Where did the $50 billion go, Premier Wynne?

He said, she said: we say, where did the money GO? [Photo: Toronto Star]
Last September 13, Minister of Energy Glenn Thibeault issued a press release announcing the  Ontario Liberal government would reduce electricity bills for five million families, farms and small businesses.  The relief granted was equivalent to the 8% provincial portion of the HST. The press release also claimed Ontario had “invested more than $35 billion” in new and refurbished generation.

Fast forward to March 2, 2017 and that $35 billion jumped to $50 billion in a press conference the Premier jointly held with Minister Thibeault. An increase of $15 billion in six months!

The press conference was to inform us the 8% relief announced by Minister Thibeault would be added to, with a further 17% reduction. A Toronto Star op-ed Premier Wynne wrote March 7, 2017 reaffirmed the $50 billion investment claim made the previous week, and further claimed: “By delivering the biggest rate cut in Ontario’s history and holding rate increases to inflation for at least four years, this plan provides an overdue solution.”

That made history alright, but not the way she meant. What the Premier forgot to say was that her government had brought us the biggest rate increases in Ontario’s history.  In March 2011 the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) website shows the average electricity rate was 6.84 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) and on May 1, 2016 it had increased to 11.1cents/kWh.  In just over five years, the price of the commodity — electricity — increased 62%, a multiple of the inflation rate during that five years, which added about $400 to the average consumer bill.

Electricity price goes down, your bills go UP

From 2010 to 2015 Ontario demand fell by 5 TWh (terawatt hours) to 137 TWh.* That is enough to provide electricity to 550,000 “average” Ontario households for a year, yet the price for residential consumers increased 62%.   The increase was not driven by the trading value via the hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) market.  In fact, the market treated Ontario generated electricity badly as it fell from an average of 3.79 cents/kWh in 2010 to 1.66 cents/kWh in value for 2016 —  a 56.2% drop.

As to how they were achieving this “relief,” Wynne and Thibeault told us they were pushing the payback period for the 20-year contracts (wind and solar) out another 10 years. Those generation sources are the principal cause of the increase in electricity prices.  (For further proof of that, read  Scott Luft’s recent analysis on the costs of “other” generation in 2016 which confirms its effect on our rising electricity rates.)

Where did the money go?

What the Wynne/Thibeault announcement means is, ratepayers will pay for the intermittent and unreliable power for their 20-year contracted term(s), and continue to pay for the same contracts which, by that time use equipment that will be heading for, or already in the scrap yard.

It is time for Minister Thibeault to disclose what is behind his claim of $35 billion invested and for Premier Wynne to disclose the details of the $50 billion she says went to “necessary renovations” to rebuild “the system.”

Time to come clean.

* Ontario consumption remained at 137 TWh in 2016.

Where did our $50 billion go? Or, how Ontario citizens lost $18 mil in just 2 days

Premier Wynne making her announcement: no accounting for costs [Photo: PostMedia]
Almost a week after Premier Wynne announced her plan to reduce our electricity bills by 25%, the wind was blowing!  On March 8, six days after the cost shifting  announcement (from ratepayer to taxpayer), potential power generation from wind was forecast by IESO to produce at levels of 80/95% of their capacity, for many hours of the day.  IESO was concerned about grid stability and as a consequence, curtailed much of the forecasted generation.

When the Premier made her announcement about reducing hydro bills, she also claimed “Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.”

It is worth noting that much of that $50 billion was spent acquiring wind and solar generation and its associated spending on transmission, plus gas plants (to back them up because the power is intermittent), and distribution assets to hook them into the grid or embed them with the local distribution companies. It would have been informative if Premier Wynne had had Energy Minister Glen Thibeault provide an accounting of exactly what the $50 billion was spent on.

As it turned out the amount of curtailed wind generated on March 8 was 37,044 megawatt hours (MWh) was just short of the record of 38,018 MWh set almost a year ago on March 16, 2016 (estimated by my friend Scott Luft).  The curtailed wind on March 8, 2017 cost Ontario’s ratepayers $120/MWh or $4,445,280.

The cost on March 16, 2016 was $4,562,160.

What does it mean? Curtailing or restricting power output but paying for it anyway means a portion of the $50 billion spent was simply wasted money. It went to the corporate power developers that rushed to sign those above-market contracts for renewable power.

