Green Energy Act Lawsuits / Minister plans to tweak Long-Term Energy Plan

Green Energy Act Lawsuits 

Minister plans to tweak Long-Term Energy Plan.

Over the past days, weeks, months and years much has been written about the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (Act) and how it has driven up Ontario’s cost of electricity, caused property values to fall, created health problems and also destroyed nature. The evidence has continued to mount that the Act has also created dissension in rural communities and caused neighbours to sue neighbours for leasing land to wind developers.

While those “neighbour against neighbour” lawsuits work their way through our judicial system, lurking in the background are other actions that potentially make the “gas plant” moves look cheap. The Province is being sued on several fronts as is the Federal Government! The latter is being sued under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) due to provisions in the Act related to the requirement for local content, whereas the Province is being sued through the Provincial Courts for actions caused by their offshore wind “moratorium” and their rejigging of onshore contracts.

The largest lawsuit ($2.25 billion) against the Province was brought by Trillium Wind Power in respect to an offshore wind development for which it didn’t even have a contract with the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) but held a, “Applicant of Record” letter from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). While an Ontario Court has struck down that lawsuit the company is reportedly appealing it.

In an article in the Toronto Star on February 15, 2013 the issue of the, on again, off again, moratorium on wind development in the Great Lakes is explored and it would appear that no early resolution is in sight on whether the moratorium will or will not be lifted. Studies completed by the MNR on offshore wind are not conclusive! As has been the case for the Liberals planning since first elected; they announce their policy and wait for the fallout! Logic suggests studies should be completed before a policy is developed but that appears to run counter to Liberal strategy.

Another lawsuit comes from Mesa Power Group LLC, on a NAFTA action which reportedly seeks $775 million. Mesa is T. Boone Picken’s renewable energy group which had three projects high on the list of future contracts before the OPA rejigged it. Picken’s Mesa rushed to Ontario with his “GE” pre-ordered turbines, perhaps hoping to unload them after he shelved his big Texas wind development. He used Leader Resources of Kincardine, Ontario, as his Canadian arm (American Wind Alliance) to gain traction under the GEA. Mesa’s action claims favourtism was granted to Samsung under the contract that George Smitherman, former Minister of Energy, reputedly negotiated. How this one will play out is an unknown but it is before the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and Canada is required to defend this action on behalf of the Province.

Have those lawsuits and NAFTA challenges resulted in the need to rework the Long-Term Energy Plan?  Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association) would appear to think so and was reported (TorStar article) as saying: “the province is reviewing (writer’s emphasis) its long term energy plan this year, and hopes off-shore wind farms can be part of the review.”

A contact with Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s office about a month after the Hornung quote however got this response from an Energy Ministry spokesperson;

“You noted in your email that Mr. Hornung of CanWEA indicated in a newspaper article that “the province is reviewing its long term energy plan this year”. At this point the Ministry of Energy has not indicated to the public any intent to undertake a review of the Long Term Energy Plan.” 

Following this e-mail, Minister Chiarelli was on CFRA radio (Ottawa) April 11th and during the interview he made the statement that the “Long Term Energy Plan” will be reviewed this year. Again, on April 16, 2013 Minister Chiarelli at the “Power Conference” in Toronto, was the keynote speaker, and repeated that the Long Term Energy Plan; prepared by the Ministry of Energy; when Brad Duguid held the Minister’s position; was going to be reviewed.  It makes one wonder who’s in charge of the electricity sector—the Minister or CanWEA!

