Marc Patrone Show: Will Trudeau/Butts radical environmental agenda derail over scandal?

Should you want to listen to the podcast of me on the Marc Patrone Show on NEWSTALK SAUGA 960 AM this morning (July 23, 2020) you can find in either on the podcast starting at 30.40 here:

Podcasts

or on the NEWSTALK CANADA website here:

Parker Gallant: Will Trudeau/Butts radical environmental agenda derail over scandal?

 

Industrial Wind Turbines Flat-line

My friend Scott Luft posted on his Twitter account how IESO reported wind, on July 21, 2020 at hours  11 AM and the following hour of 12 PM credited IWT with generating:

“2 MW output for 2 hours”.

Image

Noting the foregoing intrigued the writer to have a look at the “peak” Ontario Demand for those two hours.  According to IESO hour 11 had a peak demand of 17,591 MWh and for hour 12 it increased to 17,874 MWh.  For both hours IWT generation represented about 0.01% of demand.

IWT “capacity”* of approximately 4,800 MW represents about 12% of total grid connected capacity and all they could deliver in those 2 hours was 4 MWh or 0.01% of demand!  I suspect they would have drawn more power from the grid than they generated just to keep their lights on in those turbines and their electronics working.

For some reason eco-warriors such as the Gerald Butts’s and Bruce Lourie’s of this world were able to convince the naïve former ruling Ontario Liberals, McGuinty and Wynne, that IWT’s and solar panels were the solution to solving the unproven claims associated with the perceived “climate change” forecasts of the UNIPCC!  The GEA was the creation they believed would save Ontario from global warming by loading up on wind and solar at rates well in excess of the market! Ontario ratepayers know how well that worked out!

The prior McGuinty/Wynne buy-in has cost Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers billions of dollars and will continue unless the Ford led government enacts legislation to cancel the contracts or amend them to stop the bleeding.

*Grid connected wind capacity posted by IESO, for an unknown reason, does not include several larger developments as Scott Luft notes in the tweet cited above.

Ontario is a Bottomless Pit for Class B Ratepayers as the ICI Demonstrates

The Ford Government announced, via a press release, on June 26, 2020 that they were freezing the rates for Class A ratepayers for two years.  That means they will not be required to reduce consumption during peak hours! In Ontario those “peak hours” generally occur during the hot summer months.  Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines stated: “Today’s announcement will allow large industrial employers to focus on getting their operations up and running and employees back to work, instead of adjusting operations in response to peak electricity demand hours.”

The purpose of the freeze had to do with the fact that Ontario’s electricity consumption had fallen due to the pandemic; meaning our surplus capacity was exacerbated driving down the HOEP (market price), causing hydro spillage, wind curtailment, nuclear steam-off and increasing exports of surplus electricity.  All of the foregoing adds to the bill Class B ratepayers and taxpayers would be required to pay for, due to the reprehensible design of the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) by the former government and the GEA which brought us intermittent and unreliable wind and solar generation backed-up with gas plants.

Despite the obvious benefit of the freeze at this time for both Class A and Class B ratepayers it proved upsetting to Mark Winfield, a Professor of Environmental Studies at York University.  York is the bastion of many eco-warriors, intent on destroying the economy in their push to rid us of any use of fossil fuels.  Winfield holds a Doctorate in Philosophy which he presumably believes qualifies him as a scientist capable of opining on “climate change” and any events emanating from the Energy Ministry!  It is worth noting Merriam Webster’s first definition of philosophy is: “All learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts” yet Winfield, for some reason, thinks his doctorate includes those “technical precepts”!

Winfield’s article is labelled “Is Canada’s Ontario an “Innovation Wasteland” for Energy? ” and suggests among other claims; the ICI introduction and “peak demand” reduction resulted in the creation of “the leading edge of innovation in electricity systems around the world”.  While it would be relatively easy to debunk the foregoing and other claims in Winfield’s article the fact is; the creation of the Global Adjustment linked to the ICI program drove up Class B electricity rates in Ontario far in excess of inflation and had a negative effect on both residential households and small/medium sized businesses.  The latter is where 60% of private sector jobs reside and a “technical precept” ignored by Winfield! It is ironic he also ignores the fact York University several years ago installed a 5 MW gas fired turbine and a few years later added another 5 MW gas fired turbine aimed at reducing their electricity consumption and its associated costs.