The other interesting aspect of the surplus power generation on March 16, 2016 and March 8, 2017 is revealed in IESO’s Daily Market Summaries: the hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP)  March 16, 2016 was negative at -$1.25/MWh and on March 8th, 2017 was also negative at -.49 cents/MWh. This meant ratepayers paid for surplus exports sold to our neighbours in New York and Michigan, etc. Net exports (exports minus imports) on March 16, 2016 were 52,368 MWh, and on March 8, 2017 were 37,944 MWh. Total costs of their generation (HOEP + GA) fell to Ontario’s ratepayers along with the cost of any spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear and idling gas plants.

Millions here, millions there = a whole lot of wasted money

So, bear with me here, if we price the cost of the net exports at $110/MWh for those two days, ratepayer costs were approximately $9.8 million with $5.7 million for March 16, 2016 net exports and $4.1 million for March 8, 2017 net exports, not including the $84,000 we paid our neighbours to take our power.

How much did it cost you? Two days out of 729 (2016 was a leap year) cost Ontario ratepayers about $18.1 million for power not delivered (curtailed wind) or needed (net exports).

I hope this helps Minister Thibeault in his calculations for a long overdue accounting to Ontario citizens as to where the other $49.982 billion went.

 

Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

While the Premier was promising relief for Ontario electricity customers (and blaming lots of other people), more proof of the government’s mistakes was occurring …

The press conference and press release on March 2nd for Premier Wynne’s announcement on reducing electricity bills by 25% took a full hour — she and Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault hung around to answer questions from the media.

The speech and the press release were a mea culpa — she apparently hadn’t noticed rates had climbed and referred to those high rates as the “elephant in the room.”  She laid the blame on all previous governments in her answers to questions, for example:

Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.

The decision to eliminate Ontario’s use of coal and produce clean, renewable power, as well as policies put in place to provide targeted support to rural and low-income customers, have created additional costs.

If the premier was genuinely interested in the cause for high electricity bills she could have looked no farther back than her immediate predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty brought Ontario the Green Energy Act and the misinformed, unfounded belief that getting power from industrial wind turbines and solar panels, while paying at price multiples of other available reliable power, would work!

Those wind turbines and solar panels were generating power out of phase with Ontario demand even during her news conference, for which ratepayers are paying as much as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh).

During the news conference hour, Ontario ratepayers consumed 17,300 megawatt hours (MWh); 85% of that consumption was provided by nuclear (10,000 MWh) and hydro (4,900 MWh).  The balance came from gas, wind, solar and biomass. The average generation cost of nuclear and hydro generation was about $59/MWh (5.9 cents/kWh) and $191/MWh (19.1 cents/kWh) for the 15% provided by gas, wind, solar and biomass.   The former costs include the “water tax” on hydro generation and the “decommissioning and fuel disposal” costs of nuclear whereas the latter does NOT include the cost of curtailed wind, idling costs of gas plants or the costs of moving those two gas plants from Oakville and Mississauga to save Liberal seats during the McGuinty era!

Also during that hour, Ontario exported 1,075 MWh to Michigan and 1,203 MWh to New York.  Those 2,078 MWh (20% of Ontario’s demand) were sold to our neighbours at an average of $11.38/MWh (1.14 cents/kWh). The exports cost about $202,000, under the contract terms, yet resulted in just $23,000 of revenue to offset that cost. Ontario ratepayers picked up the loss of $179,000.

In fact, for that whole day, “net exports” hit Ontario’s ratepayers with a cost of $2.4 million.

Admitting she made a “mistake” while blaming decades of previous “governments of all stripes” is not a solution. And the 25% reduction in bills isn’t real, either: Premier Wynne is kicking the can down the road and laying the burden of her mistake on taxpayers.  She still doesn’t appear to have the political courage to admit she, Mr. McGuinty and their governments made a mistake believing the environmental non-government organizations who persuaded them to believe in a green dream that has now, negatively affected all ratepayers in the province, driving away jobs in the private sector.

The herd of elephants is still in the room. Premier Wynne should start clearing them out by cancelling all wind and solar contracts that have not put a shovel in the ground!

More Global Adjustment: what the costs are

February 21, 2017

The Global Adjustment (GA) charge in 2016 was responsible for 85% of the cost of electricity billed to all of Ontario’s ratepayers, less for large industrial clients.  The cost of the GA is for the cost of generation of electricity at the door (metaphorically) of the generation unit.  It does not include “line losses” which are found in the “delivery” lines of our bills and represented a cost of approximately $400 million at an average 3% line loss!

