During the pandemic Federal and Provincial Governments should save real “charitable” jobs not those related to “climate change”

One of the fallouts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic as recently reported was: “Canada’s charities say they have begun laying off staff and shutting down their services, which are usually in high demand during economic downturns, as the sector feels the financial sting from COVID-19.”

What is a “charity?

As most of us know the institutions referred to in Canada as charities, has changed, as much wider regulations were brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau’s government. The change now allows charities to “carry out unlimited “public policy dialogue and development activities”.  This means they are free to spend money on partisan issues favouring political parties. The charities of the “climate change” religion love the change and many of them have expanded those partisan activities.  Many of us however don’t think charities of their ilk are what we feel are real charities!

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the word “charity” as, 1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity and 2. generosity and helpfulness esp. toward the needy or suffering.

These aren’t charities!

Back in 2014 the CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency) was investigating seven* (7) environmental charities however as soon as the Liberal Party was swept into power the investigation was cancelled.  Reviewing the most recent CRA filings and a news report (Pembina) for those seven charities one discovers in the latest year they received $7,449,747 in grants or contracts ($183,000) from the government.  If the foregoing isn’t disturbing enough, their latest CRA filings indicate they collectively received $22,107,186 in donations from other charities.  It is difficult to understand exactly how that almost $30 million is somehow remotely associated with the Merriam Webster definition of what constitutes a “charity”!

The other galling piece of information about the almost $30 million of charitable donations that “group of seven” received is; some of it came from charities owned by the Province such as the Trillium Foundation and the Greenbelt Foundation which are both dependent on funding from Ontario taxpayers.  Gross revenue for the seven was just under $39 million.  Six of the seven charities (Pembina attributed no salary costs to their charity in CRA flings) reported salaries for their top 10 employees in a range from $40K to $350K and the average salary of each of the 54 of them, would appear to be just shy of $100K per annum.  Those salaries are not what one would expect from those who are benevolent and want to help the needy,

It should also be noted those seven “environmental” charities are just a few of the thousands of environmental groups active in Canada and registered with the CRA as charities.  Many of them can be found on “RECEN” (The Canadian Environmental Network) and many others can be found listed on the Canadian Directory for Environmental Groups. Additionally a number of major corporations such as TD Bank and Suncor have established charities that hand out money to many environmental charities such as the Clean Economy Fund (a Bruce Lourie creation) who in turn hand it out to other environmental charities.  Another example is “Evergreen” a Pan-Canadian Expert collaborator who received  $375K from the Suncor Foundation and additional funds from MaRS Discovery District. The latter (a provincially owned charity) also received funds from Suncor.  It’s become a game of “follow the money” for a lot of us taxpayers.

How Dare They!

The Federal and Provincial governments in Canada need to take some time and speak with those who are engaged in real philanthropy and stop calling climate change activates, charitable institutions.

Save the jobs of real charitable workers and let the eco-warriors figure out how to keep their lights on!

*The David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, The Pembina Foundation, Environmental      Defence, Equiterre and the Ecology Action Centre

MaRS Discovery District, Greenbelt Foundation and Ontario Trillium Foundation redefine the word “charity”

With all that is going on in Ontario and the rest of the world associated with the pandemic perhaps it is time for some of our politicians to look inward and try to determine if their past creations make sense and if those creations should be tossed aside.  The result might be to save some hard-earned tax dollars that could be re-deployed to cope with some of today’s Covid-19 fallout.  This looks at just three of those creations.

All three of the captioned companies were creations of the Ontario provincial government and annually receive tens of millions of taxpayer funds which they then reputedly hand out in a “charitable” way.

Their annual reports filed for just the year ended March 31, 2019 indicates they collectively received almost $155 million from the province and $3.7 million from the Federal government. Those funds in turn supposedly resulted in $153 million expended on “charitable activities”.

It’s unclear how many employees the three charities have in total but a review of the recently released Ontario “Sunshine List” indicates 78 employees made the list and received just over $12.7 million in compensation indicating, the “average” salary received was just shy of $163,000 each.*

While the Ontario Trillium Foundation appears incorporated as a “not-for-profit” both MaRS and the Greenbelt are registered charities and their files can be found on the CRA Charities list under the names of “Greenbelt Foundation” and “MaRS Discovery District”.  Let’s examine the three!

