Tag Archives: Parker Gallant

Ontario’s $16-million Christmas power giveaway

31 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Ontario’s $16-million Christmas power giveaway

Wind power half of surplus power sold off cheap

Ontario's energy policy: gifts for somebody---just not you

Christmas was great day for Michigan and New York, courtesy of Santa Claus Ontario and wind power: Ontario exported 16.5 % (about 66,000 MWh) of our total demand for power on Christmas Day, and those two neighbours got $500,000 in cash along with the 56,000 MWh of power we gave them.  Power generated from wind energy was 36,000 MWh or 51% of total exports—if the curtailed wind production was included that would be 77% of the surplus power exported, so the wind power developers must be happy with their Christmas presents from Ontario, too.

In fact, Ontario’s electricity ratepayers picked up the cost of the cash payments to Michigan and New York, along with the actual cost of the production which was $7 million.  And, we paid about $2 million for “curtailed” wind (17,000 MWh), close to $3 million for “steamed off” nuclear (49,000 MWh) and more than $3 million to the gas plant generators for their “net revenue requirement” while the gas power plants idled.  That’s $16 million… and it doesn’t include the cost of Christmas Day “hydro spillage” as the Independent Electricity Systems Operator or IESO doesn’t report on it.

Total demand for power in Ontario Christmas Day was only 325,000 MWh, perhaps due to mild weather or maybe everyone barbecued their turkeys.  The hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP) value of the total demand of 390,000 MWh was negative (-$2,900,000) based on the average negative price of $7.45/MWh, but Ontario ratepayers still paid the $40 million needed to produce that power.

So our Premier and her chief Elf in the Energy portfolio, Bob Chiarelli, rewarded Ontario’s ratepayers with lumps of coal on Christmas day while doling out goodies to our neighbours!

©Parker Gallant

December 26, 2014

Contact Wind Concerns Ontario at 1-855-517-0446 or

windconcerns@gmail.com

Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario

You may also listen to a 45-minute podcast of Parker Gallant on the Dale Goldhawk radio show here.

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

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: $44 million lost as extra power sold cheap

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: what could $44M have bought?

What the lost $44 million could have bought: 293 family docs, 580 nurse practitioners
What the lost $44 million could have bought: 293 family docs, 580 nurse practitioners

Blowing Ontario’s ratepayer dollars

Money lost in just one week could have paid for 580 nurses

So far this October, Ontario’s electricity sector has been blowing our money away at an awesome pace.

Scott Luft, whom I admire for his ability to assimilate comprehensible data, posted on Tumblr some disturbing information about the first 10 days of electricity production (and curtailed production) in Ontario.  Because the fall means low demand for electricity, our current surplus energy supply (principally, wind, solar and gas) was curtailed to the extent that it cost ratepayers $20 million, while the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) generated only $8.2 million.  That $20 million of curtailment cost will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot and onto ratepayers’ bills.

I took a different route and looked at the cost of Ontario’s exports for the week of October 3rd to October 9th —those numbers are also disturbing.  During those seven days, Ontario exported 399,048 MWh (megawatt hours) which was 15.7% of total Ontario demand.   Wind turbines generated and delivered 184,204 MWh, which was surplus to our needs and probably exported.  The money generated via the HOEP from all of the export sales was $56,300 or 14 cents a MWh.  Wind turbines produced just $15,164 and we sold that production for just 8 cents a MWh.

To put this in perspective, the exported production’s cost all-in (contract value per MWh + regulatory + transmission + debt retirement charge) averaged $110/MWh, according to the latest monthly IESO Market Summary August 2014 report’s findings.  Using $110/MWh the 399,000 MWh exported in those seven days hit Ontario’s ratepayers with about $44 million (less the $56,300) via allocation to the GA—that will show up on the electricity line on our bills.

Wind generation alone at the contracted rate of $135/MWh cost ratepayers $24,900,000 plus another $5 to $6 million for their curtailed production, according to Scott Luft.  That $30 to $31 million plus the cost of steaming off Bruce Nuclear, paying idling gas plants, etc., and the additional cost of solar generation, would confirm the $44 million is a reasonable estimate.

What has Ontario missed out on by having ratepayers subsidizing those exports by $44 million for those seven days?

  •  the annual salary of 293 family physicians, or
  • 580 nurse practitioners, or
  • repairing all the Toronto District School Board’s school roofs, or
  • one and a half days of interest on Ontario’s public debt, or
  •  all of Ontario’s 301 MPP salaries for a full year, or
  • 40 MRI machines, or
  • 100 months of mortgage payments on the empty MaRS Phase 2 building, or
  • increasing funding for autistic children by 30% over current levels.

