5 reasons not to believe wind power lobby spin-Part 2

CanWEA points to Denmark as a fine example of “affordable” wind power — great if you think 47 cents a kWh is affordable [Photo Pioneer Institute]
In Part 1 of this series, I dealt with two of the five claims CanWEA makes for industrial-scale wind power development in its October 11, 2018 blog post, “Five reasons why wind energy is Ontario’s best option for new electricity supply”.

Refuting those two claims for omission of facts was relatively easy.

Here are the details on the remaining three.

3. CanWEA claim: “Wind energy will be necessary if Ontario is to keep Ontario’s electricity supply reliable through the next decade.”

CanWEA says the IESO “forecast a need for significant new electricity generation, especially from 2023 onwards, as the Pickering Nuclear station shuts down, other nuclear units are being refurbished, and generation contracts expire.”   Well, that is true as IESO did suggest a shortfall, but here are the facts: the forecast shortfall is 1,400 MW. The OPG Lennox generation station with 2,100 MW has a contract expiring that year. So the question is, will the contract be extended? I was recently taken on a tour of the Lennox facility where I observed they were in the process of refurbishing one of the four 525-MW units which suggests they anticipate a renewal of the contract. With the anticipated renewal the “need for significant new electricity generation” is simply a figment of CanWEA’s imagination.

This claim goes on to suggest: “New wind energy would help keep Ontario’s electricity supply reliable, as well as more affordable.” And, “Other jurisdictions around the world are proving this – for example, Denmark now produces more than 44 per cent of its electricity from wind turbines on an annual basis.” The Denmark example ignores the cost of residential electricity on Danish households which is the highest in Europe. Denmark’s household electricity price is 312.60 Euro/MWh or $471.10 CAD/MWh, based on current exchange rates.

Is CanWEA suggesting is that if Ontario’s ratepayers were paying 47.1 cents/kWh it would be affordable? That seems like a big stretch and would push many more households into energy poverty!

The same applies to the claim of it being “reliable.” As noted in a June 2017 peer-reviewed report by Marc Brouillette, wind generation in Ontario presented itself when needed only 35% of the time. If one considers that wind’s annual generation averages about 30% of capacity, it is therefore “reliable” about 10.5% of the time it’s actually needed. (Note: IESO values wind generation at 12% in their forecasts)

4. This CanWEA claim suggests: “Wind energy provides many services to system operators to keep electricity supply flexible.” Their view of “flexible” fails to align with what the grid operator IESO would consider flexible. As Marc Brouillette’s report noted, “… wind output over any three-day period can vary between almost zero and 90 per cent of capacity.” That variance often requires clean hydro spillage or nuclear steam-off or the export of surplus capacity or full curtailment.

All of those actions cost ratepayers considerable money. Wind is unable to ramp up if demand increases and is the reason Ontario has over 10,000 MW of gas/oil plant capacity, with much of it idling in case the wind stops blowing or clouds prevent solar from generating. CanWEA needs to review the definition of “flexible.”

Another amusing statement under this claim is that: “Wind energy can also provide a suite of electricity grid services, often more nimbly and more cost effectively than conventional sources, helping to ensure reliable and flexible electricity supply. These services include: operating reserve, regulation, reactive support, voltage control, primary frequency response, load following, and inertia and fast frequency response.”   The bulk of those “suite of electricity grid services” are requirements for any generators on the grid. The ones suggesting operating reserve, reactive support, load following and fast frequency support are really referencing the curtailment of wind generation as noted in the preceding paragraph.

5. CanWEA’s final claim is:Wind energy is essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and goes on to suggest: “Ontario has achieved a 90 per cent reduction in electricity sector greenhouse gas emissions over the past 15 years, and wind energy has been an important contributor. Wind turbines do not emit greenhouse gases, just as they do not pollute the air.” If CanWEA bothered to be truthful, the trade association would not claim “wind energy has been an important contributor” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   If you review year-end data as supplied by IESO for the year 2004 and compare it to the data for 2018, you are obliged to reach the conclusion that wind generation played absolutely no role in the “90% reduction in the electricity sector greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ontario demand in 2004 was 153.4 TWh (terawatt hours) and in 2018 was 137.4 TWh representing a drop in demand of 16 TWh. Nuclear generation in 2004 was 77 TWh and in 2018 was 90.1 TWh for an increase in generation of 13.1 TWh. The drop in demand of 16 TWh, plus the increased nuclear  generation of 13.1 TWh, equals 29.1 TWh. Those 29.1 TWh easily displaced the 2004 coal generation of 26.8 TWh!

