Ontario Energy Board looked the other way on rising electricity bills

After seven years, the Ontario Energy Board has determined that a move by the McGuinty government to shift the burden of electricity costs to smaller ratepayers was “complicated and non-transparent.” What took them so long to find out that out, when it cost Ontario citizens billions?

Where your money went [Shutterstock photo]
Back in 2011, the Dalton McGuinty government introduced the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) with the idea of changing the way Global Adjustment (GA) costs were allocated to different classes of consumers. “The stated purpose of the ICI is to provide large consumers with an incentive to reduce consumption at critical peak demand times. The resulting reductions in peak demand were expected to reduce the need to invest in new peaking generation and imports of electricity from coal-reliant jurisdictions.”

The government had been lobbied hard by the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario (AMPCO) who had been feeling the effects of climbing power rates brought on by the Green Energy Act (GEA) and the resulting FIT (feed-in-tariff) contracts for renewable energy (wind and solar).

Needless to say, the Liberal government caved, the ICI was born and officially started September 2011.

Just over a week ago the Ontario Energy Board released a report titled: The Industrial Conservation Initiative: Evaluating its Impact and Potential Alternative Approaches. What struck me immediately was this sentence in the Executive Summary: “In the Panel’s view, the ICI as presently structured is a complicated and non-transparent means of recovering costs, with limited efficiency benefits.”

It took the OEB seven years to come to this conclusion. And they are supposed to be the regulators for the energy sector. Their vision is: “The OEB supports and guides the continuing evolution of the Ontario energy sector by promoting outcomes and innovation that deliver value for all Ontario energy consumers.”

So, it took seven years to determine the ICI wasn’t delivering value?

The ICI was created via a change in the Regulations* and was posted August 27, 2010 on the Environmental Registry with this statement:  “As a result of the consultation, there was general agreement that the proposed changes would result in a net benefit to electricity consumers, the electricity system and the broader Ontario economy.”

The new OEB report noted the Class B to Class A shift commencing in 2011 “has shifted nearly $5 billion in electricity costs from larger consumers to smaller ones. In 2017, the ICI shifted $1.2 billion in electricity costs to households and small businesses—nearly four times greater than the amount in 2011.”

Wondering what 2018 would bring in respect to the B to A shift and, knowing IESO now posts both consumption and costs of the GA by customer class on their website, it was worth an exercise to determine if the $1.2 billion shift of 2017 would increase or decrease.  Using IESO’s data it appears the subsidy for the first 11 months was about $35.4 million per TWh (terawatt hour).  Based on 36.9 TWh consumed by Class A ratepayers the cost shift is $1.306 billion.  The 4,665,000 residential ratepayers who use 9 MW of electricity annually will absorb approximately 30% of those costs — in other words, it represents an annual subsidy to Class A customers of almost $100 from each ratepayer.

Small and medium sized businesses will pay a lot more absorbing the remaining 70%, or about $900 million!

Now you know why the price of that hamburger and everything else went up!

Electricity price increases have hit all classes of ratepayers in the province and now that we see the shift of costs, it is helpful to look at the cause!

Renewable energy in the form of wind and solar** power generation has played a big part in rising electricity bills, so it is an interesting exercise to do a simple calculation to determine what wind generation and curtailment have cost in the first 11 months of 2018.   My friend, Scott Luft posts actual wind generation and curtailment for grid-connected (TX) and distributor-connected (DX)*** wind.  Calculating the TX, wind generated (9.655 TWh) and curtailed (1.940 TWh) for the 11 months indicates costs were $1.305 billion for grid-accepted generation and $230 million for curtailed (paid for but not used) wind.

That brings total costs of intermittent and unreliable wind to more than $1.5 billion. ****

What this simple exercise really does of course is demonstrate how our costs would be much less without intermittent wind power generation, which is produced out-of-phase with demand in Ontario. Considering first-to-the-grid rights for wind power operators means it also results in spillage or waste of hydro (5.9 TWh in 2017) and nuclear steam-off (1 TWh in 2017) and must be backed up with gas generation — all of which we pay for — wind power simply increases our electricity bills without any significant benefit to the environment or power system.

If solar costs were also included in these calculations, we would be in the $3 to 4 billion range.

Short story: Without all that waste, all classes of Ontario ratepayers would have reasonable and cost-competitive electricity rates.