Just a few examples of how the wasted subsidy money that cost each Ontario ratepayer $10 for just one week could have been used!

© Parker Gallant

October 13, 2014

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

The collected wisdom of Energy Minister Chiarelli

29 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Minister Chiarelli: words of wisdom

Ummm...uhhhh...er... [The musings of Bob Chiarelli]
Ummm…uhhhh…er… [The musings of Bob Chiarelli]

In the approximately one and a half years that Bob Chiarelli has been Energy Minister, he has made many observations about the electricity sector in Ontario. I thought it might be amusing to see a collection of them, altogether.

  • When Minster Chiarelli announced the end of the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (January 1, 2015) he said: “The provincial government is trying to rejig hydro bills to ensure that customers aren’t hit with a sharp increase when the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit is phased out.”  And, “The plan was to also eliminate the debt retirement charge on hydro bills at the same time.”  The announcement of those simultaneous actions raised the average ratepayer bill by $100 annually but in Mr. Chiarelli’s wisdom that wasn’t a “sharp increase”!
  • Minister Chiarelli announced that “wind turbine developers” would be “paid to not produce power” and bragged it would save ratepayers $200 million annually!  He didn’t promise that rates would fall as a result of the savings, however, and he also failed to note that the money paid “to not produce power” would raise the per kWh cost of the actual power produced!
  • The Minister announced that the Samsung contract had been revised and would “save ratepayers money,”  $3.7 billion over the 20-year term.   Once again, no promise of rates falling, just that they wouldn’t increase as much as previously anticipated.
  • Minister Chiarelli told us that “over the next 20 years, rates would increase 3.4 % per year” (after the Samsung announcement) but this writer’s bill increased 9.1% in only one year, as have most ratepayers bills.  We are all looking forward to the 3.4% increase after 10 years of 10% increases.
  • Minister Chiarelli holds the record of the nine Liberal Ministers of Energy for issuing 22 “directives” to the OPA, surpassing Brad Duguid, the previous record holder at 19.  Apparently Liberal Energy Ministers know more than the “experts” running the electricity system!
  • The first directive issued by Minister Chiarelli on June 23, 2023 instructed the OPA to expand FIT and MicroFIT contracts; that was superseded by his most recent directive of August 29, 2014 telling them to scale back, even though they hadn’t achieved his original target.
  • Minister Chiarelli has been consistent in telling all Ontario ratepayers to “conserve” but he recently issued a new directive instructing the OPA to create a new program so large industrial companies would “consume more” at rates at a third of what the rest of us pay.
  • Minister Chiarelli referred to the cost of the gas plant move from Oakville as the “price of a Timmie’s coffee” and uses that analogy often when talking about increasing electricity rates.   Is this a new currency he plans on bringing in if he is appointed Finance Minister for the Province?
  • Minister Chiarelli in his “Minister’s Message” in his long-term energy plan, “Achieving Balance” says, “Ontario has adopted a policy of Conservation First,” and a chart in the plan “Forecast Energy Production (TWh) 2032” claims it willcontribute 30 TWh of energy efficiency by then.   I presume he noticed that 30 TWh of nothing won’t toast your bread!
  • The same Minister’s Message also says, “We will work with our agencies and the province’s local distribution companies to ensure they operate more efficiently and produce savings that will benefit Ontario’s ratepayers.”  Meanwhile, the largest and most costly large distributor in the province, Hydro One (owned by the province)is being investigated by Ontario’s Ombudsman for a billing system causing havoc for its 1.1 million ratepayers.  Ironically, the recent budget from Minister of Finance, Charles Sousa, talks about maximizing profits from it to increase revenues to help reduce the budget deficit.  That puts Minister Chiarelli in conflict with Minister Sousa!  Wonder who will win?
  • Minister Chiarelli wants us all to conserve but his “Achieving Balance” plan comes up short as it will actually increase emissions according to the Power Workers Union and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.  The Power Workers,  “the plan is short-sighted in its thinking, will leave the province vulnerable to supply shortages and willreverse the decline in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributed to the successful restart of units 1 and 2 at Bruce Power by relying significantly more on natural gas generation when the Pickering Nuclear Station closes.”
  • Minister Chiarelli in an interview had this to say about engagement with municipalities:  “Our government wants to ensure that future renewable energy projects will be built in the right place at the right time.”  So, municipalities can have their “say,” they just can’t say “no.”
  • Minister Chiarelli in the same interview was asked a question about the possibility of a moratorium on wind projects until the federal health study was complete. He said, “Dr. Arlene King [former Chief Medical Officer of Health] undertook a review of the potential health effects of wind turbines. Her 2010 report stated that there is no scientific evidence to date to support claims that wind turbine noise cause adverse health effects.”   We know Dr. King’s report was nothing more than a “literature review,” is contentious and outdated, but our Energy Minister pretends it is the last word.