I will not go to the trouble of further debunking Winfield’s article but must confess I was never a fan of the ICI program.  It is far too simple in concept in that you are only required to pick five (5) “peak hours” out of the 8,760 hours in a year and even if you are close, it will result in significant savings compared to other ratepayers.  If you are one of those Class A ratepayers, simply firing up a gas generator allows you to exit the grid or reduce your demand and signal your electricity distributor you are conserving.  The result is a significant decrease in GA costs reducing their electricity bill for the 8760 hours of the following year.  The savings in costs are allocated to Class B ratepayers.

If Winfield had bothered to do some research he might have discovered the December 2018 Market Surveillance Panel’s Report issued by the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) titled: “The industrial Conservation initiative: Evaluating its Impact and Potential Alternative Approaches”.  Some of the “Innovation Wasteland” he may have discovered in the report was the following:

Information on exactly how much on-site generation or storage has been built in response to the ICI is not readily available. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that suggests such investments are being made. In 2017 and 2018, three Class A consumers made a combined 33 applications to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (as it then was) to build a total of 44 MW of natural gas-fired capacity. One of the express purposes for which this new on-site capacity is being built is “peak shaving”, which in turn suggests the purpose is, at least in part, to reduce Global Adjustment costs through participation in the ICI.” At that point Winfield may have understood “natural gas-fired capacity” is fossil fuel based and for decades has been used to generate electricity.

Winfield may also have come across some other “technical precepts” such as: “Ontario currently finds itself in surplus supply conditions, yet the incentive to reduce consumption under the ICI has never been stronger. Perversely, the incentive for Class A consumers to reduce peak demand—by investing in on-site generation capacity or otherwise—is strongest when there is ample supply and wholesale market electricity prices are low.”  What that infers is; the lower the HOEP price the larger the subsidy for Class A ratepayers.

The report also noted: “The Panel estimates that payments to peaking resources make up less than 20% of the costs recovered through the Global Adjustment. The remaining 80% of fixed capacity costs are for non-peaking resources, which Class A consumers use and benefit from during most hours of the year.” To clarify, the benefit for Class A consumers picking those “peak hours” has only a 20% impact in reducing capacity costs but they benefit for the full year penalizing Class B consumers for that other 80% benefit.

Another rather shocking benefit that occurred in 2017 is described in the report as follows: “During the five peak demand hours in 2017, five directly-connected Class A consumers consumed no electricity, meaning they pay no Global Adjustment during the following 12-month period.”  In 2017 the HOEP was 1.58 cents/kWh meaning those five Class A consumers paid that price for their consumption throughout 2018 whereas all Class B consumers paid 11.55 cents/kWh (HOEP of 1.58 cents/kWh + the GA of 9.97 cents/kWh = 11.55 cents/kWh) or 7.3 times more per kilowatt hour!  A clear demonstration there is something inherently wrong with the design of the ICI.

The panel report discloses some history since the advent of the ICI came into force in September 2011 when Brad Duguid was the Ontario Minister of Energy and it brings reality to how much Class B consumers have paid to subsidize Class A consumers.  “In 2011, approximately $300 million in Global Adjustment costs were shifted from Class A to Class B consumers as a result of participation in the ICI, representing approximately 3.5% of the total electricity supply costs for Class B consumers that year. In 2017, the costs shifted had increased to $1.2 billion, representing approximately 10% of the total electricity supply costs for Class B consumers. Since 2011, participation in the ICI has shifted a total of $4.91 billion in Global Adjustment costs from Class A to Class B consumers.”

