Tag Archives: Ontario government

Wind farms: another $20 million gone in a weekend

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Ontario: wind farms contribute to $20-million power sell-off

Another $20-million autumn weekend with Ontario power sold off cheap to neighbouring states and province

Another October weekend has come and gone along—and so has at least another $20 million of Ontario ratepayer dollars, due to selling off surplus Ontario power cheap.

This past weekend of October 24-26 saw Ontario sell off another 189,000 megawatt hours (MWh)  of electricity to our neighbours in Michigan, New York and Quebec.   Those MWh went for a song generating, $4.31 each and earning about $820K. The flip side is, ratepayers paid over $110 per MWh for that power generation.  We lost $106 for each MWh (10.6 cents per kilowatt hour); that means the subsidized cost of those megawatt hours  was over $20 million, or a one-time hit of about $4.50 for each of Ontario’s average electricity ratepayer.  The trouble of course is that it is not a one-time hit, as this situation occurs frequently during spring and fall when demand for power is low.

Included in that $20 million we paid to export our surplus is the cost for the spasmodic production of electricity from thousands of industrial wind turbines throughout the province and, presumably, some solar production.   Wind turbines produced over 52,000 MWh Octover 24-26, and wind power producers were paid for not producing another 17,000 MWh.   That 69,000 MWh cost Ontario’s ratepayers half of the $20 million. It doesn’t  include what Ontario Power Generation spilled in hydro, what gas generators were paid to idle, or what Bruce Nuclear was paid to steam off nuclear power.

What this past weekend and others before it should be telling the Ontario Liberal government and the Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli is that Ontario’s ratepayers are consuming less of this expensive commodity.  Premier Wynne’s  “Conservation First” initiative, as Tom Adams notes in a recent post titled “Crock of Conservation,” has driven demand down but the energy ministry keeps adding more inefficient renewables to Ontario’s grid.

During the past weekend, Ontario exported 20% of its average electricity demand.   If each Ministry of the Ontario government wasted 20% of their budget, the main stream media might pay attention but it seems that the Minister of Energy is allowed to waste ratepayer dollars without any serious oversight because the money is simply extracted, without effect on the Ontario deficit.

We can only hope for the day when it is recognized that ratepayers are also taxpayers, and that their money is being wasted with regularity due to Ontario’s energy policy.

©Parker Gallant,

October 27, 2014

Re-posted from Windconcernsontario.ca

Economist: Ontario’s actions on electricity bills possibly illegal

12 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

From Ottawa energy economist Robert Lyman:

THE $6.2 BILLION SLEIGHT-OF-HAND

 Parker Gallant is a retired banker who has done tremendous service to the people of Ontario by reporting publicly on the Ontario government’s mismanagement of the province’s electrical energy system. In an analysis he posted on April 11, 2014, Mr. Gallant applied his knowledge of financial management and accounting to reveal the damaging and possibly illegal actions of the Liberal government with respect to the Debt Retirement Charge included in the monthly electricity bills of Ontario residents. The analysis can be found online here:

http://ep.probeinternational.org/2014/04/11/parker-gallant-the-debt-retirement-charge-premier-wynnes-6-2-billion-revenue-tool-5/#more-12245

This note offers my explanation, in layperson’s terms, of what Mr. Gallant revealed.

Background

In 1998 the Ontario government launched a major restructuring of the province’s publicly-owned electricity industry. One aspect of this restructuring was the breakup of Ontario Hydro into five successor companies on April 1, 1999.

The Ontario Ministry of Finance determined that, on April 1, 1999, Ontario Hydro’s total debt and other liabilities stood at $38.1 billion, which greatly exceeded the estimated $17.2 billion market value of the assets being transferred to the new entities. The resulting shortfall of $20.9 billion was determined to be “stranded debt”, representing the total debt and other liabilities of Ontario Hydro that the Ministry judged could not be serviced in “a competitive electricity environment”. This total was subsequently reduced to $19.4 billion when it was adjusted for $1.5 billion of additional assets transferred to OEFC. Responsibility for servicing and managing the “legacy” debt of Ontario Hydro, which includes the stranded debt, was given to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), whose opening balance sheet reflected a stranded debt, or unfunded liability, of $19.4 billion. This was the difference between the $18.7 billion value of assets assumed by the OEFC and the $38.1 billion of Ontario Hydro legacy debt.

To retire the debt, the government established a long-term plan wherein the burden of debt repayment would be borne partly through dedicated revenues from the electricity sector companies – Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Hydro One, and Municipal Electrical Utilities – and partly by electricity consumers directly. (Bear in mind that all the revenues from the electricity sector companies come from electricity consumers, so electricity consumers pay all the costs, one way or the other.). The electricity companies would make “payments in lieu of taxes” to the OEFC (this is, in theory, the equivalent of corporate income taxes). It was projected that future revenues from OPG and Hydro One and municipal electricity distributors would generate $11.6 billion over the next eight to nine years.

