Ontario energy ministers’ hydro rate forecasts off

Tags

, , , , , ,

Parker Gallant: Ontario’s energy ministers’ forecasts: don’t believe a word

Hydro One serves less than one-quarter Ontario customers, yet has more “costs”

In late 2009, with the advent of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, then Energy Minister George Smitherman proclaimed that electricity rates would only rise by 1% per year.  The 2010 Minister of Energy Brad Duguid launched his personal version of the Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP) and included a forecast that electricity rates would rise by an average of 7.9 %over the next three years.   In late 2013 Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli produced his LTEP. His forecast? Electricity rates would rise by 42% over the ensuing five years and by 33% over the next three.

George, Brad and Bob have a treat in store: the Ontario Energy Board’s 2013Yearbook of Distributors is now out, and actual results show that all their forecasts appear to have been grossly understated.

Comparing the “cost of power” (COP) for the year ended December 31, 2013 to that of 2012 shows the COP increased by over $1.6 billion (for less consumption) by Ontario’s ratepayers (not including Ontario’s large industrial users and exports) which translated to a 15% jump, well over forecasts of the past and present Energy Ministers.

$350 a year more to our bills

That $1.6 billion jump in the cost of power from 2012 to 2013 added about $350 annually to the typical ratepayers bill.

The Yearbook is a labyrinth of data to be mined for more interesting information.  For example, the OMA (operations, maintenance & administration) costs for 2013 increased by $97 million (6.4%) over 2012 for the 73 LDCs (local distribution company) reporting.  One could assume that the increase can be shared equally by all 73 LDCs, but no: $68 million or 69% of that increase came from Hydro One even though they only service 24.7% of Ontario’s ratepayers.

Looking back to the first Yearbook (2005 year end) and comparing average kilowatts (kWh) consumed per customer per month, you calculate that it has decreased by 11.2% from 2,378 kWh to 2,112 kWh.  At the same time Hydro One customers decreased their usage by only 5.6 % (104 kWh) but started at a much lower average level of consumption. This is surprising in that the OEB allows Hydro One to use a higher average consumption level when applying for a rate increase.  It may be a reflection on the inability of OEB staff to look at data in a different fashion instead of the “isolation” they appear to apply to each and every rate increase application.

In 2012 the OEB started collecting new data referred to as “Full-time Equivalent Number of Employees” (FTE) and if one totes up the numbers you find that the LDC sector had 10,022 FTEs at the 2013 year-end, of whom 3,291 (33%) are FTEs of Hydro One. Again, Hydro One serves just 24.7% of Ontario’s ratepayers.

Take those FTE numbers and use the data supplied in some of the other 102 Yearbook pages you can determine the average cost of each FTE  (adding up OMA costs for 2013, all staffing costs, and then dividing by the number of FTEs).  For 2013, if you deduct Hydro One’s OMA costs and FTEs you get  72 LDCs claimed costs at $1.001 billion and FTEs were 6,731 — so the “average” cost per FTE $148,760.  For Hydro One the OMA costs were $604.7 million for 3.291 employees making the “average” cost for a Hydro One FTE $183,744.  One has to ask, Are Hydro One workers worth the extra $35,000?

The other information that started appearing in the Yearbook a couple of years ago under “liabilities” was what is referred to as “Employee future benefits” (EFB) which one assumes is what the individual LDC has allocated towards pension and other retirement benefits.   For 2013 the EFB for the 72 LDCs (excluding Hydro One) was $468 million and if one simply divides that value by the FTEs (excluding Hydro One) you determine those EFBs average $69,529 per FTE or about $70,000 per employee to cover future pension and post retirement benefits.

Do that for Hydro One and you see they allocated $824 million (increased by $248 million, up 43% in just two years, from 2011) towards their EFBs.  Calculating what that is for each of their 3,291 employees you are better able to understand what the Leech Report highlighted about the unaffordability of the pensions and benefits at Hydro One, OPG, and the other electricity-related Crown corporations. Employees chip in $1 for every $4 of employer (in other words, you and me, the ratepayer) contributions.

Hydro One’s liability for “future benefits” represented almost 64% of the total of “Employee future benefits” at the end of 2013 — again to service just 24.7% of all ratepayers.

In fact, the liability per Hydro One employee of $250,000 at the end of 2013 was more than three times that of the other 72 local distribution companies.

