The political web of EDPR and the Nation Rise wind power project

 

The power from Nation Rise would be like a fly on an elephant in terms of Ontario demand. Cancelling would save hundreds of millions.

Last week, a news article appeared in the Nation Valley News reporting the local Conservative MPP, Jim McDonell’s response to a question asking on why the government hasn’t cancelled the 100-MW Nation Rise wind power project. Mr. McDonell said, “We’ve always been clear: We would cancel any project we could cancel economically,” and he added “… we just can’t spend a billion dollars to cancel a project and get nothing from it.”

The same day, a press release from the Ford government noted that Premier Doug Ford told people attending the annual Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) conference, that “We’re lowering electricity costs”

I am at a loss to explain Mr. McDonell’s suggestion that cancellation of the Nation Rise IWT project would cost the same as the McGuinty/Wynne gas plant moves, but that’s what he said. It’s worth a look back at how this power project came into being, as it illustrates the disaster that has been Ontario energy policy for the last 15 years.

The Nation Rise wind project was one of five awarded contracts in March 2016; after that, its history gets really interesting … and very political.

Cost of the project

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) at that time noted the average price for all the projects proposed was $85.90/MWh (or 8.5 cents per kWh). Over 20 years that would produce revenue of about $450 million, or less if their bid was lower than the average..

If the project were cancelled, no court would award them the full contract amount; it is more likely the government would be on the hook for perhaps 5 to10 % of that amount (on the high side).

There is no doubt that cancelling this project would save Ontario citizens hundreds of millions.

Timing of the approval

According to the Environmental Registry the Nation Rise entry for the Renewable Energy Approval or REA is dated May 7, 2018 and indicates it was loaded to the registry May 4, 2018.  That is just four days before the writ was drawn up by former Premier Kathleen Wynne, formally announcing the upcoming Ontario election.  It was known* the voting date would occur on June 7, yet the REA — a major decision — was given by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).  At that time, not only were polls forecasting a defeat for the Liberal government, “electricity prices” and hydro bills were a major election issue. The MOECC issued the decision anyway.

Is the power needed?

In 2015 (before the IESO called for more wind power proposals) Ontario had a huge surplus of generation. Our net exports (exports less imports) were 16.8 TWh (terawatt hours) or enough to supply almost 1.9 million average households (over 40% of all Ontario households) with their electricity needs for a full year.  It cost ratepayers an average of 10.14 cents/kWh to generate that power which was sold for an average 2.36 cents/kWh, representing a cost of $1.3 billion to Ontario’s ratepayers.

Due to the highly intermittent nature of output from wind turbines, the IESO’s projections of long-term capacity use only 12% of the nameplate capacity for wind power installations when calculating their contribution to overall capacity. So for Nation Rise, the IESO is projecting that the useable contribution of the project will be 105,120 MWh — just .0765% of the IESO’s forecast power consumption of 137.4 TWh. That is a fly on the flank of an elephant, in my estimation.

Cancellation of Nation Rise would not affect the long-term supply of electricity for the people of Ontario.

Worse, adding more capacity, particularly from an intermittent source, could result in more spilling of hydro, more curtailment of wind power generation, additional nuclear shutdowns or steam-off, all of which would drive Ontario’s electricity bills rates higher.

Property value loss

The property losses in value caused by the presence of 33, 650-foot industrial wind power generators throughout the countryside in the Nation Rise project will be in the tens of millions of dollars according to a study which notes: “Using research completed recently by a land economist with the University of Guelph and published in Land Economics, Wind Concerns calculates that overall, the property loss for houses within 5 km of the 33 planned turbines could be $87.8 million. Using other research that is less conservative, however, the property value loss could be more than $140 million.”

A loss of either magnitude would impact North Stormont’s realty tax base leading to either significant drops in revenue for the township or realty tax increases as a multiple of the COL (cost of living).

And then there’s the water

One condition among many in the REA given to EDP/Nation Rise was related to identifying and mapping all water wells in the project area within a set range of any proposed equipment, meteorological tower or wind turbines. This was due to concerns about construction activities on the local aquifer. While EDP identified 444 wells, the community group says there are more than 800 homes within the immediate project. Water wells in other areas of Ontario and elsewhere have become contaminated allegedly due to drilling and vibrations from wind turbines. There is significant concern about contamination of the wells, and the assessment taking place.