This is a quick review of Minister Chiarelli’s management of the Ontario electricity sector, highlighting his contradictory views, his conflicts, his approach to the addition of wind turbines to Ontario’s energy sector and  their mediocre potential to contribute to Ontario’s electricity needs.   A deeper review of Chiarelli’s performance and that of his predecessors would have turn up more results and more of egregious statements.

What stands out is that the Ontario Liberal government has contrived to make Ontario the most expensive market for electricity in North America, a major factor in Ontario’s mediocre economic performance.

©Parker Gallant

September 29, 2014

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Parker Gallant in Ottawa September 30

25 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Many people in Ottawa are followers of Parker Gallant’s Ontario’s Power Trip columns in The Financial Post. He is, of course, the “retired banker who took a good look at his hydro bills and didn’t like what he saw.”

He has plenty to say about not only our (rising) electricity bills, but the role of renewables in Ontario’s electricity costs, and the resulting effect on Ontario’s business competitiveness.

Parker Gallant will be speaking at a breakfast-time event in Manotick, Tuesday September 30th at 7:45 a.m., at the Hard Stones Grill on Manotick Main Street.

The event has been organized by the campaign for Dan Scharf for council in Rideau-Goulbourn. Seating is limited: RSVP to dan4rideau.goulbourn@gmail.com  

Donations to the campaign are welcome at this event.

Here is Parker’s latest, re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario; he is vice-president of the coalition of community groups opposed to large-scale wind power projects located too close to Ontario communities.

Clean air day for Ontario means cleaned out wallets for ratepayers

Ontario’s cleanest day: too bad it cost you

The heading on Cold Air energy blogger Scott Luft‘s article read:  “September 20th: Ontario electricity’s cleanest day in my lifetime.”   He was talking about the fact that emissions from the electricity sector in Ontario produced almost no emissions last Saturday.  Why? Low demand meant clean nuclear, clean hydro and clean wind produced more than enough power to satisfy the 13,593 MW average Ontario demand for electricity, as reported by IESO in their Daily Market Summary.

Here are the details: on September 20th, nuclear produced about 270,000 MWh, hydro 82,000 MWh and wind over 40,000 MWh.  Taken together, they produced about 81,000 excess MWh of power which Ontario simply exported.  Ontario was also busy steaming off Bruce nuclear power, and probably spilling hydro and paying those gas plants for sitting idle.   It’s obvious Ontario didn’t need that 40,000 MW of wind but with the “first to the grid” rights of wind and solar, IESO was obliged to accept it.

As it turned out the hourly Ontario electricity price or HOEP performed badly on September 20th and averaged .82 cents per MWh or .00082 cents per kWh.  So, Ontario’s ratepayers were paying wind generators $135.00 per MWh while IESO were busy selling it off to our neighbours in NY and Michigan for .82 cents meaning (without counting in the steamed-off Bruce nuclear, the gas plants $500 per MW of capacity for idling, non-utility generators or NUG-contracted utilities for curtailment, solar generators, etc.) we were losing $134.18 for every MWh of power that those wind turbines produced.

What that means to you is, the 81,000 MWh we sold to our neighbours cost each of Ontario’s 4.5 million ratepayers as our Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli, might say, a large “Timmies” coffee and a donut!  Please don’t stop your conservation efforts, however, as the Ontario Liberal government would like us to do this more often!

Ontario: truly a great neighbour!

©Parker Gallant

September 23, 2014

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

 

Parker Gallant on Hydro One: use less, pay more

01 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

What Hydro One is doing to over a million ratepayers is a shame

People who know me know it’s like Christmas for me when the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) posts the Yearbook of Distributors and it’s true, the data is a big gift!  You can imagine how a banker might react when confronted with the details the OEB releases.  It gets better when you look at it in detail.

Here is my take on the information as it relates to Hydro One, only one of Ontario’s 73 LDCs (local distribution companies). Hydro One is a monopoly that services 1,221,100 customers (according to the Yearbook) in Ontario, and has exclusive rights to the transmission of energy generation.  Caution some of the fact that follow may disturb some readers.