Greenbelt Foundation:

In Greenbelt’s filings with the CRA for the March 31, 2019 year-end they provide a list of other “charities” whom they granted funds to and on that list are several towns, municipalities and even Ryerson University.  Also, on that list can be found donations made to the David Suzuki Foundation (revenue of $12.7 million in the most recent year-end), Environmental Defence (annual revenue $3.7 million) and the World Wildlife Fund (annual revenue of almost $25 million).  The other amusing (not for taxpayers) thing about Greenbelt is they spent $564,854 on advertising and promotion and received a miserly $2,929 in actual charitable donations for which they issued tax receipts. What the foregoing infers is our tax dollars are being wasted and also handed out to help charities (we may not willingly support) and municipalities but we taxpayers have no say in the matter.

MaRS Discovery District:

In the case of MaRS we should recall that it was $50.5 million of Ontario taxpayer dollars that first funded them when Dalton McGuinty was the Premier as noted in a 2005 Press Release.  Another $20 million came from the Federal Government.  Since then the province has annually provided them with $20/30 million and the Federal Government with a few million more.  Additionally most will recall the taxpayers back in 2014 bailed them out of their “Phase 2” $344 million expansion.  In their latest CRA filing they record spending $653 thousand on advertising and promotion and raised $528 thousand for which they issued charitable receipts.  Better than Greenbelt but, they still didn’t cover their “A and D spending”!  Major expenditures included $7.5 million on office supplies, $4.4 million on consulting and professional fees, $23.1 million on compensation, $12,3 million on management and administration and $14.4 million on “other expenditures”!  They then have the audacity to suggest and report $40.6 was spent on “charitable activities” but for some unknown reason are not required to report who the beneficiaries were of their largess with our tax dollars.  Needless to say, they lost $3.4 million yet they have 62 people on the recent Sunshine list! Many of those** they funded or provided with their “expert” advice and our tax dollars are reputedly connected to the MaRS “cleantech” sector.

Ontario Trillium Foundation:

As noted above the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) is not registered as a charity however, in their most recent year-end financial statement they record having pledged $108,148,100 in grants to numerous parties.  Their year-end, March 31, 2019, discloses over 410 grants averaging approximately $263,000 with several spread over 2 or 3 years and many of them are true “charities”.  Never-the-less sprinkled among them are grants to the likes of Tides Canada (annual revenue of $35.9 million) and the IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) with annual revenue of $29.8 million and a few smaller ones. Donations to other “climate change” charities in the past were much higher and went to: David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina, WWF, Environmental Defence, Sierra Club, etc. etc. Perhaps those now responsible for handing out our hard-earned tax dollars at OTF realized the meaning of what a “charitable institution” really is? Despite the foregoing it should be up to us taxpayers to pick the charity we would support which would eliminate the approximately $30 million of expenses they incur for administration, compensation, etc. Let us decide where some of our taxes should go!

At the present time the three “charities”, briefly reviewed, are providing no meaningful contribution to the pandemic and instead are consuming tax dollars that may be better applied to keep the province from collapsing in an economic heap.  Those 78 employees on the “Sunshine” list could be redeployed to actually contribute to the real charitable activities currently needed.

Our governments must make decisions now to consider our economic future and not penalize our younger generation by creating insurmountable debt.

*Full disclosure.  The writer is a member of a small charitable organization (40 members) and each and every member is paid absolutely NOTHING.

**Represented by 56 “startups” whom MaRS reputedly helped to reach that stage.

Social Distancing for Covid-19 affects electricity costs

The economic effects of Covid-19 are driving up the costs of electricity for residential and small businesses in jurisdictions, like Ontario, where time-of-use pricing is the standard.  As many businesses shut down temporally, lay off their employees or get them to work from home, electricity consumption will drop.  That drop will have little effect on the generators of that power, be they crown corporations or privately contracted ones. They receive guaranteed prices for their generation and for curtailed power (wind and solar), spilled hydro or steamed-off nuclear.  To add fuel to the fire we export surplus power to our neighbours at a price of about 10% of its cost.

The “social distancing” resulting from business closures, etc. will result in a power consumption drop. Despite the drop, however, costs to ratepayers and taxpayers will climb.  The effect; resulting from that social distancing and those milder temperatures during the Spring Freshet, means, demand will fall and consumption will drop even more than it always does during April, May and June.