In dollar terms, IESO reported the 85% cost of the GA was $12.333 billion in 2016.  Because of the size of those GA costs the question on many minds is, what is it?   Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues defines it this way: “It is simply a price recovery mechanism. It is the difference between the price the government promised any particular electricity generating company and the ‘market’ price of electricity.” 

So what are the relative parts of the GA which place the biggest burden on the climb in costs in the “electricity” line we have experienced.

The IESO published a News Release  on January 18, 2017 providing statistics on:  generation by fuel type and its percentage of contribution; ratepayer costs per kilowatt (kWh) for both the GA (9.66 cents per  kWh) and for the HOEP (1.66 cents/kWh) or market price;  and, imports and exports and provincial demand (137 TWh).  IESO don’t provide generation produced within the DX (distributor connected) sector.  The following are best estimates of some of the DX generated electricity and curtailed wind.

Wind

IESO report wind generated 9.3 TWh and Scott Luft reported 1.7 TWh were generated by DX connected wind turbines making total generated generation 11 TWh at a cost of $135 million per TWH (3.5 cents/kWh). An additional 2.2 TWh were curtailed at a cost of $120 million/TWh.

Total cost of wind capacity in 2016

11 TWh @ $135MM/TWh: $1,485 MM

2.2 TWh curtailed wind @$120MM/TWh: $264MM

TOTAL cost wind: $1,749 MM

LESS HOEP value of 11 TWh @$16.6MM/TWh: $183 MM

NET COST of wind to GA $1,566 MM

Solar

IESO reported solar generated .46 TWh in 2016 and the best estimate of DX generated solar at 15% of rated capacity for the 2,100 MW is 2.76 TWh for a total of 3.22 TWh. The average cost of solar generation in the province (roof and ground mounted) is about $480 million per TWh (48 cents/kWh).

Total cost of solar capacity in 2016:

3.22 TWh @480MM/TWh: $1,546MM

LESS HOEP value of 3.22 TWh @$16.6 MM/TWh: $53MM

NET COST of solar to GA: $1,493 MM         

Gas

Due to the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar generation it must be backed up by other reliable generation capable of providing generation when the wind isn’t blowing or the clouds cover the sky. The back-up is generally provided by gas plants.  With 6,800 MW of wind and solar capacity the suggested replacement is 90% of capacity or about 6,120 MW of gas generation representing about 62% of its installed capacity (9,943 MW per IESO).  Gas plants are viewed as “peaking” plant capacity so contracts call for a monthly payment related to the amortized cost per MW and reputedly ranges from $10/15,000 per month per MW.   This calculation will use $10,000 per month/MW!

Total cost of gas generation as back-up for Wind and Solar in 2016

 6,120 MW @ $10,000 per month (6,120 X $10,000 X 12): $ 734 MM

Conservation

Another portion of money included in the GA is conservation spending allocated to all of the LDC based on commitments to reduce their demand over the 2015-2020 period. The total budget over those six years is about $2 billion so equates to $300 million per annum with a significant portion allocated to businesses and upgrades for low-income households.  The LDCs are allowed to apply for rate increases associated with their decline in revenue as a result of the conservation once achieved.

Total cost of conservation spending in 2016

Estimate based on 2015-2020 budget of $2B over 6 years: $ 300 MM

Ontario Electricity Support Program

The Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) launched on January 1, 2016 is aimed at low-income households who have suffered from the climb in electricity rates. The OEB study released in late 2014 estimated the cost of the program at $200/$225 million.  Logically, if the province was responsible for driving an estimated 571,000 ratepayers into energy poverty, the program’s cost should have been allocated to the Ontario Ministry of  Community and Social Services, but instead it has become another cost to all Ontario ratepayers.  At this point, the estimate of the first year’s costs are unknown, but if one assumes the OEB’s estimates were close they will impact all ratepayers.

Total cost of the OESP

 Estimate based on OEB’s study: $ 200 MM

GRAND TOTAL COST all of the above: $4,293 MM

Cost per terawatt hour of 14.22 TWh from wind, solar, conservation and OESP added to the GA  $302 million/TWh or 30.2 cents per kWh

 Missing from the above calculation is spilled hydro and nuclear power steamed off at Bruce Nuclear due to surplus base-load generation from wind and solar. The latter would add about another 5 TWh and another $300 million driving the per kWh cost to 32.5 cents per kWh.

If one deducts the 14.22 TWh from total Ontario generation (including DX) in 2016 one is left with 140.1 TWh and if the $4,293 million is deducted from the $12.333 billion of the 2014 GA cost the 140.1 terawatts from nuclear, hydro and gas generation cost was 19% of the GA or                   $57.38 million/TWh or 5.74 cents per kWh

The time has come to kill the Green Energy Act and return to sanity!

