Ontario’s IESO: electricity customers should be concerned

The province’s power agency has been found to use incorrect accounting methods and actively obstruct oversight… that’s a worry, considering their other goals

March 26, 2018

The Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO, which is responsible for managing Ontario’s electricity system, has again been called out on its abilities. Unlike prior occasions, this time the criticism is related to the manner in which the IESO engages in “irregular and improper accounting” discovered in a special audit and reported by the Ontario Auditor General.

From the report by the Globe and Mail: “Bonnie Lysyk, the Auditor-General, informed the province’s public accounts committee last week of problems uncovered during the audit, which began late last year and is now nearly complete. Her concerns included incorrect accounting, deceptive and obstructive behaviour by the IESO’s board and management, and poor financial controls.”

The dispute is related to the Fair Hydro Plan and the accounting treatment that surrounds it. Ms. Lysyk noted the accounting structure was designed to avoid including the costs on the province’s books thereby allowing the government to “falsely claim” it had a balanced budget. The claim was disputed by the Minister of Energy who said the practices are not new and are used in other jurisdictions and “endorsed” by major auditing firms.

The cost of the Fair Hydro Plan just to the end of February is in excess of $1.6 billion and is carried on the books of an OPG “trust” subsidiary — that means the debt incurred will not show on the Province’s books as debt.

Recovery of the monies will, however, become a future burden for Ontario’s electricity ratepayers, who will have to ante up the funds to repay it and the interest it accumulates. The Financial Accountability Office suggests it would be a minimum of $40 billion and perhaps as much as $90 billion depending on if the province manages to balance its budget.

Ms. Lysyk noted, according to the Globe story, “When a board or management in any other province recognizes that an AG’s office has issues with their accounting, they would have handled it differently,” the committee was also told, “They basically treated, I think, my audit team like we were subservient to KPMG. In terms of the law in Ontario, that would be the reverse.”

The AG ordered the IESO special audit when IESO’s auditors would not respond to queries about potential accounting changes and, when their financial statements were published, they used some radically different accounting practices. Those practices were used immediately for the Fair Hydro Plan.  IESO’S Chief Financial Officer, Kimberly Marshall did not consult or notify the AG prior to adopting those practices!  As a result, and because of the refusal by management and the board to sign key documents, the AG’s office was unable to provide an audit opinion.

Many followers of the electricity sector have expressed issues with IESO’s inability to provide correct or timely information related to the generation and consumption of electricity so it should come as no surprise the Auditor General is faced with the same dilemma on financial accounting issues.

IESO also has responsibility for managing data required to pay generators for their power and using data from smart meters.

It should be disconcerting to all ratepayers, big and small, to realize IESO are also spending hundreds of million to bring us a smart grid.   A concern is that IESO may be working with MaRS Data Catalyst (liberally supported by the current government) who note, “We are working with industry, regulators, consumers and government to get that data into the hands of innovators in a secure, private and usable way to drive energy conservation and spur economic growth.

All ratepayers should be concerned as IESO may once again decide to use  different standards when it comes to protecting ratepayers’ privacy, as they have done with IESO’s financial information.

Advertisements

Hydro One gives the finger to Ontario Auditor General

Hydro One execs implemented only 17% of the Auditor General’s recommendations. She noticed…

The Ontario Auditor General released the 2017 Annual Report and included were the “Follow-up Reports on 2015 Annual Report Value-for-Money Audits (Summary)”.  Two of those (1.06 and 3.04) related to Hydro One audits with both titled “Management of Electricity Transmission and Distribution Assets”.

The two reports note the “Building Ontario Up Act, 2015 (ACT)”* removed the AG’s ability to conduct “value-for-money audits”.  The Act partially privatized Hydro One apparently to allow funds raised from the sale to be spent on “infrastructure”; however, several reports by economists and the AG’s office have either implied or suggested it was done in order to allow the Ontario government to claim they balanced the books.

Standing Committee Follow-up

Leaving that aside, it is worth noting the Standing Committee’s follow-up report (3.04) indicates they made 10 recommendations to Hydro One, none of which were shown to be implemented by them.   The follow-up report noted “Without receiving further details from Hydro One to verify and support the information in its update, our Office was only able to assess and report on the status of some, but not all, of our recommendations (see Section 1.06) and was not able to assess and report on the status of any of the Committee’s recommendations.” 