Ironically those three months is when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining meaning industrial wind and solar generation is high and those contracted generators have “must-take” contracts and are also paid handsomely to curtail their generation.

As an example of the foregoing Scott Luft tracks wind generation and its curtailment and in 2019 during those three months ratepayers picked up the $111 million cost of 938,244 MWh (megawatt hours) of curtailed wind.  That curtailed generation represented what 447,000 average households would consume in three months.  To make matters worse Ontario exported 5,145,700 MWh (what 2.4 million average households would consume) to our neighbours and sold it for an average of $8/MWh but the costs of that generation was north of $120/MWh. A rough estimate of the cost of selling off that surplus is $575 million. So, ratepayers in Ontario, during last Spring, paid almost $700 million for nothing!  During those same three months 2,266,700 MWh of wind generation was accepted and paid for at a cost to the ratepayers/taxpayers of approximately $330 million and solar’s 1 TWh or so of generation, added costs of over $500 million. We clearly didn’t need any of that!

As if to exacerbate the foregoing (during this pandemic) our system of control, over pricing, via the Ontario Energy Board, allows our major generators, OPG and others, the ability to generate a ROE (return on equity) in the 9% range.

Ratepayers represented by small and medium sized businesses are fighting to stay alive during this pandemic and must pay the full time-of-use rates which during high demand hours are 20.8 cents/kWh to keep the revenue flowing to those in the electricity sector.

Time to use the “State of Emergency”

Perhaps it’s time for Premier Ford to use the recently declared “State of Emergency” for the electricity sector to ease the pain for our small and medium sized businesses as well as all of those residential customers who have been temporally laid off.   Pass legislation that will get our contracted and crown owned electricity generators to reduce their generation prices during this pandemic.

It’s time for all of us to equally share the pain!

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices should “fact check”

Back in 1989 (thirty-one years ago) Noel Brown, a senior UN environmental official told the Associated Press “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Brown noted the Maldives would be under water as the oceans would rise by three feet. While the Maldives weren’t mentioned in the recent report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), “rising sea levels” were; as one of, “the main hazards and conditions on the way to 2050.”

The year 2000 has come and gone but to the best of my knowledge no nations have disappeared due to rising sea levels. The Maldives recently announced they are opening four new airports in the current year.  The lack of them being under water however, hasn’t deterred the numerous “experts” involved with the CICC.  Higher sea level concerns for Atlantic Canada and BC were also included in the report by the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) in their July 2019 report; the forerunner of the CICC’s report.  As pointed out in an earlier article CCA’s disclaimer under “Conclusions” saw them opting out of everything forecast in their report.  Despite the opt out position taken by the CCA the media only focused on the disastrous message.  Reuters noted the CCA report was a follow up to one from Minister McKenna’s ministry and reported:  “Canada’s unique geographic, environmental, and social identity shapes the hazards that it faces and its exposure to climate-related risks,” Eric M. Meslin, president and CEO of the CCA, said in the press release.”

Returning to the issue of “flooding” the CICC’s report on page 19 touts the Netherlands for their leading-edge ability to control flooding “even though a quarter of the country is below sea level.”  What those “experts” failed to note is “The low-lying Netherlands has been fighting back water for more than 1,000 years, when farmers built the first dykes.“  A search turned up an article confirming “flooding” in the Netherlands is not a recent event caused by the effects C0 2 on the atmosphere or melting artic ice!

The CICC’s report also highlighted severe flooding in Thailand in 2011 as if it was a one-off event.They ignored the probable cause which had nothing to do with “climate change”!  Had they looked back to 1942 they would have discovered a more severe flood and a YouTube video  highlighting the damage before “global warming”, the “climate crisis” or “increased emissions” was even a concept. Again, a simple search on the web by the CICC “experts” would have generated information as to why the 2011 flood occurred. One they may have found was a report by Richard Meehan, a civil engineer and adjunct faculty at Stanford University.  Mr. Meehan’s biography notes he “began his career designing and building irrigation and flood control works in Thailand in the 1960s”.

Mr. Meehan’s report notes: “Though monetary damages in the 2011 flood were unprecedented, the flood itself was not an extreme natural event, hydrological statistics variously suggesting a 30 to 75 year return period for a similar flood.”  The report states the reason for the monetary damages was essentially because “of poorly drained swampy lands on the lower Chao Phraya floodplain, including vast tracts of former swamps and riceland now occupied by very large industrial “estates” (or industrial parks in western terms), each the size of a city and home to hundreds of modern manufacturing plants developed in the 1970s and after.”  The message is clear: don’t build homes or industries in flood prone areas or at some point in the future the damages from a flood will be costly to you and/or your insurer!