North Stormont is dairy farm country, and each farm operation uses thousands of litres of water every day — what would be the effect on these businesses, and Ontario’s food supply, if suddenly, the water wells were not functioning?

Who is EDP?

EDP (parent of EDPR) is a Portuguese utility company partially owned by two of the Chinese government’s companies; China Three Gorges (23.27%) and CNIC Co., Ltd., (4.98%) and the former has been trying for several years to acquire the balance of the shares. That attempt is speculated to be off; however, a recent NY Times article suggested otherwise, based on discussions with Portugal securities regulator CMVM.

Where is democracy?

North Stormont, where the Nation Rise wind project is planned, declared itself an “unwilling host” in 2015, well before the award of the contract or the issuance of the REA. The people perhaps relied on promises made by former energy minister and Ottawa Liberal MPP, Bob Chiarelli, when in 2013 he declared: “It will be virtually impossible for a wind turbine, for example, or a wind project, to go into a community without some significant level of engagement”. Despite their council passing the unwilling host motion, and also joining the 117 Ontario municipalities demanding a return of local land-use planning for energy projects, the IESO still granted Nation Rise the contract.

There are many questions about this project and many reasons why it simply isn’t needed. Cancelling this contentious project is a perfect way to lower future electricity costs, directly.

PARKER GALLANT

*The Toronto Star reported in an article dated October 19, 2016 the next Ontario election would be on June 7th, 2018

 

Advertisements

Honesty, virtue, and energy policy (2)

Yesterday’s post in respect to honesty and energy policy examined a small city in Texas and how its mayor has been courted around the world by proponents of renewable energy — because his actions sit into their narrative. However, I also showed how incomplete information given to the media can lead to bad results for those directly affected, the people who have to pay the bills for the “virtue signaling”.

What follows is how the two parties (politicians and energy proponents) collectively stomped on Ontario’s taxpayers/ratepayers!                                                                                                                

CanWEA spin

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) recently published an article that carried this claim:  “The Pan Canadian Wind Integration Study – the largest of its kind ever done in Canada – concluded that this country’s energy grid can be both highly reliable and one-third wind powered.”

The annoying part of the “study” is that it was completed by biased parties and used considerable taxpayer funds!

Perhaps Ontario’s grid operator, IESO, did make wind generation reliable but at what cost? As it turned out, in 2017, wind turbines delivered only 24.9% (9.2 TWh) of their capacity and curtailed* over 26% (3.3 TWh) of what they could have actually delivered.  That generation also caused hydro spillage of 5.9 TWh and nuclear steam-off of one (1) TWh!

IESO’s 18 Month Outlook Report also indicates they only rate the capability** of wind turbines to deliver generation 12.9% of the time it may be needed. Wind power generation also contributes to a reduction in the “real market” (HOEP) price, meaning we sell our surplus generation into the export market well below its cost.

Virtue signaling from former Ontario Premier Wynne                                    

Just over three years ago Ontario’s Auditor General released her report that noted the billions of dollars in extra costs Ontario ratepayers had to pay for the Liberal government’s green energy. The AG’s report said consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for 20-year wind and solar contracts signed by the Liberals than they would have under the former procurement system.

Premier Wynne’s response was: “There’s a cost associated with getting out of coal, of putting more renewables in place, and we’ve got other jurisdictions looking to Ontario as a model for how to do that,” said Wynne. “I’m happy to defend the changes that we’ve made.” She went on to say: “You only have to look at other jurisdictions that are struggling with air quality, with particulate matter in their air, with families that don’t feel they can let their kids play outside,” she said. “I know we weren’t in those serious straits, but the fact is we have reduced our pollution in this province.“

Apparently lost on her was the concept of the costs her government later imposed on those “kids” when in an attempt to win the last election she kicked in the neighbourhood of $50 billion down the road for them to pay via the Fair Hydro Act.

Premier Wynne earlier (about five years ago) got a pat on the head from Al Gore the climate crusader, when the last Ontario coal plant was about to be shut down.  In her speech she also referenced the children who will be paying back the above costs when she said: “And I would contend it’s our moral duty to take action to protect our children, our grandchildren, and our fellow citizens. We’re lucky today to be in the presence of a man who’s been fighting on these fronts for many years.”