More pain in the future

Ontario finished 2013 with slightly less than 1,200 MW of solar and 2,800 MW of wind in operation.  That amount of wind and solar played the major role in causing the extraordinary jump in the cost of power.  As of March 31, 2014 an additional 3,000 MW of wind generation and 1,000 MW of solar is either contracted for or under construction, which will double the sources of intermittent and unreliable  generation.  Those contracts will push up the cost of power by $350, or more, per annum, for the “typical” householder — in other words,  George, Brad and Bob all missed forecasts by a long shot.

Don’t expect to see the Ontario government tackle the rising costs of electricity caused by the incredibly generous salary and benefits programs and increasing amounts of wind and solar added to the grid. With billions of dollars destined annually for wind and solar developers, and huge shortfalls in the overly generous pensions and future benefits of the (mainly) provincial owned electricity entities, Ontarians will see continuing double digit growth in electricity costs.

Ontario ratepayers simply cannot believe what the Energy Ministers say.

©Parker Gallant

August 18, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Republished from Wind Concerns Ontario.

Wind farm still a concern in Ottawa

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

People attending a community meeting in North Gower last evening expressed continuing concern about the wind power project that was proposed in 2008 for North Gower-Richmond. The project application has been suspended pending a new application under the Request for Proposal process, which will open in a few weeks.

According to documents obtained by Ottawa Wind Concerns via the Freedom of Information process (thanks to donations from the community) the wind power developer Prowind, was informed of the application suspension in June, 2013, but advised to keep in touch with their contact at the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) about the new opportunity to apply. Prowind maintains a listing for the project on its website.

At that time, Prowind’s documents were “deemed complete” by the OPA, and the company was waiting for a connection to the grid, before the approval process could continue.

Prowind advised The Ottawa Citizen in August 2013, that the company would review the terms of the new process, and re-apply, if appropriate.

In October of 2013, a legal petition bearing more than 1,200 signatures from area residents was presented to the City of Ottawa; council passed a motion that recognized the petition and further, asked the province for a return of local land-use planning powers.

Statements to the effect that the project is now dead are not correct; the OPA has not yet defined its “community engagement” requirement under the new process.

Meanwhile, the OPA has designated Eastern Ontario as a “green light” area for wind power development.

It is expected that the wind power project will be an issue in the upcoming municipal election; incumbent councillor Scott Moffatt wrote a report on the project in last week’s Manotick Messenger, and candidate Dan Scharf has stated he is opposed to it.

The South Branch project, also developed by Prowind and sold to US-based EDP Renewables, has been operating south of Ottawa since March; the turbines are the first 3-megawatt power generators in Ontario.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com 

Tough questions on spending for Energy Minister Chiarelli from Parker Gallant

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Stipula_fountain_pen

Parker Gallant has written a letter to Ontario Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli, as a concerned citizen of Ontario. He has included a series of pointed questions on the energy portfolio in Ontario, specifically what value there is for taxpayers and ratepayers, and what the effect will be on the Ontario economy.

Sample questions:

Why does the Ontario Power Authority claim it will pick up old refrigerators for “free” when the truth is, everyone is paying for that service?

Why does Ontario list “conservation” as a source of power when you can’t exactly plug a toaster into it.

Why does Ontario hand out grants of $650 to people buying energy-efficient air conditioners but only give $400 to less than 1% of Ontario’s citizens who are suffering from “energy poverty” and can’t pay their electricity bills? (And don’t get him started on the huge grants to people buying expensive Tesla electric cars…)

Read the full letter here! Letter to Energy Minister with questions

(Originally posted at http://www.windconcernsontario.ca )

Single turbine to hamper development near Kincardine

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Council looking for legal strategy

Concerns Over Single Turbine

Wednesday, August 13, 2014 6:05 AM by John Divinski, Bayshore Broadcasting
Kincardine says Quixote turbine could hamper future development.

There is audio for this story.
MP3 - click to open click to open MP3 version
or click the play button to listen now.
(Kincardine )-It’s only one turbine but its recent approval by the province has many Kincardine councillors seeing red.

The Quixote One stand-alone turbine is to be constructed on Bruce County Road 23, near Tiverton and Kincardine CAO Murray Clarke says it could have ramifications on future growth in the area.

Because the turbine did not meet the set-back rules of the municipality of 2,000 metres, it flatly opposed the project and wrote a letter to the ministry stating so.