The Charting our Course report does sprinkle in some benefits to “global warming” such as: “parts of Canada could benefit from warmer temperatures. Warmer winters could, for example, result in fewer cold-related deaths and illnesses and lower heating costs for households and businesses. Warmer temperatures in spring, summer, and fall could also open new tourism opportunities that previously did not exist.”

The following paragraph in the report however dispels those benefits by stating: “any benefits in a high-emissions scenario are likely temporary and short-lived. Benefits diminish as extreme climate events become more common and intense. Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat*. Savings in heating bills are offset by increased use of air-conditioners in the summer.

It is interesting the word “likely” is used as it signals the 79 “experts” spending $20 million of our tax dollars are not really convinced those “high-emissions” will actually cause the damages they profess!

Despite the foregoing our senses should tell us the “experts” will ultimately recommend we need much higher carbon taxes to save the world from the likely “climate crisis”.

They might change their mind if they actually did proper research and “fact checked” their conclusions!

*Debunked in:  The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

The first in this series provided a glimpse of how the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) came to be, via a $20 million taxpayer grant by the Federal Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and disclosed how it had issued its first report titled, “Charting our Course”.

If one bothers to Google “Charting our Course” (the name of the first report from the CICC), you get over 24,000 hits and one of them is a Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial report from 2011 which was their Climate Change Action Plan 2011.  Included in it was a big push for the Muskrat Falls project which is in process of being built but is more than double the original $6.2 billion budget (current estimate is $12.7 billion).  As a result, recent media articles have noted the federal government is stepping up to bail Newfoundland out but no firm details have been forthcoming as yet.

One should hope the title choice of the first report by the CICC will not result in the same effect on Canada as the 2011 report had on Newfoundland but don’t count on it.

We shouldn’t try to become the Venezuela of the G7 because of recommendations that will be made by the CICC but from the rhetoric in their version of “Charting our Course” they appear determined to reduce or eliminate our oil and gas output at a high cost.

Needless to say, there is lots of scary stuff in this report but they have missed or distorted facts such as: “Canada will not be immune. Our coastal cities will be swamped by rising seas, threatening property and infrastructure. In the face of more frequent and more severe fire and floods, insurance premiums are poised to rise dramatically, making home insurance unaffordable for many Canadians.” Looks like they are setting us up for rising insurance costs from those rising seas and severe fires.

Hmm, surely its simply co-incidental the CEO of CICC, Kathy Bardswick, is the former President and CEO of The Co-operators Group Ltd., (5^th largest Canadian property/casualty insurance company) and Blair Feltmate sits on the CICC “Expert Panel”.  Feltmate is Head, Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation,  University of Waterloo; funded by donations from Intact Financial Corporation, the #1. Canadian property/casualty insurance company as noted in a recent Insurance Business Canada magazine.  As another coincidence, Feltmate was called out for his remarks on CBC radio about distorted flood claims by the CBC’s Ombudsman who noted “the CBC report had “failed to comply with journalistic standards” in assessing and reporting on the industry’s claims.”

The CICC report delves into the economics of the UNIPCC forecasted temperature increase in an obtuse way presumably meant to obscure its intent on shutting down the oil and gas sector. As an example, the report notes: “Much of Canada’s economy—and the prosperity it generates—depends on sectors that export emissions intensive products and commodities, such as oil and gas and cement.”  While oil and gas are major exports (at present) it should be noted 2018 cement exports were an unimpressive $536.6 million. Total exports in 2018 were $521.5 billion so cement was 1/10^th of 1% of total exports.  To put the foregoing in context, Canada’s coal exports in 2018 were $7.5 billion (97% metallurgical) and automobiles and parts exported were over $60 billion.  One would think all those “experts” signed on to the CICC could locate a better “emission” related addition to oil and gas.

As if to make the foregoing argument ironic, the report claims the cleantech sector would benefit stating; “Meanwhile, conventional sectors, such as mining and forestry, could benefit from an unprecedented increase in global demand for raw materials.”  This would suggest they believe the mining and forestry sector are “cleantech” and somehow “emissions free”.  A strange claim!