In another announcement with Al Gore present she claimed: “Becoming a coal-free province is the equivalent of taking up to seven million cars off the road, which means we’ll have cleaner air to breathe, while saving Ontario $4.4 billion in health, financial and environmental costs”

It has now been four years since Premier Wynne said that so it would be nice to know, from a ratepayer and taxpayer perspective, what has happened to that $17.6 billion, we were supposed to have saved?

We should suspect Premier Wynne’s remarks was simply political spin meant to preserve her position as Premier while driving up our cost of living for a necessity of life. Our health care system has not improved in the last four years and the province’s financial situation has only become worse!

The self-evident virtue signaling has simply resulted in increasing a future cost for “our children, our grandchildren and our fellow citizens”.

PARKER GALLANT

*Those 3.3 TWh of curtailed wind cost Ontario ratepayers almost $400 million or more than all of the curtailed wind in the UK which was estimated as costing them more than £100 million in 2017 to switch off their turbines and NOT produce electricity. The equivalent of the UK’s cost was about $174 million Canadian!

**Forecast capability of capacity for other major generating sources are:  nuclear 81.9%, hydroelectric 68.4%, gas/oil 81.4% and solar 10%.

NB: If one wants to view what former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Glen Murray knew about the Ontario energy sector have a look at his interview at the COP 20 Conference in Lima, Peru here.  You will see that Minister Murray gave many incorrect answers and even wrongly cites the Atikokan (200 MW) coal station as the largest in North America.  It was Nanticoke (3,964 MW!

How Kathleen Wynne could have avoided public outcry over electricity costs

Former energy minister Thibeault and former premier Kathleen Wynne: no opinions wanted, thank you

Or, how she might have benefitted from listening to opinions (and saved Ontario millions)…

The following tweet from TVO reporter John Michael McGrath reflects the attitude of former Premier Kathleen Wynne to a question she was asked about an estimate of energy costs from yours truly:

 “John Michael McGrath‏ @jm_mcgrath                                                                                                           Tories introduce an estimate of energy costs from Parker Gallant, Wynne declines to comment on “one person’s opinion, one person’s research.”      10:20 AM – 3 Dec 2018”

The Select Committee on Financial Transparency questioning Wynne is/was attempting to determine the actual reason (e.g., hide debt and push the current cost of energy generation into the future) behind the creation of the Fair Hydro Plan (FHP) by the former Ontario Premier and her Cabinet.

Ontario is now one and a half years into the FHP which provides an opportunity to review the estimated costs of the 10 years of deferral by the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) of Ontario and see what has actually happened so far.

The FAO’s forecast estimated the deferral would cost $18.4 billion over 10 years plus another $21 billion for interest. The average monthly deferral (before interest costs) would therefore average $153 million.  Since the FHP first kicked in, IESO has posted monthly, what they call; the “Global Adjustment Modifier” (GAM) so, it is a relatively simple task to determine how the FAO’s estimates have played out, versus actual deferrals.

So far GAM deferrals (without interest costs) are $3,843 million for the 18 months — that’s about $770 per ratepayer. What that indicates is, the monthly average, so far, has been $214 million for the 17% of the GAM deferral versus the estimated $153 million in the FA0 forecast.  Should those averages continue for the next 10 years the deferred amount will be $25.7 billion or $5,140 per Class B ratepayer without interest costs. The additional $7.3 billion of the GAM deferral would also drive up interest costs to approximately $29 billion adding another $5,800 per ratepayer that would need to be repaid.

What that means is, future ratepayers could be on the hook for as much as $54.7 billion!

How could that $54.7 billion transfer to future ratepayers have been avoided?

The numbers are up in IESO’s website reflecting how much grid-connected wind power generation has been delivered for the first 9 months of the current year. My friend Scott Luft has provided the estimate of curtailed wind: the collective 8.98 TWh (terawatt hours)** translate to costs of $1,190.7 million. If one extrapolates the first nine months to a full year, the estimate of costs are $1,587.6 million for wind power.  IESO does not publish solar output (except for grid-connected) as most of solar is embedded within the distribution system.  Despite the lack of data, one can assume solar will have generated 15% of its capacity (380MW are grid-connected [TX] and 2,081 are distribution connected [DX]) meaning the 2,461 MW of capacity should generate approximately 3.23 TWh annually at an average cost of $448/MWh. That adds about $1,450 million to renewable’s costs.  Wind and solar together will therefore add $3.038 billion (rounded) annually to electricity costs assuming their capacity levels and annual generation remain at current levels.