  • Total Hydro One full-time employees as at December 31, 2013 was 5,641, plus what are referred to as “non-regular” employees numbering 2,109.  In 2002 Hydro One had 3,933 regular employees, so full-time employees have grown by 1,708 (up 43.4%).
  • In 2002, Hydro One had 1,219,614 customers; at year-end December 31, 2013, they reported 1,221,100 customers but they apparently needed 1,708 additional full-time employees to service those additional 1,486 customers.   (The number of “non-regular” employees for 2002 was not available.)
  • Total “Purchased Power” by the 73 local distribution companies in 2013 was 125,306 million kWh and by Hydro One was 25,829 million, or 20.6% of the total. Yet Hydro One services 24.7% of all Ontario ratepayers.
  • The average OMA (operations, management and administration) costs for the 73 local distribution companies was $325.00 per ratepayer, but for Hydro One’s customers it was $495.60—that’s $170.60 more, or 52.5% higher.
  • If one removes the hard data for Hydro One and calculates the OMA for 2013 for the 72 LDCs the average comes to $269,  meaning Hydro One’s OMA is 84.8% higher. For 2012 it was only (I use the term lightly) 65.4% higher.
  • Gross Income (net of Power Purchased) was $3.418 billion for all 73 local distribution companies but for Hydro One it was $1,323 billion or 38.7% of all the Gross Revenue from those 24.7% of ratepayers.
  • Net Income, after PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) was $624.6 million for the 73 local distribution companies and $258.3 million for Hydro One—that represents 41.3% of Net Income for only 24.7 of all ratepayers.
  • Average monthly kWh (kilowatt hours) consumed per customer was 2,112 for all customers of the 73 local distribution companies, but only 1,764 kWh for Hydro One’s customers. That means Hydro One’s customers consume 16.5% less kWh. But… (see the next bullet for the other shoe to drop).
  • Average Power & Distribution Revenue less Cost of Power & Related Costs per customer annually for all customers for the73 local distribution customers was $691.35; for Hydro One (24.7% of all ratepayers) it was $1,084.10— a difference of $392.75 or 56.8% higher for Hydro One ratepayers.
  • Average Power & Distribution Revenue less Cost of Power & Related Costs per total kWh purchased for all 73 local distribution companies was 0.027 cents/kWh; for Hydro One customers it was 0.051 cents/kWh, a difference of 0.024 cents or about 89% higher.
  • Line losses, which we are all billed for, vary and those averaged 4.1% for all 73 local distribution companies; but for Hydro One they amounted to 6.8% or 69.5% more.
  • If one adds the 900 employees Hydro One outsourced in 2002 to Inergi to for their customer service/billing process to the 3,291 reported to be employed in their LDC unit, and then add that number to the 10,022 employees all 73 LDCs reported, Hydro One employees represent 38.4% of all LDC employees, while servicing only 24.7% of all ratepayers.
  • If one calculates the number of customers per employee of the foregoing it works out to 2,914 customers per Hydro One employee and 5,532 for the other 72 LDCs. In other words, employees of the other LDCs support 2,616 more ratepayers per employee compared to Hydro One.
  • Why are Hydro One employees paid more on average if they service 47.3 % fewer ratepayers?

There are a lot more damning statistics that even a mediocre mathematician could use to demonstrate how Hydro One is the least efficient of the 73 LDCs. I believe it is obvious that there are standards applied to municipally owned LDCs that simply do not apply to Hydro One.  They are given carte blanche by the regulator, the OEB,  to run roughshod over 24.7% of all of the ratepayers of the province without consequences.

The Ontario Ombudsman’s report, expected in the fall of 2014, will highlight the mess of Hydro One’s billing system; what will the Ontario Liberal Government do to correct the blatant mistreatment of over a million ratepayers by Hydro One?

©Parker Gallant

August 27, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Ontario energy ministers’ hydro rate forecasts off

20 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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.

Tough questions on spending for Energy Minister Chiarelli from Parker Gallant

13 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

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 )

Parker Gallant on solar panels and school roofs in Toronto: not such a great deal

29 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

For fans of Parker Gallant, his review of the situation in Toronto where the school board thought they were going to be “green” and save money on roof repairs, and even “make” money too (albeit on the backs of already stressed electricity ratepayers but…details, details).

Lots of solar panels going up on buildings in the Ottawa area, too: are “deals” like the Toronto one being repeated here? The “wolf in green clothing” continues to hunt.

The green mirage: Toronto school board gets free roof repairs for solar panels — or do they?

Toronto School Board flunks out
Toronto School Board flunks out

Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), is getting an F on management practices.  Ontario’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Energy must also receive a failing grade.

It starts with Toronto’s public schools having leaky roofs.  The TDSB, with much fanfare May 2011, found the Holy Grail when they struck a deal with AMP Solar Limited Partnership for solar panels on school roofs.  TDSB thought the deal with AMP would result in free roof repairs on 450 schools, and, after AMP recovered the cost of the repairs, TDSB would also receive 14.5% of the solar power revenue generated from the Feed-In Tariff or FIT contracts they hoped to obtain from the OPA (Ontario Power Authority).  On paper it sounded wonderful; TDSB’s Director of Education Chris Spence said,  “This is a win-win for everyone involved.”