Conclusion                                                                                                                                       The OEB should have stood up for consumers a lot sooner and called out the government for NOT delivering the “outcomes and innovation that deliver[d] value for all Ontario energy consumers.”  Instead, the OEB simply watched while billions of dollars were removed from ratepayers’ pockets for foreign-owned wind power developments and stood by for seven years while residential, small and medium sized businesses provided increasing subsidies to large industrial companies for a program “with limited efficiency benefits.”

PARKER GALLANT

* Class A was limited to very large consumers with an average monthly peak demand of more than 5 MW (primarily large industrial consumers). Since then, the government has expanded eligibility such that Class A now includes all consumers with an average monthly peak demand of more than 1 MW, as well as consumers in certain manufacturing, industrial and agricultural sectors with an average monthly peak demand of more than 0.5 MW.

**IESO do not disclose solar generation until early the following year                                                                                                                                                      ***Estimated for grid connected but generally very close to actual generation.

****Generated wind at $135/MWH and curtailed at $120/MWh.

Advertisements

Wind power: separating truth from spin

The quote “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” is attributed to Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

Ontarians have been lied to by politicians (although none has held the title “Minister of Propaganda”) particularly related to electricity. Here are some examples.

Job creation                                                                                                                                           Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman, in a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade February 20, 2009 at the launch of the Green Energy Act had this gem: “Mimicking the impressive employment growth in various European jurisdictions, economic modeling projects that the GEA will create more than 50,000 jobs in the next three years.”

Those jobs never materialized despite repeating that claim (lie?). Instead as electricity costs climbed many good manufacturing jobs were actually lost inOntario.

Low cost renewables                                                                                                                                           Smitherman also made an interesting claim to the Ontario Standing Committee on Estimates on May 27, 2009.  He said: “Through our projected investments and expenditures as part of the Green Energy Act, electricity prices are expected to rise approximately 1% annually, on average, over the next 15 years for ratepayers.”

Wow, 1% annually over the next 15 years! What really happened was that at the end of 2008, electricity prices were 5.2 cents/kWh, and by the end of 2017 they were 11.55 cents/kWh for an increase of 122% for residential ratepayers over the nine years. Not quite the 9% increase Smitherman promised (under oath) to the Committee. Needless to say, those claims were repeated over and over again to presumably make us believe it was the truth.

CanWEA’s role                                                                                                                                                                         One can only assume fabrications like these were developed as part of a communications strategy either by politicians or by stakeholders who stood to reap financial benefits from the passage of the Green Energy Act. The spin by lobbyist and trade association the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) and by “environmentalists” has been constant in order to get buy-in from gullible politicians! The spin has been highlighted in the past by many including me. A couple of examples are:

  1. A 2016 Pan Canadian Wind Integration Study (partially funded with tax dollars) in an article titled: Wind power industry claims Canada needs more wind power–with a hefty price tag for electricity customers and more recently another
  2. One titled Wind Power in Panic Mode as a new Ontario Government signaled the end of lucrative wind energy contracts and another more recent one titled
  3. CanWEA makes promises it can’t keep which suggested Canada could get one third of its power from industrial wind turbines (IWT)

Still spinning

CanWEA’s spin hasn’t stopped as their President Robert Hornung once again is singing the praises of that biased Pan Canadian Study in a recent posting on their website titled: Wind Energy: A Reliable Part of Today’s Energy Mix. Hornung’s article on wind power has Hornung describing it as “low-cost” twice, as “reliable” eight times and he even makes the claim that wind turbines would “help grid operators maintain reliability in the case of system imbalances or emergencies – services wind energy can often supply to the grid more quickly and cost-effectively than conventional generation.”

As if that wasn’t enough of a blatant distortion of reality, Hornung suggests the Pan Canadian “study found that if Alberta increased its wind energy capacity from 1,500 MW to 17,700 MW, reserves would need to increase by only 430 MW or 2.4 per cent of total wind energy capacity. In most of the rest of Canada the percentage would be even lower.”

What he doesn’t mention in the same context is the billions and billions of dollars needed to augment the grid via transmission spending for the many times wind turbines simply don’t generate sufficient power. The net result would mean Alberta and “most of Canada” would need to depend on neighbours to supply them with electricity should the wind be dormant—that would require those major transmission enhancements. As an alternative wind power could be backed up with gas plants as we do in Ontario and as elsewhere around the world.

It certainly appears CanWEA is hoping to convince Premier Notley or her successor that Alberta should believe his spin just as the Ontario government did under former Premiers McGuinty and Wynne. As if Alberta (and Canada) is not suffering enough due to the restricted ability for the province to build even one to pipeline to get a natural resource (oil) to a competitive market.