No natural gas, more natural gas: what is the Wynne government’s game?

February 6, 2017

In April 2015 Brad Duguid, then Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure issued a press release stating: “Increased natural gas access, through the $200 million Natural Gas Access Loan and $30 million Natural Gas Economic Development Grant, will attract new industry, make commercial transportation and agriculture more affordable, help to create jobs, provide more energy choices and will lower electricity prices for businesses and consumers across Ontario.”

The focus was expansion in rural communities and the money offered would do wonderful things including lowering “electricity prices.”  The Duguid statement appears to have flowed from the 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP) released by Bob Chiarelli when he held the Energy Minister’s portfolio as noted in the OEB’s 2014-2017 Business Plan.

Just days ago, another press release was issued on the same issue by Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Infrastructure:  “Ontario is expanding access to natural gas for communities that do not currently have service, including those in rural and Northern Ontario and First Nations communities.”  It gave a “Quick Fact”: “Natural gas is the dominant heating source in Ontario and continues to be consistently less expensive than alternative sources such as electricity, heating oil and propane.” The Chiarelli announcement increased the “grant” amount to $100 million.

The recent announcement indicates the Duguid offer fell flat so perhaps Chiarelli’s announcement is an effort to see the claim he endorsed in the 2013 LTEP as one he is determined to follow through on, even if it raises Ontario’s debt by $100 million!

It is also ironic that Chiarelli is pushing expansion of natural gas consumption while our current Energy Minister, Glenn Thibeault is heading in the opposite direction. He recently instructed IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) to basically shut several of the NUG (non-utility generators) gas plants down. Minister Thibeault’s recent directive to IESO notes:  “Ontario has put in place legislation for its new cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas pollution while moving to a low-carbon economy.”   Most NUG contracts are gas generation units whose original contracts (executed in the Peterson Liberal government days) are close to expiry, and are “take or pay” contracts.  With the  surplus of power today, Minister Thibeault considers them expendable.  As a result the directive instructed IESO to renew contracts but only: “if the IESO is able to negotiate replacement contracts (IESO Contracts) with OEFC NUGs that incentivize them to operate in a manner that is better aligned with the integrated power system’s needs.”

As noted by Scott Luft some of those NUG contracts have been renegotiated, others ended, (the plants will be closed or mothballed) while some are in the process of  renegotiation.  One of those cancelled contracts offered to produce and sell power for 5.9 cents/kWh, but that offer was rejected even though it was way under prices paid for generation from industrial wind turbines and solar panels. Both those forms of power generation are unable to generate power when needed.

Is the objective of the Energy Minister to reduce emissions from gas plants so Premier Wynne can claim the “cap and trade” tax is working?

Meanwhile, if Minister Chiarelli is successful at handing out the $100 million tax dollars as grants to expand natural gas use, emissions will increase! Any increase will generate additional cap and trade revenue to help pay for the grants and the early shutdown of those gas plants.

Here’s the game: reduce emissions in the (already clean) electricity sector while pushing them up elsewhere and capture additional taxes along the way.

The topsy-turvy world of power policy in Ontario continues.

Amherst Island: perfect example of why wind power can be a bad choice

Ontario’s Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault, at the launch of planning for the next Long-Term Energy Plan, said “We have a robust supply of all forms of energy for at least the next 10 years.”  The month prior to the launch he announced the suspension of LRP II  slated to acquire another 1,000 MW of renewable energy.  His claim at that time was, it would save ratepayers $3.8 billion in electricity costs over the projected term of the contracts.

Cancel the contracts 

Why didn’t he go further and cancel contracts that have not broken ground and saved billions more?   Amherst Island’s “Windlectric” project, owned by Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., project is just one. On its own, cancellation could save Ontario ratepayers over $500 million in future costs.  Those contracts, signed years ago, either have not been built or are involved in litigation preventing them from breaking ground.   Their sunk costs are small in comparison to their full costs over 20 years and canceling them outright would represent a nominal cost to ratepayers while saving, birds, bats, butterflies and endangered species from harm as well as prevent human health effects, and depreciation to property values.

Cancellation would reduce the amount of surplus energy that is exported at a cost to ratepayers or simply curtailed, but paid for by ratepayers. Savings would be in the billions.