The report went on to say: “We conducted assurance work between April 1, 2017 and July 26, 2017. To meet new Canadian auditing standards, we requested Hydro One’s CEO and/or Vice President to sign a management rep­resentation letter, dated September 1, 2017, at the completion of our work. The purpose of the letter was to obtain written representation from Hydro One that it had provided us with a complete update of the status of the recommendations made in the original audit two years ago.

On August 29, 2017, Hydro One responded that it declined to sign this letter or any similar document. Hydro One indicate that since it ceased to be an agency of the Crown fol­lowing passage of the Building Ontario Up Act, 2015, it was not required to participate in this follow-up, and it was not appropriate for it to sign the letter.”

Auditor General Follow-up

The AG’s 2015 Hydro One, “value-for-money report” had 17 Recommendations and 36 specific recommended actions attached to those recommendations. As was the case with the recommendations made by the Standing Committee, Hydro One basically told the AG to get stuffed, although the follow-up report (1.06) did note: “As an act of good faith and courtesy, Hydro One nevertheless sent us a document on April 26, 2017, presenting actions it had taken to respond to our recommenda­tions (following our formal request in late Janu­ary 2017 for it to report back to us). However, as explained in more detail in the following section, it declined to provide us with any more details beside this document.” 

Few recommendations implemented

With the limited information provided and other evidence obtained from the Hydro One documents filed with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for several rate increase requests (still under review by the OEB), the AG was able to confirm four out of the 36 recommended actions were fully implemented and two were in process for implementation. They were also able to confirm that four actions “will not be implemented”! As a result, only 17% of the AG’s recommended actions can be classified as accepted and executed by Hydro One.

It appears Hydro One’s executive are treating Bonnie Lysyk, the Ontario Auditor General, in a similar fashion as the previous Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli did when he dismissed her “smart meter” report by suggesting she didn’t understand the electricity system. (“The electricity system is very complex, it’s very difficult to understand,” Chiarelli said.)

Coincidentally, one of the issues in the report that elicited the foregoing response from Minister Chiarelli is one the AG raised in respect to Hydro One as “Recommendation # 14” aimed at reducing their lengthy power outages (compared to all other Ontario based local distribution companies [LDC]) which stated: “To lower its repair costs and improve customer service relating to power outages through more accurate and timely dispatches of its repair crews, Hydro One should develop a plan and timetable for using its existing smart meter capability to pinpoint the loca­tion of customers with power outages.” That recommendation has now been classified as “No longer Applicable” and no apparent resolution is sought when viewing the notes in Hydro One’s 2016 annual report.

Their response to Recommendation # 14 may have been cloaked in anger as the AG in the 2015 report noted the 1.2 million “smart meters” acquired by Hydro One cost “$660 million yet it did not implement the related software and capabilities to improve its response times to power outages. Hydro One used smart meters predominantly for billing purposes, but not for the purpose of remotely identifying the location of power outages in the distribution system before a customer calls to report the outage. The $660 million expenditure indicates an average cost of $550.00 per “smart meter” and, as many Hydro One ratepayers learned, despite their average cost being twice that of other LDC they often generated billing errors and about 150,000 of them still require manual readings!

Transparency? Doesn’t apply to us

One has to think that because Hydro One’s executives know they are a quasi private/public monopoly, they don’t have to follow the regulations and demonstrate the transparency required of fullly publicly owned entities, and they can simply ignore the AG’s and the Standing Committee’s recommendations and requests. Their monopolized clients are all of the generators, municipal and privately owned LDC and 1.3 million ratepayers who have no choice as to who will enable them to keep their lights on!

Hydro One’s apparent arrogance should be worrying to all ratepayers no matter if they are Hydro One clients or not.

We can only hope the Ontario Energy Board will finally use their regulatory authority when faced with approving any rate increase requests now before them from Hydro One!

Parker Gallant,

December 7, 2017

 

* In the 12 years from 2004 through to 2015 Hydro One paid $3.375 billion in dividends to the Province of Ontario.

Hydro One: the Svengali behind the Fair Hydro Act?

If you are a Hydro One customer, when you get your bill this month it will include a letter addressed “To our valued customers” which describes the wonderful things Hydro One has supposedly done for you.  The letter, signed by CEO Mayo Schmidt, is filled with claims about actions taken and how they were all done to “serve you better.”

One of the paragraphs is particularly noteworthy. It declares:

“For our customers who are struggling with affordability, I want you to know that we are strongly advocating on your behalf. Earlier this year we urged government to make affordability a priority and we made several suggestions that resulted in the creation of the Fair Hydro Plan. The majority of our customers consuming 750 kWh a month have started to see an average reduction of 31 per cent on their monthly bill. For many of our customer, this represents a savings of $600 a year.”