As you can see, the estimated cost of wind and solar at $3.038 billion exceeds the adjusted annual GAM costs of $2.562 billion (18-month costs of $3,843 million/18 months X 12 months = $2,562 million) by $476 million.   At the same time TX- and DX-accepted wind (7.52 TWh) and solar (3.23 TWh) is assumed to come in at 10.75 TWh which presumably would need replacement.  In that regard the Ontario Power Generation 2018 3rd Quarter report indicates they spilled 2.4 TWh in the first nine months, which will probably transition to 3.2 TWh for the full year (ratepayers pay for spilled hydro so no additional costs) leaving a shortfall of just 7.55 TWh to be supplied to replace ALL wind and solar generation!

Without knowing, at this point, if nuclear generation had been steamed-off or exports could have been reduced, the question becomes: could gas plants*** have provided the 7.55 TWh (net after allowing for spilled hydro) wind and solar will probably provide for 2018?

Gas plants for the first nine months of 2018 generated 7.89 TWh; If extrapolated to 12 months, gas could generate 9.22 TWh and represent about 12.4% of its total capacity (8,500 MW). Adding another 7.55 TWh of generation would mean they would be required to operate at 22.5% of capacity so they could have easily replaced wind and solar generation.   The additional costs of that generation would be fuel costs plus a small mark-up.  Even if fuel costs and the mark-up were as much as $50/MWh the costs of the 7.55 TWh would amount to slightly less than $400 million.

What the foregoing suggests is that with no wind and solar generation, the costs of generation could have been reduced by $2,638 million (wind and solar costs of $3.038 billion less $400 million for additional gas generation of 7.55 TWh).

Coincidentally, the cost reduction of $2.638 billion per annum is remarkably close to the above noted GAM costs of $2.562 billion that will accumulate in the OPG Trust every year for the next 10 years along with the interest on that debt.

So, without wind and solar, former Premier Wynne might have avoided the public outcry about electricity costs and her party might have been re-elected.

Just “one person’s opinion, one person’s research”!

PARKER GALLANT

*Based on 5 million ratepaying households and Class B business consumers.                                                                   **Grid accepted: 7.52 TWh plus curtailed of 1.46 TWh = 8.98 TWh at a cost of $135/MWh for grid accepted and $120/MWh for curtailed.                                                                                                                             ***Gas plants are paid to idle at a rate as low as $4,200/MW per month (Lennox) to over $15,000/MW per month.

 

 

 

What are the indirect costs of the Trudeau government carbon tax?

Families should plan now for their carbon tax — er, “pollution tax” rebate.  You might soon be told you’ll need sweaters as part of a climate action plan.

[Photo: Dan Gold]
Trying to determine exactly what the federal Liberal government is doing with their plan to tax “pollution” via a carbon tax is an exercise in total frustration. The recent announcement from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised taxpayers in the four* provinces that said they will not impose a carbon tax, was that he will be hitting them with “a price on pollution that causes climate change from coast to coast to coast”!

He went on to say he would help Canadians adjust to the tax by handing out rebates to 80% of the families in those four provinces and claimed “eight in ten families will get back more than they pay directly”!

What they will pay indirectly is unknown.

Curiosity piqued, I decided to calculate how much that might be.

Emissions by the four provinces total (Source: StatsCan 2016) 273.1 megatonnes so, at $20 per tonne, the “pollution” tax should** generate $5,462 billion (rounded to $5.4 billion).

StatsCan (2015) says there are 6,513,000 households in the four provinces. Trudeau said rebates in the first year to each household would be as follows: Ontario $307, New Brunswick $248, Manitoba $336 and Saskatchewan $598. The total rebates will therefore be around $1.6 billion meaning about $3.4/3.8 billion will be “indirect” *** taxes increasing the cost of other consumption by $522 per household.

So, the “rebate” will represent about 30% of the total “pollution” tax the federal government will levy under the “National Carbon Plan” or NCP. The Prime Minister claims all the funds collected under the NCP will be disbursed to other recipients such as schools, universities, municipalities, hospitals, etc. etc.