Ontario didn’t need any wind turbines to achieve the 90 per cent reduction in emissions by closing the coal plants, and CanWEA was totally wrong to suggest wind generation played anything more than a very small role.

As the saying goes, “there are always two sides to every story” but if it doesn’t fit the message you wish to convey, you simply ignore the other side! CanWEA has done that consistently while ignoring the negative impacts of industrial wind turbines.

Here are just five:

1.Providing intermittent and unreliable generation,

2. Causing health problems due to audible and inaudible noise emissions,

3. Driving up electricity costs,

4. Killing birds and bats (all essential parts of the eco-system), and

5. Possible link to contamination of water wells.

I could list other negative impacts, but I would first invite CanWEA to attempt to dispel those five.

Needless to say, the anticipated response will be “crickets”!

PARKER GALLANT

Advertisements

Just released 2018 electricity data: are things finally looking up in Ontario?

Why ‘down’ is actually ‘up’ in topsy-turvy Ontario

Last month, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) released the grid-connected 2018 Electricity Data. Under the “Price” heading the IESO said this: “The total cost of power for Class B consumers, representing the combined effect of the HOEP [2.43 cents/kWh] and the GA [9.07cents/kWh] was 11.50 cents/kWh”.

In 2017, that combined price was 11.55 cents/kWh, so there has been a slight decline. That slight decline represents an annual savings to the average household consuming 9,000 kWh per annum of—wait for it—$5.00.

If Bob Chiarelli was still Minister of Energy, he would probably suggest you could now purchase two “Timmies” with that much money!

The price drop isn’t very much but, the question is, how or why did the average price drop?

Ontario’s overall consumption in 2018 increased from 2017 by 5.3 TWh (terawatt hours) or 4%.  In 2017 the IESO reported grid-connected consumption was 132.1 TWh and in 2017 it increased to 137.4 TWh.  This is increase is a “good thing.” Here’s why:

  • Curtailed (paid for but not used) wind power fell by 1.207 TWh, which saved around $145 million!
  • Nuclear maneuvers (steam-off) or shutdowns declined by 791 GWh (gigawatt hours) and saved approximately $60 million.
  • Net exports (exports less imports) also fell by 2.318 TWh and, combined with the higher HOEP average for the year, saved ratepayers approximately $320 million.
  • Foregone hydro generation was probably lower as the first three quarters reported by OPG show it dropped from 4.5 TWh to 2.4 TWh (down 2.1 TWh). That saved around $90 million.

Taken together, that $615 million ratepayers had to absorb in 2017 comes to much more than Class B residential ratepayers benefited in 2018. There are only 4,665,000 of them so total net savings was only about $25 million.* Other Class B ratepayers presumably received some very minor benefits, too.

The reason these benefits were not more is because additional costs were levied in 2018, absorbing most of the remaining $590 million. The Ontario Energy Board approved large rate increases for OPG for the regulated hydro and nuclear generation segments.  The rates for the latter rose substantially and will also increase further in 2019 and 2020 before falling back in 2021 as the OEB used their power to attempt to “smooth” the nuclear refurbishment costs over several years.

Despite the fact that increased consumption in 2018 helped to, ever so slightly, reduce costs, the IESO continued their efforts to get us to reduce consumption by spending upwards of $350 million on conservation programs.

Why?

The small price drop for Class B ratepayers turns the economic law of “supply and demand” which is: increased demand will increase prices.  Somehow that law works in reverse in Ontario’s electricity sector!

Enjoy your two extra “Timmies” this year!

PARKER GALLANT

*These savings have nothing to do with the 25% reduction under the Fair Hydro Act which eliminated the 8% provincial portion of the HST and provides a 17% reduction for residential ratepayers. The FHA amortized assets over a longer timeframe than normal in the rest of the electricity generation world.

IESO wants you to get “cosy”

IESO wants residential ratepayers to “Set the mood”

Maybe IESO wants you to use a cat to stay warm [Photo: SaveONenergy]
It’s true! Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) in a recent posting on their SaveOnEnergy site suggested we “Cut the lights and light some candles to set the mood for a cozy evening.”

IESO spends approximately $400 million annually on conservation initiatives, and they come up with this? They even go so far as to describe the event as a “Hygge, a Danish word: (pronounced hue-guh not hoo-gah) used when acknowledging a feeling or moment, whether alone or with friends, at home or out, ordinary or extraordinary as cosy, charming or special.”