To read the full article click here.THE $6.2 Billion Sleight-of-Hand

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Ottawa economist on the Fraser Institute report: Ontario in bad shape

18 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FRASER INSTITUTE REPORT

Comparing the Debt Burdens of Ontario and California

On March 8, 2014, the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute published a research study comparing the debt burdens of the state of California and the province of Ontario. Within the United States, many people consider California to represent a prime example of irresponsible government spending coupled with poor cash management. However, the Fraser Institute report uses a number of measures to compare Ontario’s situation to that of California. In almost all cases, Ontario is much worse.

Here are the highlights of the report:

  • California’s current debt in the form of government-issued bonds is US $144.8 billion, while Ontario carries CDN $267.5 billion, almost double the amount of California.
  • This figure actually understates the disparity between the two regions, as California has a much larger economy. The gross debt in the form of bonds is 7.6% of California’s economy, while it is a “whopping” 40.9% of Ontario’s economy, more than five times as large as California.
  • Per capita, each Ontarian’s share of provincial government debt is CDN $20,166 (i.e. $80,664 for a family of four), compared to US$ 3,844 in state government debt for each resident of California.
  • Servicing this debt through interest payments is more costly in Ontario. 9.2% of budget revenues in Ontario are devoted to interest payments, compared to 2.8% in California.
  • Ontario’s expenditures as a share of the economy grew from 15.5% in 2001-2002 to 19% in 2011-2012.
  • Over this period, total government spending in Ontario has been steadily increasing from one year to the next. Thus, unlike California, Ontario has not managed to stabilize the growth of the debt in terms of GDP.
  • Ontario’s net debt for 2012-2013 is the second highest as a percentage of GDP of any Canadian province, trailing only Quebec. However, Quebec’s annual budget deficit was only half as large – 0.7 % compared to Ontario’s 1.4 %.
  • Ontario’s budget analysts project that from 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 net interest payments will represent the fastest growing expense for the provincial government, growing at 5.5 % annually – more than twice the projected rate of health care expenditures.

Robert Lyman

Ottawa, March 18, 2014

Editor: It’s worth noting that Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli admits Ontario is spending $1B a year on power generated from wind energy; he also admits we don’t need it. Sound financial planning!

The Fraser Institute report is available here.

Lyman: Ontario’s electricity prices continue to rise

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here from energy economist Robert Lyman, an analysis of what’s going on with the price of electricity in Ontario… and what’s to come.

The Ontario Electricity Tragedy – The Numbers for 2013

The average resident of Ontario has a difficult time even understanding his or her electricity bill, let alone comprehending all the costs borne by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the Crown Corporation that manages provincial electricity supply and demand.

Fortunately for the rest of us, one man spends a lot of time monitoring IESO’s purchases and costs. His name is Scott Luft, and he reports his analysis on a blog entitled “Cold Air.” He takes publicly available data from IESO and translates it into something meaningful. Two tables recently published by Scott Luft tell us a great deal about what has happened to the “commodity cost” of electricity in Ontario since 2006, and especially about the breakdown of costs in 2013. The commodity cost is the charges that IESO pays for the actual power that it purchases from generators plus additional costs that are added on by order of the provincial government. It excludes the cost of electricity transmission and distribution and other special charges like HST.

Read the full article here.Ontario’s Electricity Tragedy by the Numbers (revised)

Time for the Chief Medical Officer of Health to step up

18 Tuesday Jun 2013

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

Wind Concerns Ontario announced today that it has formally requested the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr Arlene King, to follow up on the numerous complaints of excessive noise and ill health, coming from people who are living near or among large-scale wind turbines in Ontario.

Dr King produced a report, which was a simple literature review, in 2010 which found no “direct” link between turbine noise and health problems. That report was widely criticized as being inadequate and based on industry-selected literature, but it has served the wind power development lobby very well, serving as a rubber stamp on health from the Ontario government.

A lot of water has passed under a lot of bridges since: the 2011 Environmental Review Tribunal decision noted that the government ought to keep pace with research on the health impacts, and review and revise regulations as needed—it hasn’t done that.

Dr King herself recommended more research, specifically on the noise. It hasn’t done that either and in fact while acknowledging that infrasound (vibration, sound pressure) could be a problem, it won’t even have guidelines for infrasound until 2015.

By that time, with the government continuing to approve two or three wind power projects a month, everything that is planned or proposed will be built.

Wind Concerns says the government has a duty to investigate the complaints coming from residents under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. With the current Environmental Tribunal concluding this week, after hearing from expert witnesses and actual wind turbine noise victims, it would be appropriate for the government to act.

It is especially important for the people of North Gower and Richmond, where a wind power project would expose hundreds of people–including the property owners leasing land for turbines themselves– to environmental noise and vibration, for the regulations to be revised based on the on-the-ground experiences.

See the news story and actual letter here: http://www.freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/06/wco-demands-investigation-of-noise.html