So, the take-away from those words of sympathy from CEO Schmidt ($4.4 million* in compensation in 2016) suggests it was he — not Premier Wynne or Energy Minister Thibeault — who conceived the “kick the can down the road” concept that became the Fair Hydro Act!

Look back to a recent comment from Minister Thibeault in a CBC article, he said this about the Plan:  “ ‘This is like remortgaging our house,’ Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault told reporters Monday at Queen’s Park. “I’ve always said that the Fair Hydro Plan was a fair plan; it was the best plan we could come up with when we were talking with energy experts, accounting experts, the legal experts.”

When the Fair Hydro Plan was launched back on March 2, 2017 Premier Wynne said: “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. By fixing problems in the system, we will be able to provide every residential customer in Ontario with an average 25 per cent off their bills now and make rates fairer in the future.”

So the question is, does the “we” include Hydro One’s CEO Schmidt, and is he classified as one of the “energy experts” Minister Thibeault claimed they talked with?  If so, I hope Schmidt told him about the rate increases Hydro One has applied for that will increase average customer’s bills by $141 a year in 2022 (based on current Hydro One rate applications under review by the OEB).

Those rate increases are needed by Hydro One to help pay for their upcoming purchase of Avista Corp. as it will represent a revenue gain to them of close to $500 million annually.

The LDC benefiting the most from the Fair Hydro Plan was Hydro One which still has the second highest distribution rates. Before privatization, they had the highest ratepayer arrears (past due accounts), the bulk of ratepayers accessing the Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) and the highest level of bad debts.  A part of the rate increase they currently seek would allow them to install “pre-paid smart meters” meaning if a ratepayer couldn’t afford top up their account they would be automatically disconnected.

On October 17, 2017 ratepayers got further bad news from Bonnie Lysyk, Ontario’s Auditor General reported due to the way in which the Fair Hydro Plan is being financed, ratepayers will be required to pay an extra $4 billion in interest costs.  That $4 billion increases estimated borrowing costs by 19% to $21 billion to cover the forecast $18.4 billion cost of the Plan. The latter costs represent the bulk of the 25% reduction (16%**), bringing total estimated costs for this portion to $39.4 billion.

The shell game of the Ontario Liberal government in Ontario’s energy portfolio continues, aided and abetted by Hydro One. If Hydro One’s rate applications are approved, their distribution rates will jump bringing more misery to their ratepayers!

 

* The CEO’s compensation is more than the total amount available annually under the LEAP (Low-income Energy Assistance Program) from the 73 local distribution companies in the province.

** The other 9% comes from removing the provincial portion of the HST (8%) and putting the OESP and RRRP (1%) as a taxpayer responsibility.

 

Hydro One’s shopping list: new Smart Meters”!

Ka-ching! And, Hydro One is considering asking you to pay for electricity up-front …

Electricity: soon to be a luxury in Ontario? More families choose between heat, or eat

It was just a couple of years ago when then Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin issued his damning report about Hydro One’s billing errors. As quoted by the Globe and Mail, “Hydro One issued faulty bills to more than 100,000 customers, lied to the government and regulators in a bid to cover up the problem, then spent $88.3-million in public funds to repair the damage.”

The Office of the Ombudsman cannot now report on Hydro One due to partial privatization, so ratepayers obtaining their electricity from them should be prepared for this monopoly to do whatever it wants.

Prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s report the OEB said this:  “On March 26, 2015, the OEB issued a Decision and Order to amend Hydro One’s distribution license to include an exemption from the requirement to apply TOU pricing to approximately 170,000 Regulated Price Plan customers that are outside the smart meter telecommunications infrastructure. The exemption expires December 31, 2019.”

Those 170,000 RRP customers represented about 14% of Hydro One’s customer base. In December of 2015 the Ontario Auditor General in her annual report noted: “Hydro One installed 1.2 million smart meters on its distribution system at a cost of $660 million”. The math on that indicates a probable cost per meter of $550 each, including the 170,000 meters that aren’t working as they should. Now, Hydro One is back in front of the OEB seeking rate increases that will impact their ratepayers for the next five years. They are submitting thousands of pages of documents to justify their needs to increase distribution rates by 1.56cents/kWh for their rate-paying clients.

Looking at one of the Hydro One application documents, you find the following (untenable) claim related to smart meters: “There is a significant increase in projected spending in 2022, which reflects the anticipated commencement of smart meter replacement, as the current population of smart meters approach end of service life.”

