzles with the amount of data available. Search using the terms “transparency” or “transparent” you get 2,800 hits. Impressive, but as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words!

IESO fail to provide data on:

  • How much wind is curtailed or
  • How much water is spilled by hydro electric generators or
  • How much nuclear is “steamed off” by Bruce Nuclear or
  • How much wind or solar distributor connection energy was produced or
  • How much money was generated from sales of surplus exported power to our neighbours and
  • How much that exported power cost Ontario’s ratepayers

IESO is responsible for the financial aspects of settling (contracted and/or regulated) with each and every generator in the province either directly or via local distribution companies, and also must settle with the buyers and sellers of both our exported and imported energy. In effect they play a major role in determining the final cost of what each and every ratepayer are charged for the line on their bills reading either “electricity” and “GA” or Global Adjustment.

They should be the purveyors of all the “public data” from the energy sector Premier Wynne referenced in her letter to us in September 2013 but as noted, they are falling short.

A recent event made that obvious.

On January 18, 2017, IESO issued a News Release, “ Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator Releases 2016 Electricity Data”. The release had a table summarizing Ontario’s transmission connected generator output by fuel type, listing the outputs as: Nuclear 91.4 TWh (terawatt hours), Hydro 35.6 TWh, and Wind 9.0 TWh respectively.   Two days later, those three “outputs” were suddenly different with Nuclear at 91.7 TWh, Hydro at 35.7 and Wind at 9.3 TWh.

No apologies, no explanations or even a mention they altered the original News Release. The .7 TWh added to the output represents a cost of about $70 million ratepayers will pay, yet no explanation was posted about the change.

In Ontario today, transparency is shrouded in fog, and “spending wisely” has been forsaken by this government, in the badly managed electricity sector.