Another part of the report says: “Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat.” A little research on the part of the authors and peer reviewers of this claim would have found a fact based study that unequivocally states the opposite:  The following chart from the Lancet Study from 2015 shows the CICC claim to be completely false!

Fraction of all-cause mortality attributable to moderate and extreme hot and cold temperature by country

The foregoing study, completed by 22 individuals with doctorates stated: “We analysed 74,225,200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012.“ As the chart notes the analysis covered 13 countries and the results clearly show moderate and extreme cold are responsible for 15 to 20 times more deaths than moderate or extreme heat.

Why do the “experts” associated with the CICC distort and ignore facts unless their sole purpose is to convince us we need a higher “carbon tax”!

This “unparalleled collaboration of experts from across the country” seem unwilling to identify facts but are happy “Charting our Course” to economic disaster while utilizing our tax dollars!

Will the eventual outcome result in Canada becoming Canazuela?

NB:  Stay tuned for more on the CICC’s report.

 

Canadian Institute for Clean Growth and Climate Change got a name change

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) is the outgrowth of a $20 million dollar handout by the Federal Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change going back to when the Minister was Catherine McKenna, aka; she who said: “if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it,”.

The CICC sprung from a contract awarded to the “Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration” a group of “carbon-tax” advocates determined to save the world from the “climate emergency” Minister McKenna declared via a motion in the House of Commons.

The original name signaled the outcome!

When conducting a search for the CICC under its original name, ie: the Canadian Institute for Clean Growth and Climate Change one discovers, even though the name was originally registered as such on July 15, 2019, it had changed to become “The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices”.

Presumably the registered name was viewed as the answer the Minister had decreed; signaling its intent before it had performed any research so, they changed it!

The number of CICC “experts” charged with the task of recommending actions to the Ministry is significant and include; 11 on the “Board of Directors”, 17 “Staff”, 37 on the “Expert Panels” and another 14 on the “Advisory Council”.  It is an expansion of the “Ecofiscal Commission” which numbered a mere 33 individuals with varying skills where funding came from a few charitable foundations. The Ecofiscal Commission finished up and recommended the “carbon tax” needed, to reduce Canada’s emissions, was $210/tonne.

Reviewing the 79 individuals involved with the CICC leads to discovering 13 of the 33 people involved with the Ecofiscal Commission are now a major part of the CICC and include notables such as Bruce Lourie, Stewart Elgie and Chris Ragan.  Our tax dollars will clearly be used to generate recommendations to increase the “carbon tax” well beyond the legislated $50/tonne.

The CICC website names the twenty-three organizations under the Environment and Climate Change Canada logo who “contributed to the development of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices”. Needless to say, the referenced “organizations” don’t include any with a dissenting view!

Their 80 page “Charting our Course” report states: “The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is an unparalleled collaboration of experts at the top of their fields, from regions and communities across the country.”  They have obviously gathered all of Canada’s “Einstein’s” together (sarcasm intended) to produce a report that is a foregone conclusion.  Among those “experts” with doctorates are 15 economists, 7 philosophers, 2 political science grads and 1 climatologist. They have sprinkled the one (1) climatologist amongst the other experts but chose one who believes “extreme weather events are intensifying and becoming more frequent because of climate change.”

The report suggests all of the “experts” will be; “Bringing clarity to Canada’s climate policy choices on the journey to 2050”.

In the minds of the “experts”, it is obvious their sense of “clarity” will be to recommend a much higher “carbon tax” so, one wonders, why are we wasting another $20 million of our tax dollars?

NB:  More to come about the “Charting our Course” report.

CanWEA’s “White Paper” opens doors to lower rates

Shortly after CanWEA’s President, Robert Hornung lamented about the Ontario governments cancellation of an industrial wind turbine project a post on their blog raved about a recently released whitepaper* titled “Wind Energy and the Ontario Market”. The paper was prepared specifically for the Canadian Wind Energy Association by Power Advisory LLC. The latter is the employer of Jason Chee-Aloy, former Director, Generation Procurement with the OPA (Ontario Power Authority), a McGuinty creation that has merged with IESO. One should assume Mr. Chee-Aloy played a significant role in contracting the many wind and solar projects by the OPA spread throughout the province and was probably the author of the “whitepaper”!  He presumably knows his way around the contracts he instigated.