Now, forgive me if I engage in wild speculation about the future when Canadian households start to experience the NCPP (National Carbon Poverty Plan). It might be like Ontario households when they experienced the cost of electricity surging over 100% in just 10 years. I suspect we will experience rhetoric similar to that from Ontario’s various energy ministers such as Bob Chiarelli and his “It’s less than a cup of Tim Hortons’ coffee a year,” response to the $1.1 billion cost of the gas plant scandal. Beyond that Energy Minister Chiarelli also linked in to the WWF (World Wildlife Fund)**** when he and other Ontario Liberal Ministers in early 2014 joined WWF to celebrate “National Sweater Day”! The message conveyed was that Ontarians could fight climate change by Putting on a sweater and turning down the thermostat. If every Canadian turned down their thermostat in the winter we could save 2.2 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year”.

Two years later, after Dianne Saxe was appointed Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner by the Wynne government, she issued her first report to the Ontario Legislature. In it is this statement: “the energy required to heat an existing home can be reduced many different ways (see Figure 1.1), including by:  reducing the target temperature and putting on a sweater”.

What we are liable to see in a few years, should the Justin Trudeau Liberals win a second term is a lot more about sweaters. (It’s already out there: simply Google “Justin Trudeau+sweaters”! The search will get 126,000 hits.)

Maybe Canadian households receiving the rebate in 2019 should resolve now to use the money to immediately purchase one of the many “Trudeau” variety of sweaters available in the marketplace.

PARKER GALLANT

*Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

**Larger companies will be taxed at a lower rate of 80/90% escalating to 100% over time.

***Direct taxes apply to tax on fuel for home heating and for transportation.

****Gerald Butts, senior political advisor to the PM was the CEO of WWF from 2008 to 2012

 

Wynne government hydro discount means larger costs looming

IESO Connecting Today. Powering Tomorrow.

…and racking debt up for tomorrow, too

October 2, 2017

The Wynne government’s (apparent) 25% reduction in electricity rates for Class B ratepayers (ordinary folks, not huge corporations and businesses) under the Fair Hydro Act might have resulted in increased power consumption … but it doesn’t appear to have had that effect.  Should reduced demand for power continue in Ontario, the big discount will simply drive up the debt to be accumulated over the next ten years of the deferral (refinancing existing assets) under the act.

The Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO just released their Monthly Market Report for August 2017. Compared to the August 2016 report, overall consumption was down from 13,113,357 MWh to 11,350,008 MWh or 1,763,349 MWh (-13.4%). That’s enough to power about 200,000 average households for a year.

When one looks at the breakout between Class A and Class B ratepayers, however, IESO reports consumption by Class A ratepayers increased from 2.373 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2016 to 3.230 TWh in 2017 —  36.1% (.857 TWh).  Class B ratepayers consumed 22.9% less (2.515 TWh) reducing consumption from 10.962 TWh to 8.447 TWh.*

The lower consumption by Class B ratepayers was partially influenced by a slightly milder August in 2017; however, IESO notes in the recently released 18-Month Outlook “Weather-corrected demand was a similar 11.5 TWh and represents an all-time low for the month.”

Now looking at the Class A consumption, the combined rate (Global Adjustment + HOEP [hourly Ontario energy price]) dropped from $75.05/MWh to $70.53/MWh (-6%) from 2016 to 2017, and that ratepayer class appears to have taken advantage of the drop. Some of the increase was no doubt due to  an expansion of Class A ratepayers following a change in who qualifies under the Industrial Conservation Initiative program. That allowed companies with lower consumption to join the Class A group.  Energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault dropped the Class A attributes from peak consumption of 3 MWh to 1 MWh and then finally to 500 kWh* in an effort to mollify the numerous medium-sized companies and associations who lobbied hard to get a lower electricity price.

Costs are up for regular folks, down for business

The weighted average (GA+HOEP) cost for “B” class ratepayers is up $15.47/MWh year over year, but down for class A by $4.52/MWh. Costs (GA +HOEP) in August for B class ratepayers was $118.37/MWh and those costs for A class ratepayers were $70.53/MWh.  The additional costs of $47.84/MWh that B class ratepayers are responsible for was 67.8% higher than A class costs in August. Under the Fair Hydro Act, 17%** of the B class costs will be deferred and IESO tracks those under a “Variance Account”.  The latter increased in August by $210.8 million to reach $605.5 million for just the first two months.  The monthly variance is being refinanced cumulatively and will come back to haunt ratepayers and whoever is the government, in 10 years

According to my friend Scott Luft, wind power generation in August from grid- and distribution-connected industrial wind turbines (IWTs) produced 597,537 MWh. Another 78,265 MWh were curtailed, or paid for but not added to the grid.