I personally find it ironic that the word chosen by IESO is Danish. Denmark is where electricity prices for residential homes is the most expensive in Europe* at EURO per kWh of 0.3126 or Canadian 0.48 cents per kWh.  Doesn’t that make all Ontario residents feel cosy!

Denmark is home to VESTAS and their product line is exclusively wind turbines. Vestas employs over 24,000 people which makes them one of the 10 largest employers in the country.  Vestas’s website claim they have installed 97 GW (97,000 MW) of industrial wind turbines (IWT) globally.  All those noise-emitting, bird- and bat-killing, intermittent and unreliable wind turbines might make the Danes “cosy” but somehow I doubt it, with the price they are paying for electricity.

The IESO post suggests we: turn off the phone, unplug appliances and devices, eat comfort food and use energy-efficient cooking methods like a pressure cooker! ** The message to the reader goes on to suggest pulling on wool socks and using our favourite blanket to get cosy and then to “get lost in the moment” by reading our favourite book!

IESO should stop the wasted spending on conservation efforts of this ilk. Does IESO not understand we are all billed monthly for our cost of electricity usage and have been doing our best to “stay cosy”?  For many it has been an effort to simply avoid energy poverty.

Stop lecturing us, stop wasting our money and focus your efforts on managing the grid in a manner that will reduce the costs of electricity.

PARKER GALLANT

*Demark has the highest prices for residential electricity out of 41 European countries listed by Eurostat.

**Full disclosure—my wife’s pressure cooker recently blew up and created a mess in our kitchen which we now must repair.

Report of power shortage in Ontario a Chicken Little story

October 16, 2018

IESO says the sky isn’t really falling. So why does the Globe and Mail say it is?

Reading the lead article in today’s Globe and Mail business section of October 16, 2018 headlined “Ontario faces electricity shortfall within five years” one would think the sky is falling.  The article references an IESO report which the Globe reporter suggests “In its forecast IESO concluded the projected summer peak shortfall will be about 1,400 megawatts in 2023 and will grow to 3,500 megawatts later in the decade”.

Wow!

But, spend some time reviewing the 130-page IESO document 2018 Technical Planning Conference and you will discover under the heading “Energy adequacy outlook-key observations” this statement from the IESO.

“Absent continued availability of existing resources post contract expiration, Ontario is expected to remain energy adequate until the late 2020s. Energy production shortfalls would begin to emerge in the late 2020s.”

The forecast goes on: “However, with continued availability of existing resources post-contract expiration, Ontario is expected to remain energy adequate throughout the planning outlook.”*

That means the IESO forecast, without existing expiring contracted generation, is that Ontario is “energy adequate” until the late 2020s and with continued availability until 2035!

Why the dire headline?

The IESO forecast of “Higher Demand” for Ontario starts in 2019 at about 143 TWh increasing to 163 TWh by 2035. The “Lower Demand” scenario starts at about 139 TWh in 2019 and drops to 134 TWh in 2035. To put that in context, total Ontario demand in 2017 was 136.55 TWh and generation 150.7 TWh.

On the generation side, IESO are forecasting “Energy adequacy outlook” (including exports) at 161 TWh dipping slightly after the Pickering nuclear closings and increasing to about 169 TWh in 2035. If the current generation capacity and “continued availability of existing resources” is to remain adequate and generate that output we appear to be in a comfortable position. The forecast clearly contains the caveat that shortages will occur in circumstances “Without continued availability of existing resources post contract expiry.”

What that means: any shortfalls will be occasional in nature and occur during a few peak hours. It appears IESO have plans to cover off those forecasted rare shortfalls via the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) etc., as they note “The current impact of ICI is estimated to be 1,400 MW.”

How and why the Globe’s energy reporter headline suggests the sky is falling is upsetting; the latter part of his article articulates some of the factual information outlined above, yet the headline paints a dire picture.

Perhaps scary headlines sell more newspapers?

PARKER GALLANT

*The outlook period in the forecast extends to 2035.

What did we get for billions spent on electricity in Ontario?

It’s not over: Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers will be paying for the past government’s mismanagement for years to come. Here’s how… and how much.

Ontario wind turbines at Belle River project

The last in a series on the IESO

August 2, 2018

The two earlier articles about Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO revealed the fact that it could be “gamed” — and in fact, it was! To the tune of $100 million, by just one generator.

Needless to say, any gaming by a local distribution company (LDC) also may be happening. Why would I suggest that?  When I asked the IESO why the Fair Hydro Plan “Variance” amount was so high for May 2018, they said this:

“Please note that settlement data submitted to the IESO by the LDCs is not audited by the IESO (audit responsibilities reside with the OEB) and is processed as submitted.”