This should alarm Hydro One customers—should we once again be concerned about billing problems? Will the replacements once again fall short of being able to communicate data?

Ontario’s record with smart meters is not stellar. A report issued in August 2016 by The Brattle Group report notes: “Besides Italy, Ontario is the only region in the world to roll-out smart meters to all its residential customers and to deploy TOU rates for generation charges to all customers who stay with regulated supply.” The old mechanical meters were much cheaper and longer lasting as an article from 2010 states: “Itron, which formerly produced mechanical meters and now makes smart meters, said that older instruments generally have a lifespan of about 30 years before they start to slow down.”

Another disturbing issue is found on page 2038 in yet another of the documents submitted for the rate increase discloses Hydro One’s plans when it comes to ratepayers who are slow to pay their bills:

“One method of enabling customer control of their electricity consumptions, while in arrears condition, and minimizing Hydro One Network’s financial risk, is through the use of pre-paid meters. Pre-paid meters are a type of energy meter that requires users to pay for energy before using it. This is done via a smartcard, token or key that can be ‘topped up’ at a corner shop, via a smartphone application or online. For customers who are high collection risk, the financial risk will be minimized by rolling out this type of meter. With a pre-paid meter, electricity is paid up-front. Once the pre-paid amount is used up, power is cut-off until the customer is able to load the meter with more credits.”

 If the OEB backs off on their muscle flexing and grants Hydro One’s wishes, ratepayers should expect they will have to prepay their anticipated electricity usage or have their power cut off.

Sad times for Ontario as power becomes a luxury, and many more households face the “heat or eat” dilemma!

 

Hydro One’s scorecard: not a winner

Lose, lose, lose … and more losses to come

Hydro One 2016 Scorecard highlights shortfalls

 

 On several occasions, I’ve expounded on the decision by then Energy Minister Dwight Duncan in July 2004 to direct the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to instruct all LDC (local distribution companies) to install “smart meters”*   The Premier’s October 2005 throne speech included the comment:  “Consumers can look forward to getting smart meters that will help them save money by telling them when they can pay less.” 

I believe most ratepayers know how McGuinty’s claim worked out: over the past 12 years, our electricity bills have shot up and the Hydro One billing problems were top of mind in the media for many Hydro One in the province, thanks to Andre Marin when he was Ombudsman and thanks to  Ontario’s Auditor General. Those billing problems were caused by the inability of Hydro One to read many smart meters; and, installation costs were double ($2 billion) the budgeted costs, as noted by in the AG in her December 2014 report.

While Hydro One customers have been assuaged with claims the problems with smart meters have been fixed, if one examines their 2016 Scorecard submitted to the OEB it is obvious they are still dealing with issues.  Under the heading “Billing Issues” is this: “The Company’s continued improvement is mainly attributable to ongoing business process optimization, investing in the smart meter network to expand and replace various network support tools, and a continued focus on addressing smart meters that do not meet the necessary quality levels.”

Oh dear.

Further on, under the heading “Asset Management” is this remark in respect to why Hydro One exceeded its planned investment: “Hydro One is replacing meters because its service provider is phasing out network cellular technology by April 2018. The new meters align with the service provider’s new technology and prevent loss of data communication between Hydro One and its customers.”   

Garbage day

Hydro One obviously doesn’t want to encounter the negativity of future billing problems so, now, the expensive meters they installed just a few years ago are being tossed in the waste bin. The cost of the replacements has caused them to ask for further rate increases.

Despite the spending on “smart meters” past and present, Hydro One’s “Customer Satisfaction Survey Results” keep trending down despite their claim of higher billing accuracy according to the Scorecard.

Hydro One also shows a lack of leadership in the “Scorecard’s” System Reliability in both the “Average Number of Hours that Power to a Customer is Interrupted” and the “Average Number of Times that Power to a Customer is Interrupted.”

Scoring high in one area, at least

Yet another very disconcerting leadership role in evidence in the Scorecard is under “Financial Ratios” where Hydro One shows their “Leverage: Total Debt (includes short-term and long-term debt) to Equity Ratio” at 1.46 to 1. That means it ranks as the sixth highest leveraged LDC.   With their plans to purchase Avista their debt will increase substantially ($4 billion), raising this ratio further, and impacting Ontario’s ratepayers in respect to possible credit rating downgrades and the resulting increased borrowing costs.

So far, we see no discernible benefits to Hydro One’s ratepayers — only more costs.