All-in, the cost of IWTs in August was approximately $90 million and represented 79.7 % of our export of surplus power of 847,416 MWh to our neighbours in New York, Michigan and elsewhere.

While we don’t know specifically the source of the power included in the grid, if all the wind generation was exported, we were paid about $17/MWh or around $10 million, meaning a loss of $80 million. Without wind power generation, the August “Variance Account” addition could have been lower by that $80 million.

The future: more costs

So, despite “B” Class ratepayers experiencing the “benefits” of the Fair Hydro Plan, instead they reduced their consumption by 22.9%.

 

Maybe they are concerned about what will happen in 10 years’ time, when they will be billed for that Variance Account the Financial Accountability Office said would be a minimum of $45 billion and could balloon to as much as $93 billion.

 

* The difference of 165,000 MWh between the Market Report and the breakout is presumably due to line losses billed to each ratepayer class and the 22.9% drop is no doubt related to the expanded ICI

** 8% of the 25% reduction was due to the canceling of the 8% provincial portion of the HST.

 

Hydro One’s hype

The power monopoly claimed its advice influenced the Wynne government decision to lower electricity bills. What did the government really hear?

A year ago I wrote an article titled:  “And the winner is: Hydro One! Most expensive residential power rates in North America” and it was posted on my new blog.  The “most expensive” was a reference to what are classified by Hydro One as “low-density clients”.  The article itself drew thousands of viewers, dozens of links to other sites, and may have partially influenced a focus on Hydro One and hydro rates in general by the mainstream media.

On September 12, 2016 Premier Wynne’s government suddenly acknowledged rates were too high and announced the 8% provincial portion of the HST would no longer be charged on residential hydro bills.

The 8% was estimated to cost $1 billion dollars in lost tax revenue, but was a drop in the bucket when measured against the 100% plus rate increases occurring since the Liberals gained power. The pressure to do more built up and because it was top of mind on the list of voter concerns, the Wynne government declared they would do more.

On March 2, 2017 Premier Wynne announced the Fair Hydro Plan declaring,  “I have heard from people around the province who are worried about the price they are asked to pay for electricity and the impact it has on their household budget. Electricity is a necessity.”

The Plan was to reduce residential bills by 25% (including the 8% Provincial tax) by deferring the costs of the reduction for four years. The debt generated would accumulate on the books of OPG and become a rate increase five years hence. What the Plan really does is discard accepted accounting standards! Once the “Plan” turned into an “Act,” local distribution companies were duty bound to make announcements. Hydro One was particularly gushy as noted in a bill insert:  “Our customers have been telling us that their electricity bills are too high. That’s why we advocated to government on their behalf for a more fair and affordable electricity bill.”

This insert also informed their monopolized customers, “the majority of our customers will see an average reduction of 31 per cent on their monthly bills, meaning an annual savings of about $600.”* The “asterisk” identifies a “majority” customer as one who consumes an average of 750 kWh monthly.

Now to explain why “average” Hydro One customers will see a 31 per cent reduction instead of the 25% touted by Premier Wynne and her Energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault! The first element is the Ontario Electricity Support Program (now taxpayer’s responsibility) and the second is the RRRP or Rural and Remote Rate Protection Plan.  Collectively, these two costs added close to $400 million to Hydro One’s delivery line on our bills and presumably make up the additional 6% reduction low-density and medium-density clients will experience.

As you can guess, Hydro One is happy. Taxpayers will pay a part of their bad debt allowances.

To suggest they influenced the decision when their low and medium density ratepayers were screaming is a bit disingenuous: the votes from those ratepayers was what Premier Wynne and Energy Minister Thibeault really heard.

Hydro One’s rates are still the highest in Canada and in five years those deferred costs* will force them even higher!

 

 

 

* A minimum of $25 billion for the whole province.

Ontario’s class distinction stings ordinary hydro customers

Electricity bill-payers are subsidizing business to the tune of over $1 billion, every year

 In early 2010, then Minister of Energy Brad Duguid issued a directive to the OPA (Ontario Power Authority) instructing them to create and deliver an “industrial energy efficiency program” specifically for large transmission connected (TX) ratepayers.

That directive led to the creation of the two classes of ratepayers that now exist in Ontario.