Clarke says they received no acknowledgement about their letter of concern until a directive was received in late July stating the turbine project had been approved.

He says the location of the turbine could potentially conflict with future growth in the Tiverton and Inverhuron areas, even if it abides by the provincial set-back requirement of 550 metres.

Clarke says they’ve invested millions of dollars in infrastructure in the area on the premise that there would be future development but the turbine approval could throw a wrench into their investment.

The Quixote One project is a single 2.5 megawatt industrial wind turbine project.

Council has instructed staff to get a legal opinion to see if any option is open to the community.

Achtung Ontario! Renewables are a money pit

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Germany, the model for Ontario’s wind and solar developments, now regrets its spending spree

Brady Yauch, Financial Post, August 12, 2014

Germany – the country on which Ontario modelled its approach to renewable energy development – has a $412-billion lesson for Ontario. That’s the amount the country has spent on subsidies in support of solar and wind energy, among other renewables, over the past 20 years, all in the push to wean the country off fossil fuel and nuclear generation.

On the surface – and according to many news sites – the program has been a success, and not just because of the 378,000 people renewables now employ.

By the end of 2012 (the most recent year for data), wind and solar provided about 13% of all German electricity consumption. Adding in hydro and biomass, renewables provided more than 23%. And in May, headline writers around the world proudly trumpeted that renewable energy provided 75% of the country’s total electricity consumption.

Not what it seems

But scratch a bit below the surface and an entirely different picture emerges – one with households being pushed into “energy poverty” as renewable subsidies lead to soaring power bills, handouts to the country’s big businesses and exporters so they can avoid paying for those subsidies and a systematic bankrupting of traditional utilities. As for that one day in May when headlines celebrated that 75% of power generation came from renewables, well, it was a Sunday when demand for power is at its lowest level.

Germany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade. Households now pay the second highest rates for electricity in the EU – second only to Denmark, the world leader in wind turbines. The country’s feed-in tariff program – which offers renewable energy producers a guaranteed rate for their power – has already cost $412-billion, but could, according to one estimate from the former Minister of the Environment Peter, produce an $884-billion price tag by 2022. Germany will hand out $31.1-billion of renewable energy subsidies in this year alone.

The price of electricity paid by German households has increased from 14 cents (euro) per kilowatt hour in 2000 to 29 cents per kilowatt hour last year – marking a 107% increase, while inflation over that time period was about 22%. The biggest reason for that increase is the renewable energy subsidy, which amounted to 1.4% of the total bill when it was first introduced in 2000, but now accounts for 18%. That renewable levy now costs the average household in Germany more than $320 a year.

Electricity now a luxury

Rising electricity prices for households led Der Spiegel, one of the country’s most respected magazines, to warn that electricity was becoming a “luxury good.” More than 300,000 households each year are being left in the dark because they can’t afford electricity.

German households are being hit particularly hard by the cost of renewable subsidies because the country’s largest businesses – many of them exporters and in energy-intensive sectors – have been exempt from paying for them. Regulators and politicians – fearing that that high electricity prices would hurt the economy and result in job losses or plant closures – gave big business a free pass and instead shifted the costs to households.

The renewable subsidies have distorted Germany’s power market to such an extent that traditional utilities are being pushed to the brink of collapse. Electricity generated from solar and wind has no relationship with the market. Because the price the producers receive is guaranteed and is not based on demand, they dump their output whenever it is produced. This glut of power has, at times, pushed the price of wholesale power below zero – meaning the utilities need to pay someone to use it. This has skewed the price to such an extent that traditional generators can’t economically produce power – they simply stop producing when the price goes too low.

While the answer would seem to be to close those uneconomic generators, that’s not possible since renewable energy is intermittent – at times it will produce no power, while at others it will produce too much – and traditional generators are needed to provide a secure, reliable source of power. Utilities are being asked to keep producing power even though the economics of it don’t make sense anymore. To prevent utilities in Germany from pulling out of the business of generation, the government now offers more than billion dollars in “balancing payments” – sometimes 400 times the price of power – to stabilize the grid.

Renewable producers still can’t survive without subsidies

The rise of renewable power has also led to coal making a comeback. The amount of generation from coal actually increased from 43% of all output in 2011 to nearly 45% in 2012. Electricity generation from lignite, a cheaper and dirtier form of coal, has also been on the rise because, according to one Germany utility, it’s the only thing that can compete with subsidized renewable energy.