 

Sidebar: Amazingly, Hydro One claims on the Scorecard they scored brilliantly in hooking up MicroFit contracted parties where the excessive cost of what the parties are paid are picked up by all of the other ratepayers of Ontario.

* For more background view this article: Hydro One’s failure to communicate rewarded with rate increase

 

Found! Where the Wynne government spent $36 billion!

Not all of it useful.

March 26, 2017

Ontario Energy Minister Thibeault claimed the government spent $35 billion on the electricity sector while Premier Wynne says it was $50 billion. But neither of them provided an accounting as to exactly what the money was spent on, and what the value was for ratepayers.   They both claim the system was “broken” when the Liberals took over governing, and the money spent fixed the system.

If Minister Thibeault’s $35 billion is factual it would represent spending $8,000 per residential ratepayer; if Premier Wynne’s $50 billion is true it means $11,000 per ratepayer. Bear that in mind as you travel through my computations.

The spending via directives from the Energy Minister’s office were, and continue to be, frequent (well over 100 to the OPA [merged with IESO], OPG, OEB and Hydro One); the directives often had no connection to fixing anything, or generating electricity.

Here’s a look by category. Some of these are estimates but the estimates come from reasonable and reliable sources. 

Billions Spent to December 31, 2016

Category: Frills and shiny baubles *

1.Spending on “smart meters”!                                      $2 B

(Ontario’s Auditor General in her report of December 2014 basically said we have wasted the money spent!)

2.The “smart grid” aimed to work with smart meters!  $1.2 B

(We are all billed for the costs of developing the “smart grid” but the benefits accrue to only a few select individuals and companies.)

3. “Closing the coal plants” requiring OPG to write off the     $ .6 B

(This meant the OPG had to write off the remaining value of those plants including their scrubbers for removing emissions!)

4.“Conservation” spending, $3-4 million/year       $2.5 B

5. Moving the gas plants                  $1.1 B

TOTAL spending for frills and shiny baubles: $7.4B

Category: The unreliable and intermittent**    

The IESO’s 18 Month Outlook covering April 2017 to September 2018 provides approximations of grid and distribution connected wind and solar which are:

Wind generation as at March 31, 2017 will be approximately 4,650 MW and at a capitalcost of $2.2 million per MW had a cost of                                                                             $10.2 B

Solar generation as at March 31, 2017 will be approximately 2,389 MW and at a capital cost of $2.6 million per MW had a cost of                                                                             $ 5.2 B

Transmission spending by Hydro One to connect wind and solar to the grid and for embedded connection expenditures is estimated to have had a cost of                                  $5.0 B

TOTAL spending for unreliable and intermittent $20.4B 

Category: Photo-op generation***

1.“Big Becky” which went $600 million over budget in an effort to squeeze 150 MWs of capacity from Niagara Falls at a cost of   $ 1.5 billion

2.“Mattagami” originally a $1.6 billion dollar project to increase the rated capacity by 438 MW (NB) it went over budget by $1 billion reaching a cost of    $ 2.6 billion

TOTAL spending for Photo-Op generation $4.1B

Note: In 2010, before both of the above were completed, OPG produced 30.6 TWh (terawatt hours) of hydro generation; so, despite adding the above 588 MW of capacity, hydro generation in 2016 fell to 29.5 TWh.  A quick look at the generation from the Mattagami units on March 21st indicates they generated power at about 8% of rated capacity, while all other hydro was operating at an average of about 50% of rated capacity.

Category: Value for money

It appears that some of the claimed investments in generation did actually provide some value. The Bruce Nuclear refurbishment (NBB) of two units came at a cost of $4.8 billion but according to Ben Chin, former VP of the OPA, the cost to ratepayers was limited to   …        $ 3.4B

Note: Bruce Nuclear over the four (4) years (2013 to 2016) have annually generated an average of 10 TWh above their 2012 generation, prior to the refurbishment, at a cost of about 6.6 cents per kWh.

TOTAL spending for Value for money: $3.4B

TOTAL estimate for all spending to the end of 2016:                                                            $36.7 B                                                   

This estimate comes reasonably close to the $35 billion Energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault claimed was spent in his September 13, 2016 press release.

Category: What’s still to come?