What the foregoing demonstrates is the ICI is poorly designed and should be scrapped. Minister Rickford should ensure the replacement plan treats all ratepayers fairly. It might also be time to Defund the Environmental Studies Program at York University as they have trouble with actual facts related to Ontario’s electricity sector!

Another Weekend Proves Wind and Solar Drive up Electricity Costs

A post a month ago focused on the $50 million excess cost of renewable energy (wind and solar) on the Victoria Day weekend. Now with summer finally arriving and warmer temperatures, it is perhaps worth comparing the past weekend to that one by examining the performance of wind and solar and its costs.

The inevitable happens in Ontario as demand for electricity during Ontario’s mild spring and fall seasons drops from both winter and summer demand.  As noted in the earlier article average Ontario demand over the three days of the Victoria weekend was only 294,668 MWh whereas over the past weekend (including Friday June 19th) average demand was 401,336 MWh an increase of 36.2%. Demand obviously increases as warmer weather arrives and air conditioners are turned on.  This has been augmented by government and other employees working from home due to the lock-down associated with Covid-19.

The Victoria Day weekend saw wind delivering almost 133,000 MWh (plus 59,100 MWh curtailed) and solar 36,000 MWh causing net exports to soar to 264,000 MWh principally due to their excess generation.

This past weekend net exports were 84,500 MWh as wind produced only 29,500 MWh (9.1% of capacity) and solar 58,200 MWh (31% of capacity).  Increased demand coupled with the drop in wind and solar (combined) generation not only caused our net exports to fall but also resulted in the HOEP (market price) increasing from $1.16/MWh to $17.34/MWh.   What the latter means; we recovered $1.5 million more of our costs despite exporting much less (179,500 MWh less) this past weekend demonstrating wind’s habit of generating power when it’s not needed.

Ontario’s peak demand hour during this recent weekend appears to have occurred June 20th at hour 18 when it reached 19,997 MWh.  During that hour wind generated 226 MWh and solar 124 MWh or 1.7% of demand demonstrating their inability to deliver power when needed.  Needless to say; nuclear, hydro and gas delivered what we needed!

So, the inevitable question is; did increased consumption drive up our average costs as one would expect?  One would assume it would because the average price paid for solar is $448/MWh so the 58,200 MWh delivered cost Ontario ratepayers approximately $26 million and the 29,500 MWh of wind ($135/MWh) added $4 million. That brings the two generation source’s costs to $30 million over the three days and allowing for the recovery of the $1.5 million for their sale means a net cost of $28.5* million or $21.5 million less than the Victoria Day weekend. The foregoing occurred even though consumption was up 36%. Despite the reduction in costs for the recent weekend it still amounts to $9.5 million per day and extrapolated over a year would amount to $3.5 billion which coincidentally is close to what wind and solar’s costs were in 2019 as outlined in a recent post.

The conclusion:

Using more power costs less, when wind and solar generation falls!  That implies wind and solar** should be completely eliminated due to their intermittent and unreliable generation.

*The 87,700 MWh delivered by wind and solar collectively cost ratepayers 324.97/MWh or 32.5cents/kWh.

** They may work for off-grid locations subject to storage availability.

How About Charitable Receipts for Ontario Ratepayers?

Another costly weekend for Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers came and went as we exported 163,566 MWh to our neighbours in NY, Michigan, Quebec, etc. Those MWh were sold at a probable cost to Ontarians of $137/MWh (minimum)* and we received an average of $0/MWh for the sale price meaning the cost to Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers was north of $22 million for nothing on June 13th and June 14th!

The above $22 million doesn’t include costs associated with spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear or idling gas plants which also occurred and paid for by us benevolent ratepayers/taxpayers.

Interestingly enough the almost 164 thousand MWh exported was equal to 28.9% of the 566 thousand MWh Ontario ratepayers actually consumed over those two days and equates to what 3.2 million average households in Ontario would consume over two days.  This smacks of bad planning by IESO or perhaps it’s the combined effects of the pandemic and the GEA instituted by the McGuinty/Wynne led governments. The bad planning was influenced by eco-warriors such as Bruce Lourie and Gerald Butts who pushed for intermittent and unreliable renewable energy in the form of wind and solar generation!