Amherst Island—Owl Capital of North America

 In the July/August 2003 copy of “Wildbird”, Kevin T. Karlson wrote this article “Owl Capital of North America.” and said “An occasional glance at these ‘owls in wonderland’ always brings a smile to my face.” The Owl Woods is the only place where it is possible to see ten species of owls in one day.

Amherst Island, 66 square kilometers in size, is situated west of Kingston along the northeastern shore of Lake Ontario close to the St. Lawrence River and considered a “Hidden Cultural Gem.” The island is the first of the world famous 1,000 islands based on the water flow. The permanent population of about 450 residents swells to over 1,000 during the summer months and attracts visitors from all over the world. People come to see the culture and history of a settlement dating back to the late 1700s by the Empire Loyalists and the Irish immigrants who followed. Many also come to see the birds as the island is on the IBAs (Important Bird Areas) list. Amherst Island is home to “as many as 34 different species at risk known to rely on the Island’s natural environment for survival.” including the threatened Blandings turtle.  

The foregoing paragraph should make the reader wonder exactly why, back in 2011 the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) granted the contract to a shell company (Windlectric) established by Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Subsequent to the contract award the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), since relabeled the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), granted a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) with some modifications to the original contract.  One wonders why the REA was granted as Amherst Island was already designated as an IBA and known as the Owl Capital of North America.  Was it simply because the OPA (now merged with IESO [Independent Electricity System Operator]) gave them a contract, or was the MOECC unconcerned about the heritage of the island and the many species at risk?  

For over 10 years, residents of Amherst Island and their onshore supporters have battled proposals to blanket the Island with industrial wind turbines. The support received by APAI (Association to Protect Amherst Island) has been overwhelming coming from many different groups and individuals, including those who support wind power as renewable energy. Among them are Nature Canada and Ontario Nature who jointly wrote an 18-page letter to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in March, 2013. Their logical defence of wildlife had no effect on the outcome of the appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

In fact, the decision of the Tribunal in August of 2015 was a major failure according to Nature Canada: “The Amherst decision is a reminder that we are missing adequate government policy that both promotes renewables in the right places while recognizing and protecting our key biodiversity areas including Canada’s nearly 600 Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBAs) such as Amherst Island and the South Shore of Prince Edward County.” 

Organizations as diverse as Heritage Canada The National Trust, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Kingston Field Naturalists, the Dry Stone Wall Association of Ireland, BirdLife International, the Maryland Ornithological Society, the Hawk Migration Association of North America, Pennsylvania Ornithological Society, and Brereton Field Naturalists’ Club all oppose turbines on Amherst Island.

Economic impact

 The Windlectric project proposes 26 wind turbines with a capacity of 74.3 MW and according to the specifications, would be Siemens turbines each with a total height in excess of 500 feet with a hub height of about 330 feet and a blade radius of almost 180 feet. If they generate electricity at the anticipated norm of 30% of capacity, they will produce about 195,000 megawatts (MWh) intermittently and out of synch with Ontario demand. Windlectric will be paid $135 per/MWh plus cost of living benefits up to 20% more, so as much as $162 per/MWh in the latter years of their contract term. At an average of $140 per/MWh, the gross revenue to Windlectric will be $27.3 million annually, or about $550 million over the life of the contract.

Loyalist Township, where Amherst Island is located, was obligated to allow the Windlectric project to proceed because the Green Energy Act in 2009 stripped all municipalties’ local land use planning powers as regards an energy project. The best the township could do was reach agreement on a “Community Benefit Fund” for an annual payment of approximately $520K. Added to that will be realty taxes of around $240K. Ontario limits the assessed value of wind turbines to only $40K per MW. The assessed value of the 26 turbines will be less than $3 million, but their capital cost is over $200 million.

All-in, the township will get about $760K annually — 2.8% of the revenue to Windlectric. Obviously, the contributions Algonquin Power and other large renewable energy companies gave to the Ontario Liberal Party were worth the money.

So, Ontario has a “robust supply” of electricity, wind turbines will harm the 34 endangered species, and we are exporting surplus generation at pennies on the dollar while curtailing wind, spilling hydro and steaming off nuclear energy.   Ontario doesn’t need the intermittent power from the turbines on Amherst Island. We don’t need them in Prince Edward County either (White Pines) (or Dutton-Dunwich, or La Nation, or North Stormont). The Minister should demonstrate that he means what he said recently in North Bay:  “There are some families in this province that are struggling to meet their energy bills. It’s why I’ve recognized and the premier has recognized that we need to do more …That is why we’re making sure we can find ways to reduce bills. Everything is on the table within reason.”