The 45 page “paper” is sprinkled liberally with acronyms including one labelled “EAs” or environmental attributes and notes: “Within nearly all IESO contracts, the IESO retains ownership of all EAs, or similar non-emitting products, produced by generators under these contracts.  This is definitely the case for all wind generators under IESO contracts, no matter the contract type or vintage.”

While ratepayers would disagree with many recommendations in the paper the ones related to the foregoing suggesting IESO monetize those EAs has merit as noted in Recommendation # 6:

“The wind energy industry should work with the IESO and other contract counterparty generators to explore monetizing associated EAs/RECs, where the revenues from the sale of EAs/RECs would be shared between these generators and the IESO.  The IESO could then credit all Ontario electricity customers with these revenues helping to lower electricity costs for them.”

No doubt, most ratepayers in the province would agree if we can monetize those EAs lets’ do it; BUT there is no need to share any revenue generated with the operators as they already receive well above market rates from those contracts that drove up electricity costs.

The monetization process would result in the issuance of “renewable energy certificates” (RECs) which could be sold by IESO in the carbon/emissions trading market and all revenues could be applied by them to reduce ratepayers’ monthly bills.

While we’re at it let’s do the same for solar, biomass, hydro and nuclear generation which are all deemed “emissions free”!

If the existing wind contracts can’t be cancelled let IESO at least be directed to generate revenue for the benefit of all ratepayers without sharing any of the revenue with the generators.

The other benefit that may well occur is the ability for the Ford led government to argue against the carbon tax imposed by the Federal Government in the upcoming Surpreme Court appeal.

This could turn into a big win for Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers!

*The term “white papers” originated in England as government-issued documents. One famous example is the Churchill White Paper, commissioned by Winston Churchill in 1922. Today, the term is most commonly applied to “deep dive” style publications.

Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers pay up for Hydro One’s Niagara transmission line

The 76-kilometre Niagara transmission line, meant to strengthen power ties between New York State and Ontario, with a capacity to import/export as much as 800 megawatts of electricity has finally been completed.

Recently, information submitted to the OEB (EB-2018-0275) in a rate application stated: “The Project was originally approved by the Ontario Energy Board on July 8, 2005 pursuant to EB-2004-0476 but construction was halted in 2006 until earlier this year due to a third-party land dispute.”

The Niagara transmission line was finally completed August 30, 2019, or over 14 years after construction started. It’s been a long road!

The decision and order from the OEB blessed the application (they generally do for Hydro One) noting; “Niagara Reinforcement Limited Partnership’s (NRLP) interim 2020 revenue requirement request of $9,389,914 is approved.”

The approval for NRLP rather than Hydro One is a reflection of well over a decade of negotiations to satisfy the Six Nations of the Grand River and, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.  Contained in a note in the 3^rd Quarter financial results of Hydro One, indicates a portion of the Niagara line was sold to them in the entity now referenced as NRLP. The pertinent part of the audit note stated:  “Hydro One Networks sold to the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation and, through a trust, to the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation a 25.0% and 0.1% equity interest in NRLP partnership units, respectively, for total consideration of $12 million, representing the fair value of the equity interest acquired.”  The Mississaugas also hold an option to purchase another 20%. NRLP was created for the sole purpose of allowing that to happen.

On November 5, 2015 an article headlined “Powerline to nowhere” on CTV, noted the cost of the line to that point was $100 million plus $54.5 million in interest payments (including $5 million in interest payments for 2016).  If one adds another $10 million in interest payments for 2017 and 2018 it appears the total cost of the Niagara line was in the neighbourhood of $165 million at a minimum.  In NRLP’s submission to the OEB the actual costs of the line were claimed to be $120 million, but it’s unclear if that included any interest. Either way the cost of the line was north of $165 million yet 25% of it was sold for $12 million which seems like a pretty good deal.  Details on the Mississaugas option were not disclosed.