The May “Variance” amount was $309.9 million. More disturbing is that the first six months of the current year has rung up $1.180 billion in the “Variance” which could represent $2.360 billion for 2018 if the last six months are similar.

The results to date of the FHP “Variance” amount is well in excess of the calculations presented by the Ontario Financial Accountability Office (FAO) in their review, which had the following note:

“Figure 3-3 summarizes the FAO’s estimate of the annual cost of the FHP through to 2045-46. The FAO estimates the cost of the FHP to the Province will peak at $1.8 billion in 2020-21, after which the FAO assumes that the electricity relief programs will no longer be funded by the Province. The HST rebate is forecast to cost $0.9 billion in 2021-22, rising rapidly to $1.6 billion by 2028-29”.

The average suggested by the FAO per year was $1.750 billion, so, at the current rate of accrual, future Ontario ratepayers may be looking at total of almost $9.5 billion (without including interest costs) added to our electricity bills.

Taxpayers will be affected too: They’ll have to bear the costs of lost revenue of about $4.1 billion (plus interest costs) associated with the HST rebate and another $3 billion associated with “Adjusting Electricity Relief Programs”. The latter includes the RRRP (Regulated and Remote Rate Program) the OESP (Ontario Electricity Support Program) and a new First Nations On-Reserve Delivery Credit and Affordability Fund.

So, the 17-percent reduction on our electricity bills, coupled with the HST foregone tax revenue plus the cost of those “Relief Programs” represents $16.6 billion of spending, without interest costs.

What are we getting for $16B?

What are we getting for that $16.6 billion? No new power generation. No new transmission lines or upgrades to LDC infrastructure. Simply more wasted money, lots of it, as a result of the Green Energy Act.

Questions put to the IESO about the May Variance amount got the following response from them:

“Hi Parker– the increase in GA deferral in May is mainly due to most LDCs submitting settlement data to the IESO based on the second GA estimate which was unusually high (i.e., 13.2 cent/KWh) in May. LDCs submit May settlement data to IESO during the first four business days of June at which time the actual GA rate would not have been calculated yet as per IESO’s settlement schedule. Each month there is a true up when LDCs submit their data to the IESO for the previous month plus an estimate of the current month they are submitting for.”

Read that and you have to ask, Why? Why not settle the Variance account once IESO has determined “the actual GA rate” rather than go through a series of wasted financial maneuvers? Logic doesn’t seem to be a formula used or followed within the electricity sector.

Are the ratepayers and taxpayers being “gamed” or can we trust IESO with our hard-earned money and believe that each and every action by them is truly being “audited” by the OEB?

I will leave the foregoing question to be answered by an “Electricity Audit” that will hopefully be conducted by Ontario’s new government.

PARKER GALLANT

 

Smart meters, smart grids, conservation campaigns: how well does IESO watch your money?

More on Ontario’s IESO…

August 1, 2018

Yesterday, I examined IESO’s responsibility in respect to the “financial settlement” associated with the various public and private electricity generation sources in the province, and their ability to execute those, considering all the variables connected with the GA (Global Adjustment) and the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price).

I contemplated not only their ability to handle that responsibility, but also to deal effectively with the FHP (Fair Hydro Plan) and the HST rebate the prior Ontario government created.

Soon, the IESO will be further burdened with the financial aspects of the additional 12% reduction in residential electricity bills that the newly elected Premier Ford government has promised. IESO denies responsibility for any audit-associated issues and simply pays money to the LDC (local distribution companies), based on the data associated with the billing submitted.

The question today is this: is it possible possibility the IESO can be “gamed” as they already were by one of the gas generators for $100 million, as reported in December 2017?

IESO deals directly with all grid connected (TX) generators, plus approximately 70 LDCs in Ontario.  Those 70 LDCs in turn deal with well over 26,000 generators under the various MicroFIT programs, carrying a variety of contracted payment amounts. So, “gaming” IESO under their unaudited procedures should not be seen to be difficult.

Additionally, those LDCs are responsible for implementing campaigns associated with the numerous conservation programs, which annually dole out more than $400 million.  For example, Hydro One uses their five-year allotment of $338 million to basically do whatever they wish with the money, as long as they report back to IESO that they have reduced consumption via conservation programs. Toronto Hydro’s allocation is even higher than Hydro One’s at $396 million.   Strong “gaming” possibilities.