Originally, Class A ratepayers were only the largest industrial clients (TX) whose peak hourly demand was 5 megawatts (MW) per hour, or higher.   Since the launch of the new distinction in January 2011, Class A clients have evolved further under Energy Ministers Chiarelli and Thibeault, to allow those with peak demand exceeding 500 kilowatts (kW) per hour.

That move leave the great unwashed “B” Class – you and me — to pick up the subsidy costs for  Ontario’s larger employers. The concern was (is) that those companies without subsidies might exit the province and take their jobs with them.

The algorithm that determines what a Class A customer pays is related to how successful they are at picking the top five hours of Ontario’s peak demand. The “A” class companies who fire up their own generators (usually natural gas) or close their plants/operations down and reduce demand on Ontario’s generation sources during the five highest peak-demand hours over the 12 months, will get the biggest discount.

The focus on “conservation” during those hours carries the political hope of achieving “peak” demand reduction.  The theory is the reduction should result in reduced need for new generation.*

While that goal may have been the intent, at the same time Ministers Duguid, Chiarelli and Thibeault were (are!) giving orders to contract for more and more renewable wind and solar contracts to the point where the “market price” or HOEP (Hourly Ontario Electricity price) continued a slow descent due to surplus generation.   The HOEP in May 2017 achieved a new low of $3.17 per MWh or 32/100th of 1 cent/kWh. In June 2008, it was $62.30/MWh.

Both classes of ratepayer equally pick up the full cost of the HOEP on a per kWh basis!

With the focus on the cost shift of the ratepayer classes tied to the GA (Global Adjustment), the higher the latter the greater the cost shift.   The addition of so many more businesses to the Class A group simply amplified the cross-class subsidy!

For an example of the growth in the dollar value of that shift, let’s look at some June numbers, now that IESO has released the June 2017 summary report.

The first year the B to A shift happened was in 2011: for June of that year the GA was $423.1 million and Class A ratepayers picked up $46 million of that cost. Unfortunately, IESO did not start disclosing the consumption by ratepayer class until 2015, so it is not possible to determine what percentage of the GA was being paid by Class A versus Class B ratepayers.

The June 2015 IESO webpage discloses consumption of 11.004 terawatt hours** (TWh) with Class A consumption of 2.061 TWh (23%), and GA paid by Class A ratepayers of $90.4 million. That’s 9.6% out of total GA costs of $943.1 million.  So, Class B ratepayers picked up $126.5 million to subsidize Class A ratepayers that month.  That translates to a GA cost per kWh for Class A of 4.4 cents versus 9.5 cents for Class B ratepayers. HOEP for June 2015 was $15.31/MWh!

IESO discloses total consumption of 11.509 TWh for June 2016 with Class A consumption of 2.308 TWh (20.05%). The GA for Class A was $121.6 million out of GA costs of $995.3 million. Had the GA been allocated on the 20.05% Class A consumption, they would have paid $200.4 million meaning Class B ratepayers subsidies were $78.8 million for the month.  HOEP for that month was $20.17.

June 2017 total consumption was 11.617 TWh, of which 2.482 TWh (21.36%) was for Class A ratepayers. The Class A GA totaled $137.9 million, but if they had been allocated the 21.36% of their consumption on the GA of $1.208.8 billion instead of the 11.4%, they would have paid $258.2 million.  Class B ratepayers provided a subsidy of $120.3 million.

The 5,055,000 (2015 OEB Yearbook of distributors) Class B ratepayers in the province each picked up an average of $23.80 of subsidy costs for June 2017.

If that becomes the norm, those ratepayers will pony up around $1.4 billion annually. 

Back before former Energy Minister Duguid issued his directive, the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business were lamenting the rising costs of electricity in Ontario. Some companies left the province due to costs, so it was inevitable the Ontario Liberal government would finally hear their pleas for relief.  The result? The creation of the two rate classes.

In effect, the creation of the two rate classes and the subsidy shift from Class B to Class A ratepayers should be labeled “employment insurance” as it was needed to simply retain jobs in jeopardy because many companies were threatening to leave the province due to high uncompetitive electricity rates.

Why can’t our Energy Ministers come to the realization they should cease contracting for new, unreliable and intermittent wind and solar generation that produces power out of phase with demand?

*   The claim by the government is that by not contracting for new capital investment in generation, we ratepayers save future rate increases

**1 terawatt is equal to 1 billion kilowatts