So, a high percentage of generation was exported over the two June days and much of the blame can be laid at the feet of wind and solar which often presents itself at times of the year when consumption falls.  Over the two days, wind was generating at around 27% of its capacity and solar at about 31%. Solar somehow even generated a few MWh in the middle of the night during those two days? In total wind generated around 38,500 MWh and additionally just under 20,000 MWh was curtailed, collectively costing $8.1 million. Solar’s (grid connected only) generation of almost 6,700 MWh cost another $3 million.  Together wind (including curtailed) and solar generation represented just over 39% of our net exports and close to 50% of their costs.

Without wind and solar generation, we would have saved just over $11 million and due to a smaller surplus may have actually generated some revenue based on the market driven HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) helping reduce costs for Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers.

Since implementation of the Green Energy Act and it’s poor planning (no cost benefit study) it has cost billions of dollars to supply our neighbours with cheap electricity.  Those billions of dollars paid by ratepayers and taxpayers over the past ten years have been paid with after-tax dollars by residential and sole ownership businesses so perhaps the Ford government should consider implementation of a charitable receipt for each of us to acknowledge our generosity over the years!

An alternative would be; amend the contracts, via legislation/regulations to eliminate wind and solar’s “first to the grid” rights! We should pay for power, as and when needed, not be forced to accept it when unneeded!

 

*The $137/MWh GA is an estimate as IESO now only uses the rate for the GA imposed by the Ford government set at $115/MWh or 11.5 cents/kWh with the difference accumulating in the Ontario Electricity Rebate program (previously called the Fair Hydro Plan) appearing on electricity bills.

How best to shut down the Canadian Economy? It’s Complicated!

On June 7, 2020 the Globe and Mail published an article by Adam Radwanski criticizing an earlier piece by Christopher Ragan and Andrew Potter of McGill University. The McGill team advocated the “green recovery” plan as an “excellent opportunity to substantially increase the federal carbon tax”–“rather than trying to pick climate-change winners through government spending”. Ragan, founder of the Ecofiscal Commission, and a strong advocate for the carbon tax, has suggested it would have to increase to $210/tonne to be effective in the reduction of emissions to contain global warming.

Radwanski’s article shows he isn’t a huge fan of the carbon tax. In his words: “it’s hard to imagine any government deciding to immediately “double or triple” a carbon price in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” Anyone with a small amount of common sense would support his view! Raising taxes as we try to emerge from a chronic financial crisis and record unemployment rates does seem a bad plan. As Radwanski notes, the government would need to impose “huge costs on businesses”. This would likely result in many businesses either failing or moving to friendly jurisdictions like the US that have pulled out of the Paris Accord and where only a few states impose carbon taxes.

Radwanski’s article then undertakes a review of other options for intervention – and subsidization. These are just the sorts of things the Eco-Fiscal Commission argued against. He speaks favourably about government subsidizing building retrofits and electric vehicle purchases which he says are: “two of the most obvious potential stimulus measures”. He goes on to say the public won’t buy EVs “if there isn’t enough charging infrastructure” implying the need for government support there too. He notes that transit systems can’t afford to buy electric buses due to ridership drops and opines how the Feds could help finance their purchases. He also expresses concern and the need “to accelerate the end of coalfired power” and avoid “a looming ramp-up of gas-fired energy generation in Ontario.” Interestingly, he avoids mentioning the fact that the very same “gas-fired energy generation” in Ontario is required to back up the McGuinty/Wynne contracted intermittent and unreliable wind and solar generation that drove up energy costs.

Radwanski’s conclusion? The shift – by which he seems to mean to a green future – is going to require more than one policy tool. One assumes he means some combination of carbon taxes and various interventions that pick favourites with government subsidies.

And that’s where Mr Gerald Butts and Mr Bruce Lourie enter the conversation.