Now if you bother to look at past predictions of both data development and spending on that development, you would find aspirations speaking to “smart meters” and a “smart grid” as a means to take data and configure it in such a way to allow all of us to experience utopia! Presumably that “utopia” would make life easy for IESO to handle the financial aspects of managing day to day activities associated with generating power and bringing it to our households or businesses along with the many variables included in the Global Adjustment!

The facts, since the advent of both smart meters and smart grids however, dispel those notions of a forward-looking “cars will fly” utopia. As the Auditor General reported, the “smart meters” cost Ontario $2 billion which, as it turned out was twice as much as planned. The “smart grid” was advocated by a 10-member Smart Grid Forum in February 2009 with objectives loosely defined as “It is necessary change; change from a one-way ‘dumb’ grid to an interactive, intelligent smart grid.”   The Forum reached a consensus in respect to the costs of this “smart grid”: “The preliminary cost estimate by the Forum is that incremental capital spending over the initial five years would be $1.6 billion.”

Well, those five years have come and gone. To the best of my knowledge, there is no report indicating how far we are along in developing the “smart grid” or how much of the $1.6 billion has been spent, but what we do see on each and every electricity bill we get is a charge for its development.

So, “smart” meters, “smart” grids and all that data and the fact the IESO was “gamed.” It is still looking like a one-way “dump” on ratepayers.

Tomorrow, in Part 3 in this series, I look at what the Fair Hydro Plan has accomplished in the first year of its existence.

PARKER GALLANT

Is the IESO finally trying to get it right?

The baby’s not happy… are his parents being scammed?

One of the IESO’s responsibilities is to ensure Ontario ratepayers are billed fairly. That’s been a challenge with more than 100 “directives” from the former Liberal government. First in a series

July 30, 2018

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is responsible for monthly settlement (dollars in and dollars out) with all LDC (local distribution companies), transmission companies (Hydro One) and with thousands of generators of various stripes connected to the TX (transmission gird) and DX (distribution grid).

In order to capture the vagaries of what the monthly settlement encompasses, the IESO have a 164-page market manual entitled, “Settlements Part 5.5 Physical Markets Settlement Statements Issue 69”.  Its effective date was March 7, 2018, the fifteenth update of the manual over the last three years!

I’m confident the 15 recent updates were a result of directives emanating from the desks of former Liberal Ministers of Energy, namely Messrs. Bob Chiarelli and his successor Glenn Thibeault, and include the actions related to the Fair Hydro Act and the rebate of the 8% Provincial portion of the HST.

The directives and the changes they entail indicate the IESO is trying to “get it right” in their responsibility in dealing with the variables. Those variables were created by the Liberal government as it toyed with the energy portfolio over the last 15 years in so many ways via those directives (117 to OPA/IESO alone).  As an example, IESO in 2017 was responsible for settling about $16 billion related to the costs of generating electricity (what the public is charged for the combination of the HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) and the GA (Global Adjustment).

Ensuring ratepayers are correctly billed and generators are paid no more than they deserve places a lot of responsibility on IESO to ensure ratepayers are not being scammed!

On the latter point it is worth noting a CBC article from just seven months ago stated:  “Hydro customers shelled out about $100 million in ‘inappropriate’ payments to a natural gas plant that exploited flaws in how Ontario manages its private electricity generators”. The article said “gaming” of the system was discovered by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and contained this statement about the IESO: “the investigation found IESO did little checking into the details of Goreway Power Station’s billings.

Data not audited

That is somewhat disconcerting. When I recently asked IESO about the Fair Hydro Plan’s “variance account” for the month of May 2018 being very high ($309.9 million), they answered “Please note that settlement data submitted to the IESO by the LDCs is not audited by the IESO (audit responsibilities reside with the OEB) and is processed as submitted.”

In viewing IESO’s December 31, 2017 financial statements, their independent auditors (KPMG) attempt to capture their responsibilities, listing 30 of them as if they were simply the Ten Commandments. The one directing the activities associated with the money movement related to the FHP (Fair Hydro Plan) says: “engaging in activities related to making payments to and receiving payments as contemplated under the FHP and related settlement activities”.

The disconcerting part of this is that the Fair Hydro Plan alone will (according to the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario) amount to approximately $1,750 million on an annual basis — the 8% HST provincial rebate will add another $1 billion annually.  That certainly leaves the taxpayers and ratepayers of the future exposed to any one of the LDC “gaming” the system, or inadvertently submitting incorrect information.

Can we current and future ratepayers trust that Hydro One and all of the other LDC will submit correct “data” to IESO and that it will be properly audited by the Ontario Energy Board?

Stay tuned!

Second installment to appear tomorrow