What he meant was, it would be a losing proposition for Ontario’s ratepayers.

What has happened since that announcement shows someone didn’t do their math homework or anticipate what might go wrong.

One year later: there were delays as the rules under the FIT program changed, creating lower prices for roof-top solar, and then McGuinty prorogued the Legislature.  The Toronto Sun quoted Chris Bolton, TDBS’s chair, confessing the Board didn’t have an alternate plan.  The story went on to say the Ontario government “encouraged” the TDSB to turn to FIT as a resolution to its roof repair backlog.   It is not clear if that suggestion came from the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Energy.  If it was, it was as a neat budget gambit to fool the taxpayers while sticking it to the ratepayers.   Three weeks prior to the Sun article the Ministry of Education froze new construction approvals, “citing concerns the TDSB was going over budget on building projects and in danger of not wiping out an existing $50 million capital deficit.”

A few “snags”

Fast forward July 25, 2014: the reporter who wrote the Toronto Sun story wrote one for the National Post  headlined  “Solar panel upgrades for public schools hit snags”.  The article infers “the costs” to repair the roofs are “higher than first pegged” and goes on to explain, “That’s because of greater-than-expected costs to the board’s private partner-School Top Solar LP-for roofing, installing the panels and fees to Toronto Hydro for hooking up to its power grid.”  It is unclear who School Top Solar LP is—the original TDSB partner was AMP Solar Limited Partnership, but perhaps they flipped the project to take a nice profit (as has happened with so many companies) that have obtained FIT contracts).

The result of this wonder story is that the most TDSB will get out of this free deal will be to replace one-sixth (720,000 sq. ft.) of the 4.3 million square feet of roofs.    They can also kiss goodbye to the 14.5% energy revenue Chris Spence thought they would get.

Let’s see where the mistakes were made. First, the math on the 66 MW that will be installed: based on the original roof-top solar prices ($700 per megawatt hour), the 66 MW could have generated in excess of $40 million annually and $806 million over the 20-year life of the contract. The developer (AMP) claimed the 66 MW would produce enough electricity to power 6,000 average homes, which means 57,600 megawatt hours (MWh) of power yearly.

Now the roof repair costs: roof replacement repairs to the 4.3 million square feet would run to $8 or $9 per sq. ft., meaning total costs would be in the $40 million range.  Capital cost of solar per MW is $5 million (approximately) as estimated by the U.S. EIA, so 66 MW would have cost $330 million making total costs (including roof repairs) about $370 million and recovery of the cost outlays (including maintenance) should have taken nine to ten years.

If it looks too good to be true, maybe…

The reduction in the FIT rates threw the “free” roof idea into jeopardy. It now looks like the TDSB will have to go cap in hand to the Minister of Education, Liz Sandals, if they want those leaking roofs fixed, without making the Board’s $50-million capital deficit disappear.

What’s funny is that now, as reality hits, a few of the education board trustees interviewed for the National Post said they actually want to blame the school principals (some of them had requested adjustments to the placement of the equipment used to hook up the panels to Toronto Hydro’s electricity grid).

Perhaps Ms. Sandals will solve the TDSB dilemma by getting the teachers unions to back down on their demands for raises and pension benefits until the roof leaks have been plugged!

This is another example of the many logic failures brought to Ontario by the Liberal government and its push for renewable energy on a large-scale!

Parker Gallant,

July 28, 2014

 The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

 

The Toronto wind turbine: green energy symbol

05 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Not as advertised?

It’s hard to visit Toronto and NOT see the single wind turbine at Exhibition Place. Today, at about 600 kW and 90 meters tall, that turbine is very small compared to what is being built and approved all over Ontario—and yet, the people of Toronto and visitors to that city, believe it is a symbol of all that is good about “green” power developed from wind energy.

The truth is a little more complicated.

Former bank vice-president Parker Gallant has written an examination of the Exhibition Place turbine: all is not what it seems. His article is in two parts.

Part 1: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/torontos-ex-place-wind-turbine-icon-or-mirage/

Part 2: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/the-ex-place-toronto-turbine-disappointing-investment/

A note: whenever wind power developer executives are asked by small town residents whether THEY live anywhere near a turbine, many of them (including Prowind’s president for 5 minutes, Jeffrey Segal, speaking in South Dundas) respond, yes. They mean they live in downtown Toronto, and can see the Ex Place turbine. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com