“Politics preys on people’s naivete,” wrote Bangambiki Habyarimana, in his book Pearls of Eternity.

Many people have taken advantage of Ontarians’ wish to do what’s right for the environment by using “feel good” promises and claims for power and profit.

In the future it is likely those who were preyed upon will realize the benefits promised by wind power proponents was simply “spin” meant to capitalize on their naivete.

PARKER GALLANT

OPG: generating less power, but earning more

Lots more. A record, in fact.

K2 Wind: first-to-the-grid rights for wind and solar, and lucrative 20-year contracts added to costs

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) released its 3rd Quarter report in mid-November, and it was impressive!

Revenue was up $156 million to $1,373 million (+12.8%) and after-tax income was 113% higher, increasing from $131 million to $279 million. For the first nine months of 2018, OPG reports RoE (return on equity) of 10.8% and will easily generate record after-tax profits for the full year of well over $1 billion. Nine-month profits sit at $948 million, up 84% or $433 million—that’s a record.

Revenue is also poised to crack the $5 billion-dollar level (nine-month revenue is $4,062 million) as it has many times in the past; however, after-tax profits have never been this high since the creation of OPG in 1999 when Ontario Hydro was broken up into several different entities.

What’s interesting about those record profits? OPG is record profits despite a substantial decline in generation.

Look at year-end December 31 2000: OPG generated and sold (into the grid) 139.8 TWh (terawatt hours) and earned revenue of $5,978 million for an after-tax profit of $605 million.   What that means is, back in 2000, OPG’s approximate cost to generate 1 TWh was $42.7 million (4.3 cents/kWh). In 2018 (so far) the cost has jumped to $74.8 million (7.5 cents/kWh) for the 54.3 TWh delivered in the first 9 months.

The 54.3 TWh delivered so far in 2018 is down from the comparable 2017 period by 1.7 TWh or 3% and from 2000 (9 months) by 49.4 TWh* or 46%!   Comparing the first nine months of 2018 to 2000, net income is up $405 million or 74.6%

With such significant drops in generation one would expect net income to drop so what happened?

Some five years ago (December 4, 2013) an article I wrote for Energy Probe was headed up: “OPG-whipping boy for the Ministry of Energy” and it outlined how the GEA (Green Energy Act) had a detrimental effect on OPG’s electricity generation and its revenue, which resulted in declining profits.

I noted how their many “unregulated hydro” assets received only the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy prices) which produced revenue of just over 2 cents/kWh, and how they had been instructed to build “Big Becky” (cost of $1.5 billion) and the Mattagami run-of-river project (cost of $2.6 billion).  Falling out of the GEA also was the rise in prices caused by wind and solar generation with first-to-the-grid rights and had resulted in declines in consumption. That meant much of OPG’s power generation was called on less and less.

OPG were also instructed by the Liberal Minister of Energy to convert power plants such as Atikokan and Thunder Bay from coal to biomass and to close the remaining coal-fired plants, one of which required a multi-million dollar write-down for prior expenditures on “scrubbers” to eliminate emissions.

As all this was happening, over the subsequent years, OPG applied for rate increases such as being paid “regulated prices” for all of their hydro assets and for revenue when they were forced to spill hydro. Those were eventually approved along with other increases to cover pension contribution shortfalls, increases in operational management and administrative costs (OMA), and for refurbishment of some nuclear plants.

OPG’s capacity has fallen from 25,800 MW in 2000** to 16,218 MW today, yet in 2000 they generated electricity at a capacity level of almost 62%. So far in 2018, they are operating at a capacity level of just under 51%.

OPG power could have eliminated excessive costs for wind and solar

If OPG were granted the rights to operate at the 62% level of capacity as they did in 2000, they could have generated 65.8 TWh easily, replacing all the generation produced by industrial wind turbines and solar panels. That generation would have resulted in a cost of electricity of less than 7.5 cents/kWh and eliminated the excessive costs for wind and solar under those 20-year contracts!

Today, OPG seems to no longer look like the “whipping boy” but still produces power at prices well below the costs of contracted generation under the GEA and should earn over $1 billion for 2018!

PARKER GALLANT

*Enough to power all of Ontario’s 4.9 million households for a full year with over 5 TWh left over.         **Staffing levels have dropped from 12,250 (including 650 under contract) in 2000 to 7,700 in 2018 meaning the ratio of employees to capacity has remained static at 2.1 employees per MW.

