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.

 

 

 

Advertisements

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

A look back at Ontario Liberal promises: the true cost of bungling

Former Premier Dalton McGuinty: The Liberal promises of affordable electricity and politics-free policy were discarded [Photo: Huffington Post]
A Globe and Mail article of November 11, 2002 reported that Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Ontario Liberal Party (OLP), then in Opposition, was upset because Premier Ernie Eves had promised legislation to cap electricity prices.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said the true cost of the Conservative government’s hydro bungling will add billions of dollars to the debt.

“Now that families and businesses have been scared to death, now that new investment in supply has been scared off, now that everyone knows hydro has been completely mismanaged, Ernie Eves is going back to square one,” Mr. McGuinty said in a news release on Monday.

“The government should have had its act together before the market opened. And the bill for its failure to do that hasn’t been cancelled — it’s just been put off.”

Mr. McGuinty said the Ontario Liberals have been calling for action for months, but the Eves government has not acted until now to freeze electricity prices and increase supply.

The Liberal Leader said his real concern is what Ontarians will have to pay over the long term.

Fast forward to September 14, 2005 when Dalton McGuinty was Ontario’s Premier. In a keynote speech to the Ontario Energy Association, he bragged about what the OLP had accomplished and their plans for the future. Let’s examine the promises made in that speech.

McGuinty: “We won’t gamble away Ontario’s future prosperity because of what the next poll might or might not say...”

A noble thought, but discarded by the OLP. When seeking re-election in 2011 McGuinty cancelled the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants and plans to contract for offshore wind developments.  Polling in ridings affected by the foregoing showed several Liberal seats in jeopardy.   More recently, shortly after a poll indicated Premier Wynne’s approval rating was at 20 %, she announced hydro rates would be cut by 25 %.  Policy by polls…

McGuinty: … Or because of what new technology might or might not be developed.

The launch of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) in 2009 focused on wind and solar generation at above market prices, without a cost/benefit study as pointed out by the Ontario Auditor General in his December 5, 2011 report.  Both wind and solar were old technologies promoted by ENGO and wind and solar associations and known to be intermittent and unreliable sources of generation.

McGuinty: That’s why we asked the OPA to report on a long-term plan.

The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) produced a viable plan with limited wind and solar capacity to be contracted for in a competitive environment, but the plan was suspended by Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman before approval via his directive to the OPA dated September 17, 2008.

McGuinty: That’s why we acted to take the politics out of pricing.

The recent Fair Hydro Act and the gas plant moves dispel the notion that politics has been removed from pricing, as do the FIT and MicroFIT programs that past Minister Smitherman enabled via a directive issued September 24, 2009 to the OPA which included a domestic content requirement.  The latter resulted in a challenge before the World Trade Organization which Canada lost and taxpayers picked up the costs.

McGuinty: This spring, the Ontario Energy Board, a truly arms-length public agency will set the price of power for small consumers. The OEB sets the price based on what electricity costs, not on what politicians think it should cost, or wish it would cost.

While those homilies are correct, the prices are set based on input costs which the OEB has no control over. In simple terms, they divide the input costs accumulated (Global Adjustment + Hourly Ontario Electricity Price + transmission) and divide it by kilowatt hours consumed.  The impact of above market (highlighted by the Auditor General reports) contracts with wind, solar, and other generators and the plethora of other spending (e.g., conservation $400 million per year, etc.) dictated by the Energy Minister, plus above market salaries and benefits for OPG and Hydro One employees etc., are all part of those costs.

McGuinty: We could require our businesses and families to subsidize the price of electricity through their taxes.

Premier McGuinty did just that when he moved the gas plants and part of the cost was paid by taxpayers. The Liberal government also drove up the price of hydro and put 600,000 household into energy poverty. It fell on charities, supported by Ontario taxpayers, to help those households.  Tax dollars from those households also supplied grants to buyers of expensive Tesla automobiles and those grants continue today!

McGuinty: But, having finally put our province on a sound financial footing, we choose to ensure the price of electricity reflects the true cost of electricity.