The energy situation in Germany has become so disruptive and politically untenable that the government has recently done everything it can to pull back on subsidies and other support for renewable energy, much to the dismay of renewable producers that still can’t survive on their own.

Far from being a success, Germany’s rush into renewable energy has crushed households, taxpayers and utilities. Ontario needs a better model.

Brady Yauch is an economist and the executive director of Consumer Policy Institute.

Read the full article here.

Enviro Canada needs new radar technology due to wind farms

Tags

, , , ,

Loess Hills Wind farm

By Clare Clancy, The Windsor Star, August 10, 2014

TORONTO – Environment Canada is preparing to roll out new radar technology in order to combat wind farm clutter, which clouds weather forecasts, misleads meteorologists and can even block radar signals.

Jim Young, who works at the agency’s national radar program, said new software will be incorporated into Canada’s radar system this fall in an effort to address the “contamination” caused by wind turbines.

“I certainly have very high hopes,” he said, adding that Environment Canada has been concerned about wind farm clutter for years.

The agency uses Doppler radar to predict storms, but the movement of wind turbine propellers can mimic weather.

Young said accurate radar data relies on movement — still objects including buildings, trees and towers are filtered out to allow for an analysis of the weather.

On its website, Environment Canada warns that the degradation of data can be “significantly misleading for forecasters under storm conditions.”

Young said the disruption caused by wind farms is based on their proximity to radar sites.

“The closer you get, that clutter becomes larger and larger,” he said.

In extreme circumstances, wind turbines can block radar scans, which Young compares to beams of light emanating from a flashlight.

“If you put a large obstruction in front of your flashlight, you are going to create a shadow behind it, where you can’t see anything,” he said, adding that the same thing can happen when scanning wind farms.

He said so far Environment Canada hasn’t had to deal with full blockages.

“Environment Canada will be very concerned if any wind farms are built that close to a radar site,” he said.

Young added that he has been working with research groups at McGill University and the University of Oklahoma on software for the past year.

The project will allow forecasters to better distinguish between weather and wind farms, but it still might not be enough in extreme weather, he said.

As an “extra layer of protection,” Environment Canada is in the process of finalizing a curtailment agreement with a major wind energy company, he said.

Young said the agreement will include shutting down wind turbines if necessary during extreme weather events.

A spokeswoman for NextEra Energy Canada, which has wind projects in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Nova Scotia, said the company has worked with Environment Canada to understand weather radar equipment and its compatibility with wind turbines.

Josie Bird said the agreed upon “exceptional weather event protocol” outlines how the company can work with Environment Canada in extreme weather.

“The mitigation agreement would provide Environment Canada the ability to request a change in the operations of the nearby wind farm, which will then be managed by our operations team,” she said via email.

Part of the problem is the competition for prime real estate, Young said.

“The ideal places for locating a wind farm are also ideal locations for weather radar,” he said. “You are close to populations and close to infrastructure.”

He added that he works with a U.S. counterpart to discuss wind farms close to the U.S.-Canada border, where most of Environment Canada’s radar network is set up.

But Canada has a “sparse” radar network compared to the U.S., he said, adding that when the U.S. system faces obstruction, there is often overlap so another radar site will compensate for the problem.

“Our radar coverage is nowhere near as dense as the U.S. network,” he said.

He added that other types of radar in Canada, such as air surveillance and air traffic control, could also be affected by wind turbines.

Read the full story here

Brinston wind farm noise prompts MoE investigation

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Turbine neighbour prompts noise probe by ministry

By Nelson Zandbergen – AgriNews Staff Writer, August, 2014

Ontarios Ministry of Environment and Climate Change installed the basketball-sized microphone atop a temporary 30-foot listening post in her backyard, along with a smaller meteorological tower.BRINSTON Leslie Disheau has her ear to the ground in South Dundas, and for 10 days last month, a very powerful ear trained on the sky around her Brinston home as well.

The ministrys move was prompted by Disheau and partner Glen Baldwins complaints about nighttime noise emanating from two industrial wind turbines on either side of their place, one to their immediate northwest, the other to the southeast. Comprising part of the 10-turbine South Branch project that went into serviceearlier this year, both of the nearest units are less than one kilometre away from the home the couple shares with their two teenaged children.

But Disheau, candidate for deputy mayor in the municipal election and a fierce critic of the turbine industry, feared that developer EDP Renewables was intentionally slowing the two windmills to quiet them down while the ministry data-collection and audio-recording effort was underway with her participation.