IESO wants you to get “cosy”

IESO wants residential ratepayers to “Set the mood”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARKER GALLANT

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

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

Parker Gallant eats crow on gas power generation (really!)

An eye-opening tour of the Lennox plant in Eastern Ontario leads to starting calculations, too

Lennox power station in Bath–fast, efficient, low cost …what the heck did we need wind power for? [Photo: OPG]
Back in late May and just before the Ontario provincial election, I wrote a “what if” post titled; “If I were Ontario’s new Minister of Energy ” which was suggested how I would undertake to reduce the costs of electricity.

So far, a few of my recommendations have actually happened.

I won’t linger over the enacted or missed ones but I will focus instead on my suggestion that we close the “Lennox oil/gas plant in Napanee/Bath with a capacity of 2,200 MW that is never used.”

I received an invitation to tour the Lennox plant and I accepted! The tour was led by John Hefford, VP Regional Operations-Eastern Region, who has responsibility for not only Lennox but for all the hydro generating facilities located in the eastern part of Ontario, which (including Lennox), totals about 4,800 MW — that’s about 30% of OPG’s total capacity.

Driving toward the Lennox plant one can’t help but notice, in the distance, the industrial wind turbines (IWTs) recently built on Amherst Island (“owl capital” of North America).  That project is considered one of the most divisive wind power projects ever awarded a contract by IESO under the McGuinty/Wynne  governments.

The tour combined with a takeaway “Overview” of Lennox was truly enlightening.  The most noteworthy bits of information picked up were related to the ability of each of the four 525-MW turbines to ramp up quickly from their minimum load point of only 28 MW or 5%.  To put that into perspective, the other gas plants operating in Ontario are mainly CCGTs (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines) and they have to idle at minimum loads that are six to 14 times higher.

The ramping load point at Lennox logically translates to much lower emissions than the units added to Ontario’s grid(s) backing up industrial wind turbines (IWT) and solar under the FIT (feed-in-tariff) program.

The other significant difference between the CCGTs and single-cycle Combustion Turbines (CTs) is in respect to idling costs: for Lennox the cost is about $4,200 MW per month versus CCGT generators with costs of $10,000 MW per month to $20,000 MW per month, and CTs which average about $10,000 MW.

Another impressive piece of information picked up on the tour is the ability of the units to operate on either natural gas or residual oil (or both). That means, if a fuel cost spikes due to high demand (e.g., gas in the “Polar Vortex” winter of 2014) Lennox can switch to the other fuel. Lennox was also recently called on when a Pickering nuclear unit was shut down due to the 2018 Lake Ontario algae situation.

IESO forecasted shortfall                                                                                                         It appears likely Lennox will be called on to provide the capacity during the shortfall that  the IESO projects during the upcoming nuclear refurbishment years. From a ratepayer perspective, it makes sense.

Carbon tax calculations

Completing the tour and driving home led me to the questions of how much Ontario’s ratepayers might have saved if Lennox had been deemed the back-up for wind and solar power generation or had been used to generate electricity instead of handing out high priced 20-year contracts under the FIT program.  The first question would take an inordinate amount of research, so I opted for the latter!

A report (IESO prepared?) titled the Ontario Energy Report has a chart showing emissions generated by the electricity sector and the report for year-end 2017 indicated emissions in Ontario were 14 mt* in 2009 and 3 mt in 2017, for a decline of 11 mt in 9 years. The decline was touted by the Wynne government as attributable to renewable energy in the form of wind and solar.

Looking only at the wind power generation and its associated cost in those nine years provides an indication of just how much Ontario’s ratepayers have paid on a per ton basis to achieve that 11 mt drop! According to the IESO, from 2009 to 2017, wind turbines generated 53.1 TWh (terawatt hours) and since we commenced paying for curtailed power (paid for but not used), ratepayers picked up those costs for about 6.9 TWh.

So, the approximate costs of the grid-accepted wind power generation was about $7.2 billion, and for the curtailed generation was another $800 million. That brings the overall costs of the 11 mt reduction to about $8 billion!

The cost of that reduction of 11 mt looking at IWT (generation and curtailed) only and without solar, works out to $655/ton!

Ontario’s ratepayers have obviously done their bit to reduce emissions and will continue to pay more until the wind turbines and those 20-year FIT contracts finally expire.

We don’t need a carbon tax.

PARKER GALLANT

P.S. The second in this two-part series about Lennox will follow shortly, covering off how much we might have saved without wind power

*mt denotes “megaton” equal to one million tons.