The former, in his tweet of June 9th said: “Strong piece by @aradwanski just set the global standard for a clean recovery”! Hours later Bruce Lourie’s response was simply: “It’s complicated”!

Well there you go. Two leading architects of the last two decades of interventionist and expensive government action on energy in Ontario and Canada applaud a piece saying, in sum, that we need more, not less, taxation and intervention going forward.

The Green Energy Act – where both Butts and Lourie had a hand – resulted in Ontario having some of the highest electricity prices in North America. But there is no talk of that here. There is no talk of how all those programmes and policies they thought up have hurt affordability, and with it our competitiveness. No, all we get is the statement that Radwanski’s call for more initiatives is setting a “global standard” and the very helpful comment that “it’s complicated.” Lourie and Butts are greenwashing Canada’s taxpayers and seem hell-bent on further destroying the Canadian economy –their new “Resilient Recovery” initiative is a case in point.

What none of these people -= Ragan, Potter, Butts, Lourie or Radwanski ever talk about is the fact that the Canadian consumer is being hit again and again with more and more costs. When will this end? Only when someone steps forward and says stop – pull out of the Paris Accord, abandon ridiculous targets that hurt Canadians, and get on with allowing Canadians to get on with trying to recover from these messes. It isn’t that complicated!

NB:  Also published on Canadians for Affordable Energy.

How best to shut down the Canadian Economy? It’s Complicated!

Dan McTeague, former Liberal MP and well known as the “Gas Price Wizard” is also President of Canadians for Affordable Energy. Dan invited me to submit a post which is now up on that website.

It covers a fair amount of ground referencing a couple of Globe & Mail articles and the reaction to them by Gerald Butts and Bruce Lourie.  I think you will find it interesting and not too “complicated”!   Find it here:

http://www.affordableenergy.ca/lourie_and_butts_wrestle?utm_campaign=how_best_to_shut_down&utm_medium=email&utm_source=affordableenergy

The Lourie Butts Team Returns and Strives to Be “Resilient”

The recent announcement about Gerald Butts, former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, being a member of a newly created “Task Force for a Resilient Recovery”, garnered lots of media attention.  Missing from most of the MSM writeups however was a key fact; Bruce Lourie, President of the Ivey Foundation helped to organize the “Task Force”! Surprisingly the CBC noted this whereas most other media outlets missed that, focusing instead, on Gerald Butts’s return to Ottawa!

Butts and Lourie were the team that brought Ontarians the GEA (Green Energy Act), responsible for doubling electricity prices in the Province and driving away businesses to other jurisdictions offering cheaper energy prices.  Butts worked on the inside of the Ontario Liberal Party as Premier McGuinty’s principal advisor while Lourie “initiated the campaign to shut down coal-fired power plants ” in the province and “helped shepherd the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, one of the world’s largest conservation efforts, as well as the establishment of the Ontario Greenbelt,“. Lourie was also appointed by McGuinty as; a director of the OPA (merged with IESO), the Trillium Foundation and the Premier’s  “Climate Change Advisory Board”. Eight years ago, I had occasion to write several articles related to Lourie and cobbled together a spider web showing the myriad of environmental groups he claimed he established and others where he exerted influence.  A link to the article and the “spider web” can be found here!

Changing the Narrative:   It is interesting to note the “Task Force” (in the announcement from the Smart Prosperity Institute,* formerly Sustainable Prosperity), claim they are “a new and independent group of finance, policy and sustainability leaders”.  Also interesting is the fact they label themselves a “Task Force”!  It seems to be characteristic of the “climate change” advocates to name themselves a “commission”, eg: Ecofiscal Commission) or in this case, “task force”.  The former is normally used to signify a group appointed by government and the latter is frequently used by the armed forces such as NATO.

The use of the adjective “resilient” also seems to have replaced the word “sustainable”; perhaps a signal the Covid-19 pandemic and lock-down scared the renewable energy eco-warriors into thinking they may be flogging a dead horse?