It should be noted Hydro One had to seek an injunction in July 2019, after repeated attempts were made to block work on the transmission project.  They stated; “Work stopped again in January when members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) blocked access to the construction sites and issued a “cease and desist” order.  The CBC reported; “Hydro One’s statement of claim says the defendants “have a long history of organizing blockades, causing public disruption, breaching court orders” and interfering with land development and utilities as a tactic to negotiate compensation and other benefits to members of the Confederacy.”  The article also said: “The Six Nations and Mississaugas will have 45 per cent ownership* of the project, said Hydro One, and the project will create jobs and economic benefits.”  The injunction was granted by the judge in that appeal and as noted the line was completed August 30, 2019

The estimated cost of the line (north of $165 million) mentioned above has now been passed on to Ontario ratepayers via the OEB decision.  There were lots of other costs picked up by taxpayers in Ontario** and the rest of Canada as suggested in the partial list of material contained in the Chronology of Events at Caledonia in the former Federal Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada Ministry website suggesting the other activities associated with the happenings in Caledonia also may have cost the Canadian taxpayers as much or more than the $165 million associated with the Niagara transmission line but that is for someone else to determine.

Conclusion

Perhaps we in Ontario should be grateful for the delay in completing the transmission line as it prevented the sale of even more of our surplus power from wind and solar etc. to New York for pennies on the dollar. The delay may have accidentally saved us ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars due to the 14 years it took to complete.

*Acquisition details related to the Mississaugas’ 20% purchase option are not available but are believed to expire quickly.

** The Ontario government agreed to pay $20 million to residents and business owners of Caledonia who suffered through the native protest at a housing development in Caledonia.

Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration, Phase Four

As Yogi Berra once said, “it’s déjà vu all over again”!

My somewhat relentless review of the electricity sector started about 10 years ago as Ontario embarked on the unmitigated disaster that was the Green Energy Act and its focus on acquiring unreliable wind and solar generation. I was recently reminded; many of the ENGO names and individuals associated with my research back then are still around and have become more verbose. They are imbibing in more of the panic exercised years ago and using more tax dollars in the process. That conclusion was reached by researching the “collaborators” participating in the captioned, connecting names, reviewing websites and CRA’s Charities files to see where the money comes from and where it goes.  Those ENGO and individuals have moved on from renewable energy worship to “carbon tax” endorsement!

One example was one of those chosen as an expert collaborator highlighted in Phase Three.  MaRS Discovery District, a creation of the McGuinty led, Ontario Liberal ruling party. In 2014, MaRS received $26.7 million from the province and zero from the Feds. In 2018 the province gave them $31.7 and the Feds coughed up $2.9 million.  In other words, our tax dollars to them increased $7.8 million (29.2%) in four years.  Most readers will recall Ontario’s taxpayers bailed out MaRS failed real estate deal to the tune of $308 million. MaRS also receives revenue from other charities ($2.8 million in 2018) and hands out money to other charities such as Evergreen, (somewhere between $100/$500 thousand) one of the other “collaborators” in the P-CEC group.  MaRS also handed out grants to CEGN (Canadian Environmental Grantmakers Network), a Bruce Lourie creation renamed Environment Funders Canada. Lourie is President of the Ivey Foundation another “collaborator” in the P-CEC group.

From outward appearances the chosen ones are destined to tell PM Trudeau’s government and his new “Environment Minister”, Jonathan Wilkinson, how much to UP the “carbon tax”!  MaRS, as noted in Phase Three, also received grants from the Trillium Foundation (provincially owned) and were granted money from another McGuinty creation; Friends of the Greenbelt (FOTG)–funded by taxpayers and another member of Environment Funders Canada. FOTG hand out grants to ENGO’s such as Environmental Defence where Lourie once held a vaunted position. As an aside the CEO of MaRS earns a salary north of $350,000 annually-not too shabby for a registered charity!

Now let’s look at two more of the “collaborators” connected with the Ivey Foundation:

Evergreen and Future Cities Canada—a P-CEC “collaborator”

It’s unclear what Evergreen brings to the table as a collaborator as their focus for almost 20 years has been to convert an old brickworks plant into what is an urban farmer’s and garden market.  Their CEO doesn’t appear to have a degree related to “climate” issues but according to their filing with the CRA it appears he may be paid in excess of $250K per year. Evergreen have done a remarkable job at raising charitable funds over the years, so, maybe that is the key to being chosen.  Revenue in 2008 was $5.758 million and in 2018 was $21.762 million, an increase of 277% in only 10 years.  Their 2018 annual report shows they received over $1 million from both the Provincial and Federal governments and over $500K from the Trillium Foundation (Lourie was a former Director and Trillium are members of Environment Funders Canada). The J. W. McConnell Foundation is also included in the same contributing group as Trillium and also have been a major grantor to one of the Lourie creations (more on that one in the future) and are also members of Environment Funders Canada. They donated $1.1 million in 2017 and $775 thousand in 2018 to Evergreen. In reviewing the Trillium grants listing, it shows they have granted over $1.8 million over the past few years to Evergreen.  MaRS (another collaborator) is credited with donating somewhere between $50K to $100K in 2018 and the same in earlier years. The Ivey Foundation has granted them at least $60K in the past few years.

Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT), Simon Fraser University—a P-CEC “collaborator”

Often when researching individuals involved in predicting the end of the world due to “climate change” one finds the parties leading the predictions have little or no affiliation with the sciences needed to logically develop that line of thought.  In the case of ACT, it is led by Deborah Harford.  Ms. Harford is the Executive Director of ACT and her formal training indicates she holds an SFU “Bachelor of Communications and English, Communication and Media Studies”.  Ms. Harford is active in posting any articles favouring the concept of “climate change” as one would expect from her degree, but she posts none on the ACT website with a differing view. SFU prides itself on its affiliation with similar institutions including Clean Energy Canada (launched by Tides Canada) as they attract donations from charitable institutions such as the IVEY Foundation* (over $1 million since 2014), $900K from the McConnell Family Foundation, $2.3 million from the Trottier Family Foundation (another P-CEC “collaborator”!   Both of the latter are members of Environment Funders Canada.

Perhaps if one augments the perceptions of those handing out the grants, the money will continue to flow, to those who produce the prejudicial and supportive reports the grantor sought!  Just an abstract thought!

While Phases one through four of this series have raised the connection concept of the Ivey Foundation’s relationship with six of the P-CEC named “collaborators” there are a few more of interest. The tale of the tangled web will continue in the next Phase!

*A few hundred thousand dollars was also granted to Tides Canada.

OPG 3rd Quarter 2019 results best since 2010

OPG released their 3^rd Quarter results November 12, 2019 and no one noticed!

They had the best 3^rd Quarter results since 2010, generating net income of $323 million up $48 million or 17.2% over 2018.  Generation was up modestly by .8 TWh (terawatt hours) or 4.4% with nuclear generation up 1 TWh to 11.6 TWh and hydro down by .2 TWh from 7 TWh to 6.8 TWh.  In the latter case the report notes “foregone” (spilled hydro) increased to .7 TWh in the 3^rd Quarter (up from .4 TWh in 2018). The .7 TWh “foregone” could have supplied 300,000 average Ontario households in the quarter.

Revenue was up year over year by $138 million or 9.8% and the principal reason was the blessing from the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) to start the recovery process on the Darlington nuclear refurbishment process. It’s now in the third year of the 10-year plan.  As a result, just over $100 million of the increase in revenue came from increased prices on nuclear generation.  Comments in the report state: “The Darlington Refurbishment project, the execution of which began in 2016, continues to track on schedule overall and to the $12.8 billion budget.”  Let’s hope that continues! The rest of the increase came from the hydro sector and perhaps from the acquisitions made in the US by OPG.

The report notes, OPG generation in the quarter represented 50.4% of total generation (including net exports) in the province as reported by IESO up from 48.7% in the comparable 2018 quarter.

One disturbing find in the report marked as: Environmental and Sustainability went on to note:

“Under the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA), an Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) for industrial facilities took effect on January 1, 2019 and a fuel charge came into effect on April 1, 2019 in Ontario. On July 10, 2019, OBPS regulations were published, including fuel-specific performance standards for electricity generation that apply retroactively beginning January 1, 2019. OPG has implemented processes to comply with the federal requirements and recover associated carbon costs to the extent possible.”

With the recent announcement OPG will acquire TC Energy’s (formerly TransCanada Corporation) portfolio of Ontario gas plants for $2.87 billion, one would assume under the GGPPA the Federal Government will seek increased fuel charges. The increased charges will result in OPG’s application for a rate increase to the OEB so that those costs will further increase the cost of electricity in Ontario.

The demise of the Wynne/McGuinty government who were responsible for Ontario’s electricity rates more than doubling during their term in office is over. Ontario ratepayers hoped to see a slowdown in those increases.  Now it looks to be taken over by the Feds who will impose their concept on how to generate our electricity.

There appears to be no end in sight to cleaning up the electricity mess in the province!