The “sound financial footing” didn’t last long, and during the Liberals’ reign Ontario’s debt has increased from $132 billion to over $300 billion. Ontario has seen only one budget in the last decade that will seemingly balance and that was the most recent one.

McGuinty: We can’t guarantee price certainty –; that just isn’t realistic, given the nature of the challenges before us.

The Fair Hydro Act just passed by the Wynne government guarantees price certainty for four years for certain classes of ratepayers.  This isn’t realistic: refinancing those assets may conflict with their ability to continue to generate electricity for an additional ten years.  Amortization of fixed assets is based on the longevity of those assets, but the Wynne government has decreed that they can extend their life so that our children will be stuck with the replacement costs.

McGuinty: But I can assure you that we will do everything we can to ensure safe, clean, affordable electricity is always in full supply in the Province of Ontario.

When the OLP became the government, the average price of a kilowatt hour was 4.3 cents. By 2016 it averaged 11.2 cents — a 160% increase.  The 25% reduction touted by Premier Wynne as the largest in Ontario’s history followed.  The subsidy to cover that 25% will accumulate within the confines of OPG and at the end of increases held to “the rate of inflation for the next four years,” that subsidy will rise well above that benchmark in the years following that moratorium.

McGuinty: We won’t subsidize prices or cap prices –; that would mean more debt or higher deficits. Both of which would lead ultimately to higher taxes.

By deferring debt to subsidize hydro prices for four years within OPG’s balance sheet (guaranteed by the Province), the plan is to hide (temporarily) the impact from ratepayers while supposedly balancing the budget.

So, what happened to all those lofty promises of “affordable” electricity costs for consumers and business, that is immune to politics?

Was this what all those promises really meant?

“The true cost of the Liberal government’s hydro bungling will add tens of billions of dollars to the debt.

Parker Gallant

One (megawatt) is the loneliest number

On one day recently, for one hour, Ontario’s thousands of towering wind turbines delivered just one megawatt of power. And still, Ontario  had a surplus that was sold off cheap.

May 27 was a Saturday which is usually a “low demand” day for electricity in Ontario, compared to weekday power demand and assuming weather patterns are close to average. The temperature on the recent May 27 was slightly below historic averages in Toronto; as people woke up and set about their activities that day, the demand for electricity built slowly.

According to the IESO’s (Independent Electricity System Operator) Daily Market Summary, Ontario demand peaked at 14,069 MW and averaged 12,751 MW (total Ontario demand was 306,024 MWh for the whole day).  If anyone checked IESO’s “Power Data” page at, say, just after 11 AM, they would have noted demand was 13,208 MW at 10 AM and the HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was indicating a negative price of -$4.00 /MWh.   If one had also looked at the “Generator Output and Capability” and scrolled down to “Wind Total” they would have seen that under the heading “Output” the number appearing on the screen was “1”!

As in, one single megawatt of power.

About half the capacity of one ordinary wind turbine.

So, at 10 AM on May 27, 2017 the approximately 4,500 MW capacity of the more than 2,000 wind turbines installed throughout the province by the McGuinty/Wynne governments with lucrative, 20-year contracts, were delivering one megawatt of power.

And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Ontario didn’t experience a blackout or brownout because intermittent wind power generation was almost completely absent, nor did our emissions increase, as we got all the power needed from nuclear and hydro resources.   In addition, the almost 9,000 MW of gas generation was idling, operating at an average of about 2% of capacity almost all day.

Despite wind only producing an average hourly output of 75 MW for the day and just the “1” for hour 10, Ontario still exported 43,584 MW of power at a cost to ratepayers of $5.6 million*.

Despite the lackluster performance of industrial wind turbines May 27 and on many other occasions, a visit to the home page of CanWEA still claims:  “Wind is delivering clean, reliable and low-cost electricity”!

Sure!

Perhaps with another 4,500 MW of capacity in Ontario, the industrial wind turbines may have delivered TWO MW of power at 10 AM on May 27?

 

*Cost estimate assumes the second IESO estimate of May’s Global Adjustment of $127.76 holds up.