The Houston-based firm almost immediately learned about the microphone on the day of the install, she said with some frustration.

Located just down the road from the projects main depot, it wasnt more than three hours after the arrival of two ministry trucks in her driveway that EDP called the same ministry to question the presence of those vehicles, according to Disheau.

She says the audio technician putting up the equipment learned of EDPs inquiry while talking to his office bycell phone, then told her about it.

Wind developer has not filed a compliance report yet

Disheau expressed unhappiness that a mandatory post-construction noise report had yet to be publicly filed by the company itself, after putting the project into service in March.

In the meantime, over a 10-day period in July, the ministry captured its own sound data with Disheaus help. During those times she considered the turbines to be noisiest, she pressed a button inside her home, triggering the recording process via the outdoor microphone, which was tethered to audio equipment in a locked box.

Comparing the sound to that of a rumbling plane or jet, she got up at night when she couldnt sleep to push the audio recording button located at the end of a long cord connected to the stuff outside. She also kept an accompanying log as part of the initiative.

The noise is most acute, she said, when the direction of the wind causes the blades to swivel toward her home in perpendicular fashion.

Effect of multiple turbines not considered by government

She scoffed at regulations that mandate 500-meter setbacks to neighbouring homes, pointing out the rule doesnt take into account the cumulative, “overlapping” impact of multiple turbines that surround. Nor does the regulation change with the actual size of a turbine, she adds, asserting that, at 3-megawatts apiece, “these are the largest turbines in Ontario.”

Ultimately, the ministry will use the data collected by Disheau to create a report, which could potentially form the basis of ministry orders against the two offending turbines. “To shut them down at night so that people can sleep,” she said with a hopeful tone, though she also acknowledged the ministry may not issue orders. And even if it does, she expects the developer to appeal and appeal.

Disheau also said there are measures that municipal governments can undertake to curtail the noise, including a nuisance noise bylaw of 32 decibels, which recently survived a court challenge in another Ontario municipality. She espouses such a policy in South Dundas and will push for it at the council table if elected.

Read the full story here.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

The “green” movement: exploitation of the well-intentioned?

Tags

, , , ,

Sure looks "green" to us

Sure looks “green” to us

You may recall we posted an earlier video prepared by Ben Acheson.

This video is currently making the rounds. The spokesperson here is Ben Acheson, who is actually a Policy Advisor in the European Parliament. He has made several other videos on “green” power and wind in particular, which are well worth seeing. Perhaps you have seen Wind Energy: chalk it up to a loss, which is also one of Ben’s.

In this video, Acheson suggest that business is capitalizing on people’s wishes to do the “right thing” for the environment, but that various money-making ideas which DON’T help the environment (like wind power) have been promoted.

On to the current video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw1MyiMyKsQ&list=PL4kAMiuuZB8kzmFIy1x0c_i_bSLvCBqnJ&index=9

Count birds and at-risk species in Prince Edward Cty this Saturday

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Count me IN!!!

Count me IN!!!

As you know, despite the objections and legal actions brought forward by the citizens of Prince Edward County—and its municipal government, which declared the County “Not A Willing Host”—the province is proceeding with applications from two wind power developers for wind power generation projects, including one in a widely recognized Important Bird Area.

This Saturday, naturalists and ordinary people will be gathering to listen to speakers, and observe wildlife in the County.

Prince Edward County is just two to two and a half hours from Ottawa.

For more information go to the website for the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists at http://www.saveostranderpoint.org

Have your say in Ottawa Public Health survey

Tags

, ,

Ottawa Public Health is asking members of the public for help as they determine their priorities for 2015-2018. You may take the survey and provide responses here.

If a wind power project is to accepted and approved for any area of Ottawa, it would be appropriate for the City of Ottawa and its public health department to have made provision to protect residents. Some suggestions might be

-pre-operational noise measurements

-pre-operational baseline health survey of residents within 3 km

-post-operational health assessments

-measurement of noise AND infrasound to ensure compliance with regulations (note: there are presently NO regulations concerning infrasound and the province will not have a protocol until 2015)

The Green Energy Act removed local land-use planning powers for municipalities facing renewable power projects, but municipalities remain responsible for protecting their residents from “nuisance” and harm.

Ottawa should be prepared now to address this, should a wind power project come forward.