Wind power in panic mode

Canadian wind power lobbyist CanWEA makes claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Boasting that wind power is “low cost” has nothing to do with what Ontario electricity customers pay…

CanWEA’s Robert Hornung (L) with then Ontario Energy minister Bob Chiarelli and a power exec during the boom times. The truth has now come to town.

October 8, 2018

The same day (September 20, 2018) the Government of Ontario announced the introduction of legislation to repeal the “Green Energy Act”, Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association) issued a press release claiming the Government of Ontario has made inaccurate statements and misleading characterizations about the wind energy industry in the province.”

Needless to say, the Government’s announcement received wide media attention whereas the CanWEA press release received virtually none. The lack of attention to the CanWEA press release should be perceived as a strong signal mainstream media has become educated on the devasting effect of industrial wind developments in Ontario and the many erroneous claims made by CanWEA over the years.

What else did CanWEA claim in that press release?

Claim # 1

Wind energy is not the reason for high electricity bills or a significant electricity supply surplus in Ontario.

This claim is partly right: solar panels and generation from that source also helped to drive up costs, but a quick look at wind power generation for just 2017 will show what wind has done. In 2017, grid-connected industrial wind turbines generated 9.2 TWh (terawatt hours) and had 3.3 TWh of potential generation curtailed (not added to the grid).   Ontario’s ratepayers picked up the bill for both and that alone added at least $1.540 billion to electricity bills. As is the case for wind power generation 65% of the time, its generation was out of sync with demand due to its intermittent nature. Added to that cost, we should also include both the spilling of hydro (6 TWh) and steamed-off nuclear (1 TWh) which together added another $350 million to ratepayer costs. The foregoing alone raises the per kWh cost of IWT generation to 20.3 cents. Include gas plant generation of 5.9 TWh (backing up IWT) and you can add another $450 million resulting in a cost of over 25 cents/kWh! This is the “reason for high electricity bills”!

Claim # 2

In reality, wind energy projects are making significant contributions to Ontario’s economy across the province and are providing long-term, stable pricing for Ontario ratepayers. They are providing sustained revenue, as well as benefits agreements and green jobs that are helping rural and Indigenous communities thrive”.

Examining this claim highlights actual contributions of renewable energy.

The Concerned Manufacturers of Ontario is described by the CBC in March 2017 as “A group that represents hundreds of small to medium sized manufacturers across the province is urging the Ontario government to lower hydro fees for industrial users, or face the prospect of some factories packing up and moving to other jurisdictions where electricity is cheaper.”

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business with 42,000 members in Ontario was featured in a Globe and Mail article from December 2016 which contained a few member stories. Here’s one: “Tor Krueger has big plans for Udder Way Artisan Cheese Co., which sells handmade goat cheese in Stoney Creek, Ont. But crushing hydro bills are hurting the artisan cheese maker’s plans to modernize his facility so he can get federal certification and sell his cheeses across the country.” Mr. Kruger went on to note, “After payroll, hydro is consistently one of my top three operating expenses”.

Another association Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters sent a message to Premier Wynne in March 2017 that stated: “We need to reduce the barriers that are holding us back, particularly high electricity prices and the costs associated with cap & trade.”

The Ontario chamber of Commence in a Globe and Mail article in July 2015 had similar comments noting “This week, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce released a survey that suggested as many as one in 20 business are worried about their survival because of high electricity costs.”

Now, if one accepts the fact that the above mentioned four associations represent the vast majority of businesses in Ontario, it seems obvious the cost of electricity has caused job losses in the province. That observation clearly flies in the face of the claim by CanWEA’s President who stated “wind energy projects are making significant contributions to Ontario’s economy across the province and are providing long-term, stable pricing for Ontario ratepayers.” In 2017 nuclear and hydro generated over 97% of grid-connected Ontario demand at prices of less than 7 cents/kWh for nuclear and 5 cents for hydro. So, shouldn’t CanWEA realize the remaining 3% came from all of the other generating sources including wind at costs as noted above under “Claim # 1”!

Claim # 3

As the lowest cost source of electricity available in Canada today, wind energy is the best choice for new electricity generation when it is needed in the future and can help the Ontario Government meet its objective of an affordable and reliable electricity system that benefits Ontarians.”

Mr. Hornung’s claim that wind energy is the “lowest cost source of electricity” doesn’t specify what he is referring to! One should suspect the reference is to either the LOCE (levelized cost of electricity)* or the cost of fuel (wind is free) but in either case his claim has nothing to do with what Ontario ratepayers pay for the intermittent and unreliable nature of the actual wind power generation. That annually averages only 29/30% of its capacity and is out of sync with actual demand 65% of the time.