The IESO Outlook referenced above indicates we have contracted for additional generation which will be added to the grid in the next 18 months (April 2017 to September 2018) including:

Another 500 MW of wind capacity with an estimated capital cost of                                   $ 1.1 billion

Another 100 MW of solar capacity with an estimated capital cost of                                    $   .3 billion

Another 1,300 MW of gas (assumption is single cycle @ $.75 million/MW) at a cost of $0.9B  

TOTAL for What’s still to come? $2.3B

 Even if one includes the money still to be spent, the total investments (most of them wasted) is shy of the $50 billion Premier Wynne claims has been spent, by $11 B.

We still need to see Minister Thibeault’s accounting, and Premier Wynne’s too, to allow the taxpayers and ratepayers of the province to determine whether all of the spending has provided the value for our tax dollars claimed by the Premier and Energy Minister.

___________

NOTES

*Money spent that created no generation nor improved transmission nor reduced blackouts or brownouts.

**Refers to the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar, which are unable to deliver generation when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun’s not shining.

***Money spent on large hydro infrastructure projects that produce little power but presented great photo-op situations for Ontario Liberal Energy Ministers and even Premiers.

 

 

 

Outrageous: Ontario’s electricity CO 2 reductions cost

January 16, 2017

Ontario Premier Wynne: not to be outdone  (Lucas Oleniuk/Toronto Star via Getty Images)
Ontario Premier Wynne: not to be outdone

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on October 3, 2016 he would put a price on carbon starting in 2018, if the provinces have not put one in place. He also announced the price would start at $10 a ton and rise to $50 per ton by 2022.  As Ontario residents may already know, as of January 1, 2017 the Premier Wynne-led government already moved in that direction imposing a “cap and trade” tax they claim will burden us with a cost of $13 per month via a tax on gasoline and one on our home heating source of natural gas.

This new tax comes on top of one ratepayers in this province should already be aware of as we have been paying for carbon reduction for some time via our electricity bills.

A website providing the Ontario Energy Report states at the bottom it “was first produced in Q3 2014” and uses IESO as its data source.  The quarterly reports contain lots of information; however, they are generally not available until the end of the quarter following the one being reported on.  The reports provide: generation achieved from the TX (transmission connected) market and details on the capacity of both TX and DX (local distributor connected) sectors.  The report is also specific in terms of both exports of surplus electricity and imports and their respective destinations (exports) or sources (imports).  Contained in the 16 pages are many charts and graphs providing information on other facts such as the average hourly electricity price (HOEP), the Global Adjustment (GA) by ratepayer class (A and B), conservation initiatives, etc.

The report also has a graph specific to CO2 emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector starting in 2007 and identifies, by year, the Megatonne (MT) emissions.   If one looks at 2009, which is the year the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) was passed, total emissions were 16 MT. In 2015 emissions had dropped to 7 MT.  The 7 MT in 2015 were flat measured against 2014’s emissions and, based on results available for the first three quarters of 2016, it appears set to a level that will be around 5.5 MT!  The drop of 10.5 MT since 2009 suggests the Ontario electricity sector reduced CO2 emissions by 10,5 million tons.

How much have Ontario electricity customers paid?

Ontario ratepayers should suspect the foregoing results have been achieved via our electricity bills as they have climbed at multiples of inflation to accommodate renewable energy in the form of wind, solar, biomass, etc.   So, how much have we have paid, and continue to pay, for that achievement, and what does that translate to on a cost per ton basis?

That question can be answered in part by the Ontario Auditor General (Bonnie Lysyk) report of late 2015. That report noted ratepayers paid $37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014 for contracts negotiated by the Ontario Power Authority, and they will pay another $137 billion more by 2032 to satisfy those and other contract obligations through to their expiries.

That brings the cost to $170 billion.

The AG’s report noted wind and solar contracts were estimated to have been paid $9.2 billion over the actual market value, due to prices that failed to reflect the drop in a competitive environment.

So, using the $170 billion to calculate the cost per ton to reduce the 10.5 million tons of CO2 emissions, it appears ratepayers are paying about $16,000 per ton.   Using only the $9.2 billion (wind and solar) the cost per ton of reducing CO2 emissions comes in at over $835 per ton.  The latter cost does not account for the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar which requires back-up from gas plants and easily doubles the costs, raising the emission reduction cost to over $1,600 per ton.

What the ratepayers of Ontario have been paying to reduce emissions in the electricity sector makes the Prime Minister’s upcoming carbon tax of $10 a ton in 2018 and $50 per ton by 2022 look like chump change!

If he really is intent on driving the Canadian economy into the ground, he needs to take a lesson from Ontario’s Premier Wynne and her predecessor, Premier McGuinty.