The Minister has an opportunity to save ratepayers $1 billion dollars in future rate increases by simply canceling the Amherst Island Windlectric project and the Prince Edward County White Pines project, to name two.

He should take it.

Surplus power: the other side of wind’s “success story”

Napanee gas plant: more flexible resources needed to offset intermittent wind -- trouble is, they also push emissions up
Napanee gas plant: more flexible resources needed to offset intermittent wind — trouble is, they also push emissions up

January 23, 2017

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) summarized their submission on Ontario’s long-term energy plan (LTEP) to the IESO on their website.  “Ontario is the Canadian leader in clean wind energy with 4,781 megawatts of installed capacity, supplying about 5 per cent of the electricity that Ontarians depend on,” CanWEA said. “Wind has been the largest source of new electricity generation across Canada over the past decade. Over this time, costs have come down as capacity factors have increased.”

Here’s the other side of that apparent success story. It’s not as rosy as CanWEA, the wind power industry lobbyist, would like you to believe.

The IESO just released the 2016 Electricity Data indicating industrial wind turbines (IWT) were responsible for the generation of 9.0 terawatts (TWh) of power, representing 6% of Ontario demand of 137 TWh.

What IESO doesn’t say about wind power generation, however, is annoying.  IWT generation in 2016 was actually10.7 TWh when DX (distributor connected) industrial-scale wind turbines or IWTs are included.  If the 2.2 TWh of “curtailed” wind is added, the bill to ratepayers was for 13 TWh.  The estimate of curtailed and DX wind comes from Scott Luft who does a remarkable job of tracking what is actually happening with generation.  IESO fails to disclose either curtailed or DX generation for whatever reason as they are the settlement agent for all generation in the province.

They have the data available to supply the public with those details.

Surplus baseload means possible grid failure

Not surprisingly IESO continue to run “stakeholder committees” that generate reports disclosing concerns about the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind (and solar), referencing it as “Variable Generation.” They note the production of Surplus Baseload Generation (SBG) which may cause grid failure leading to brownouts or blackouts. One of those reports from May 2016 noted: “SBG in ~65% of hours in 2015, even with 2 major nuclear outages” and “So far, SBG in ~88% of hours in 2016”.

Interestingly enough the current Minister of Energy, Glenn Thibeault on December 16, 2016 issued a directive to IESO instructing them to negotiate an exit from some of the NUG (non-utility generators) gas contracts labeled as “baseload” generators. IESO obeyed the directive as noted by my friend Scott Luft in his recent post “Ontario’s IESO steps off the gas”. We should suspect this action was not aimed at reducing SBG, but instead is aimed as trying to give credibility to the addition of the “cap and trade” tax that took effect January 1, 2017 by showing some negligible reduction in emissions.

The oxymoron in that is also to be found in a June 2016 IESO report titled: “Review of the Operability of the IESO-Controlled Grid to 2020” which suggested:

“We recommend enhancing the flexibility of Ontario supply resources to ensure that there are increased quantities of resources able to address the hour-ahead VG forecast inaccuracy, 95% of the time. This translates to needing ~1,000 MW of additional flexibility. The additional flexibility needs to be located in unconstrained parts of the system to ensure they can operate without restriction. Methods to enhance the flexibility of Ontario resources could include: increased utilization of existing resources, enabling simple cycle operation at combined cycle plants, or adding new peaking generation, grid energy storage or demand response resources. Methods chosen, which are expected to happen through open competitive processes, must ensure that they are cost effective and can meet expected operational duty requirements – given that these resources are required in the near-term to address reliability needs.”

Serious problems with wind

What IESO’s concerns and subsequent recommendations suggest is the variable and unpredictable nature of wind generation has created serious problems in the eyes of those entrusted to run Ontario’s electricity system.

So, here are the facts: power generation from wind cost Ontario’s ratepayers over $1.7 billion (approximately 12% of total generation costs) in 2016 for just over 6% of demand, and will cause ratepayers hydro bills to be further affected negatively.   IESO’s responsibility to manage the system through the exercises suggested in their recommendations will cost the system more money, increasing costs just to ensure industrial wind developments are able to extract money from the pockets of Ontario’s ratepayers.

The government of Ontario led by Premier Wynne will (in the near future) claim their actions on the electricity file were instrumental in reducing emissions, but here’s the thing: the flexible resources IESO seeks will push the emissions up again.

The trick is, that won’t be seen until after the 2018 election.