Claim # 4

“… the report provides no consideration for the value returned by the province’s strategic investment in renewable energy, most notably its role in eliminating smog days”

That claim from a CanWEA press release just over a week later (October 4, 2018) had Mr. Hornung responding to a report released by the Fraser Institute which suggested the Doug Ford-led government should cancel contracts because “According to our study, cancelling the subsidized contracts would reduce the GA charge by almost 40 per cent, thereby reducing residential electricity prices by, again, roughly 24 per cent.”                                                                                     

CanWEA’s response reiterated much of what they claimed in their earlier press release including the suggestion cancelling the contracts would undermine “investor confidence” and the one above noted as “Claim # 4”.

What is interesting about this latter claim is that the Fraser Institute back in January 2017 in another report stated: “The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change undertook a special analysis of the role of U.S. emissions in Ontario air quality in 2005, which showed that a majority of O3 (ground level ozone) and PM2.5 (particulate matter) was due to U.S.-based emissions and would not be reduced by cutting emissions in Ontario.”

As the backlash over the cost of renewable energy, along with its other failings, is finally being discovered by politicians around the world and now includes Ontario, it is obvious CanWEA’s concern is that it will affect the targeted provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta where they have signaled they want more wind power generation. The revelations emanating from Ontario may well impact those current deliberations and slow or stop the IWT march affecting CanWEA’s members!

One can almost see the tears in Robert Hornung’s eyes!

PARKER GALLANT

 

*Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-megawatt hour cost (in discounted real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. 4 Key inputs to calculating LCOE include capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.” 

 

 

Is it time for Ontario to use more power?

A warm summer meant  electricity use went up and costs went down. Is there a lesson here?

Photo © Norris Wilson

With Ontario experiencing a relatively warm summer, I thought it might be interesting to look at three recent months, starting with May 2018, to see if power consumption had increased compared to the same period in 2017.

As it turned out, May, June and July in 2018 versus the same three months in 2017 resulted in an increase in total demand (Ontario consumption plus net exports [exports less imports]) of 1,447,000 MWh or 3.9%.   With “net exports” dropping by 1,120,000 MWh, Ontario consumption actually increased by 2,567,000 or 7%.  This increase occurred despite the continued spending of approximately $400 million annually on conservation initiatives.

You might expect that an increase in power consumption by that much in Ontario would have resulted in a substantial increase in the cost of electricity, but as it happens, the amount was a meager $73 million for that extra 2,567,000 MWh. Based on the average cost (GA + HOEP) of electricity over those three months, the additional cost should have been around $313 million. The additional consumption cost only 2.8 cents per kWh (kilowatt hour).

The question is: why did that additional consumption (enough to power 1.1 million average households for the three months) cost so little?

There are several reasons why! First, curtailed wind (paid for but not added to the grid) in 2018 was 416,400 MWh* less than 2017. That means the savings from lower curtailment was approximately $50 million.

As well, Ontario’s net exports were thus lower by 1,120,000 MWh — that saved Ontario ratepayers the full cost of the GA (the GA averaged about $101/MWh in 2018) or approximately $113 million.

And, the 3.4 million MWh of net exports in 2017 generated only about $8/MWh versus $20/MWh in 2017 (the approximate GA for the three months in 2017 versus 2018) for the 2,280,000 MWh of net exports in 2018 for a net benefit in 2018 of about $18 million.

If one totes up the additional costs of $73 million plus the wind curtailed savings of $50 million, the $113 million saved due to reduced net exports, and the $18 million extra earned on export sales due to a higher GA in 2018, it comes to $254 million or $59 million short of the $313 million noted above.

I suspect the unexplained $59 million is related to: spilled hydro, steamed-off nuclear, and a reduction in the Class B to Class A subsidy resulting from the higher average GA. Most of those latter details are not yet publicly available.

Interestingly, wind power — generated and curtailed — was equal to 80% of net exports in 2017 and 112% of net exports in 2018. That suggests wind power was surplus to demand in both years.

It time to acknowledge again that wind, as an intermittent and unreliable source of power, tends to present itself when not needed. That, along with the multiple millions spent by the previous government encouraging electricity consumers to conserve has a simple effect!

Together, they simply drive up the cost of electricity.  Perhaps we should increase consumption to drive costs down.

© PARKER GALLANT

*Thanks to Scott Luft for his data related to wind generation and wind curtailment.