The other word in the announcement catching the eye is “new”!  While the “organizations” name is new, many of the members have been around for years pushing the same agenda. One of those is Stewart Elgie, Executive Chair of the Smart Prosperity Institute.  Elgie is a member of the Ecofiscal Commission, Founding Executive Director of the Canadian Boreal Foundation and founder of Ecojustice, claimed as “Canada’s largest environmental law charity”!  To top that off he is a Professor, Law and Economics at the University of Ottawa.  Obviously being an eco-warrior can be a rewarding career!

Another striving, in a seeming effort to confuse the public, is Lourie and others will change the names of their environmental (see above name change of Sustainable Prosperity) or charitable organization(s) to avoid researchable data.  In Lourie’s case they are structures he claims he founded, such as the charity, CEGN (Canadian Environmental Grantmakers Network) now called, Environment Funders Canada.

It appears the Butts/Lourie connection and the relationship with Justin Trudeau also goes back in time, including a 2003 canoe trip.  As noted in a 2003 article about the trip: “He (referencing Justin Trudeau) joined Herb Norwegian, Suza’ Tseto, Ed Stuzik, Gerald Butts, Bruce Lourie, and several CPAWS conservationists for the seven-day trip down the South Nahanni.”

As if to confirm the Butts/Lourie relationship a May 28, 2020 Butts tweet stated:

“@gmbutts Finally, the work we are doing under @brucelourie’s excellent leadership is a volunteer, non-partisan contribution to Canadian public policy debate. it is received in that spirit by sensible people of all political stripes who care about #ClimateChange.”

From this readers perspective it appears, Gerald Butts’s tweet is an admission Bruce Lourie is superior to him in respect to salability on the issue of “climate change”! He suggests only “sensible people” believe in the diatribe dispensed by him and the other members of the “task force”, ie; if you don’t agree you are “insensible”!**

Butts also pushes the envelope in his linkedin post suggesting he was “Principal Secretary to the Premier” from “Nov 1999—Aug 2008”!   The records show Dalton McGuinty officially became Premier, October 23, 2003!  The foregoing suggests someone’s records are incorrect and we should surmise it is none other than Gerald Butts!  Perhaps the claim infers, from his perspective, he considers himself “resilient” even when he stretches the truth!

The opinion of most logical thinkers and scientists is; “manmade” climate change is insignificant compared to the natural forces affecting temperature changes and no matter how effective or ineffective Canada is in reducing emissions it will have minimal effect as we emit only 1.6% of all global emissions!

Mankind has been “resilient” for centuries and there is no reason Canadians should toss away our current and future economic abilities due to the preaching’s of the cabal of eco-warriors!

Let’s stay sensible and resilient for the right reasons not for the ones Butts and Lourie pronounce!

*The bulk of funders of the Smart Prosperity Institute are Federal and Provincial Ministries using taxpayer dollars as well as several charitable foundations, such as Tides Canada who support “global warming” theories.

**Oxford defines insensible as “unconscious, numb, without feeling”.

Parker Gallant Unmasks The Architects Of The Green Energy Scam

I was once again invited to be on the Marc Patrone show on radio station Newstalk Sauga 960 AM to discuss the recent event announcing the creation of the “Task Force for a Resilient Recovery”.  While the principal chat was about the foregoing Marc and I covered other related issues dealing with the energy sector.  It is a 12 minute segment posted here:

Parker Gallant Unmasks The Architects Of The Green Energy Scam

 

Ontario’s Bureaucrats and Liberal appointed justices have full control of the Ontario Energy Ministry

On May 1, 2020 an article penned by yours truly, outlined the OEB’s (Ontario Energy Board) concerns about how the Covid-19 pandemic will reduce revenue for OPG and Hydro One. The OEB instructed both to keep track of revenue losses for future rate application increases and to establish “deferral accounts” to keep track of those losses.

The OEB has done it again but this time their letter is aimed at all of the LDC’s (local distribution companies) telling them to keep track of losses related to the pandemic and to set up: “Account 1509 – Impacts Arising from the COVID-19 Emergency (Account).  Collecting information on the balances in the Account will inform the OEB about the impacts of the emergency on distributors”.  Needless to say, the projected losses could be significant should the LDC’s bad debts include significant businesses who fail as a fall-out of the pandemic.  While the dollar amounts in respect to either of the two OEB letters is presently unknown one should suspect they will be significant as the lock-down continues and many businesses may not survive and consumption falls.

The question arising is; will it be ratepayers impacted in the future or will the burden fall on taxpayers?  We should suspect the latter as a review of Ministerial Directives* from the Ford led government, up to this point, have transferred a lot of costs to taxpayers.  The latter includes the renamed “Fair Hydro Plan” launched by former Premier Wynne, now called the “Ontario Electricity Rebate” which negatively impacted last year’s budget to the tune of $5.6 billion. Other costs continue to accumulate due to the Green Energy Act (GEA) initiative instituted by the former governing Ontario Liberal Party and with reduced consumption will grow as recently pointed out, costing ratepayers $2 billion annually related to just the cost of industrial wind turbines (IWT).

Another recent initiative by the Ford government will eventually come back to bite ratepayers as they have decreed due to the pandemic the April GA (Global Adjustment) will be set for all Class B ratepayers at $115/MWh (megawatt hour) or $40/MWh less than what my friend Scott Luft estimates it would have been.  Class A ratepayers will see a similar deferment.  The initiative will carry through to the end of June 2020 meaning it potentially could amount to over $800 million to be recouped from ratepayers commencing January 2021 according to IESO.

As if the foregoing wasn’t enough, the only significant IWT cancelled by the Ford government, potentially saving ratepayers $450 million over the 20 year contract, was just reinstated by a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice!

The Nation Rise wind power project is a 100-megawatt (MW) IWT project, which I have written extensively on. It is unneeded, as it will simply add to our surplus generation.  Additionally, the original contracted party, EDPR of Portugal (partially owned by state owned Chinese companies) sold off controlling interest to a Quebec based company (Axium) run by former senior executives of SNC Lavalin.

In examining the Justices hearing the appeal and overturning its cancellation it is striking to note one of them was Supernumerary Justice Harriet Sachs married to Clayton Ruby.  Clayton Ruby is a well-respected lawyer who has been quite active in promoting renewable energy and appears to be a firm believer in “climate change”.  Mr. Ruby has even signed the Leap Manifesto which makes major improbable and unproven claims such as: “The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy.” A picture of Mr. Ruby and others who signed the Manifesto can be found on page 39 in the November/December 2015 issue of the Monitor.  The Monitor was issued by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.   Should Mr. Ruby desire, he could easily find many recent research papers that would dispel many of the Leap Manifesto claims.  Based on Mr. Ruby’s beliefs, it should be expected they would be chatted about with his spouse, Justice Sachs, over the kitchen table or a family event, so the question arises; does she share his beliefs?

Looking back to October 2013 Justice Sachs was to sit as the judge on a “mock trial” of environmentalist David Suzuki related to a live theatre performance referenced as “The Trial of David Suzuki” but she withdrew as Sun News host Ezra Levant raised “queries on Judge Sachs and her possible bias.”

The foregoing raises the question on whether she continues to retain the suggested bias and if so, why did she not relinquish her role in this matter or why didn’t the other two justices suggest she do so?

It is obvious the mess created by the former governments of the province continue to weigh heavily on the ratepayers/taxpayers and the Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating the burden.

Once the pandemic recedes the Ford government needs to take serious action to correct this mess in the Energy Ministry and not simply transfer the costs to taxpayers.

 

*The Ford government has to this point issued less than 10 directives which moved costs to taxpayers whereas the McGuinty/Wynne led Ontario Liberal governments issued over 150 directives to the OEB, IESO, Hydro One and the OPG and the bulk of them have and continue to cause electricity rates to increase.