While details on the above legal actions can be found though an internet search, the best information available is in respect to Windstream Energy LLC who actually had a contract from the OPA to erect a 300 MW project in Lake Ontario called; Windstream Wolfe Island Shoals Inc. (WWIS). The moratorium on offshore wind scuttled those plans for Windstream and the result is their action filed under Articles 1116, 1117 and 1120 of NAFTA.  The arbitration filing (late January, 2013) with the Government of Canada; by Windstream’s counsel contains information related to the WWIS project that reflects on; how the project came about, who is behind it, the anticipated revenue stream, etc. The filing contains history surrounding the creation of the Act and bits of press releases and quotations that dominated Queen’s Park hyperbola at that time. Here is a taste of what is found in the filing:

“Government of Ontario representatives stated repeatedly that a primary purpose of the Green Energy Act was to create certainty for investors to invest in renewable power in Ontario and thereby create jobs — more than 50,000 new jobs between 2009 and 2012. Ontario’s Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman, speaking on February 20, 2009 to the Toronto Board of Trade, stated that the Green Energy Act,
… will make the province the destination of choice for green power developers, and incent proponents large and small to develop projects by offering an attractive price for renewable energy AND the certainty that creates an attractive investment climate.

Certainty that we will purchase the power at a fair price.
Certainty that we will get the power connected to the grid.
Certainty that government will issue permits in a timely way.”

In this document you discover that the party (Ian Baines) responsible for bringing us the TransAlta Wolfe Island wind development “leads the activities of Windstream and its investments in Ontario,”. The Wolfe Island wind development with 197.6 MW of nameplate capacity has the reputation of having the 2nd highest kill rate of birds and bats (per MW of installed capacity) in North America but recent testimony by a qualified ornithology expert at the Environmental Review Tribunal on Ostrander Point ranks it higher. The testimony heard by the ERT was that “had the carcass search area for Wolfe Island been the same as the wind development with the # 1 ranking Wolfe Island would have surpassed it by a considerable margin.”

Now that is some testimonial both to Mr. Baines and the Act!

Further on in the NAFTA filed document, the authors claim that the WWIS project would have generated “approximately CDN $5.1 billion in revenue.” over the 20 year FIT Contract Period ($255 million per annum). When the OPA signed the contract the FIT rate for off shore wind was $190 per megawatt hour (MWh), inferring the 300 MW of nameplate capacity was expected to generate 1,342,000 MWh. Now if you calculate what 300 MW would produce at say, 100% of capacity the result would be about 2.6 million MWh so the claim proposes that this wind development would have consistently produced at the rate of about 51% of its capacity. It would appear that Mr. Baines was shooting for another record but the document notes that proper “wind testing” was never carried out so the 51% (of capacity) required to produce the $5.1 billion dollars in revenue was never verified or may not be even close to actual output if erected. It is also not clear that there is any built in allowance for maintenance, and the penchant of wind turbines to age quicker then claimed.

The damage claim against the taxpayers of Canada submitted by the Bay Street law firm are for; “at least CDN$475,230,000, including for lost profits and other damages incurred as a result of the moratorium and related measures”.  While the document claims the investment that was to be made was $1.5 billion it is not clear how much Windstream had incurred by way of sunk costs and it will be interesting to see if the UNCITRAL arbitration goes all the way to covering those “lost profits” but as a Canadian taxpayer one would hope it turns out to be a fraction of their claim.

So in summary; those three (3) law suits alone total $3.5 billion dollars or about three times the estimated cost of the gas plant moves.

No matter what the settlement by the Province or the Federal government for any or all of these lawsuits we should expect a press release from the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s office (assuming the Liberals remain in power) saying something akin to; “it will only cost the ______ (fill in blank with ratepayer or taxpayer) of Ontario____ (fill in blank) millions to settle”.  Those settlement amounts will be added to our electricity bills or our Provincial debt (or our Federal debt) and the value to the ratepayer/taxpayers will be nothing.

In the event Minister Chiarelli tweaks the FIT program to allow offshore wind it will perhaps make one of those NAFTA lawsuits disappear however the effect will be to increase electricity prices on the backs of all of Ontario’s ratepayers to satisfy the frivolous Liberal concepts of how Ontarians should generate and pay for electricity.

Even if all of the lawsuits disappear, history will confirm it was simply another part of the boondoggle on the Ontario taxpayers or ratepayers the Liberal Energy portfolio achieved!

Parker Gallant
April 26, 2013

Ramping up the Rhetoric

The pro-wind environmental not-for profits (ENGO) and related charities have had a rough time of late, what with the Fraser Institute Report, the Don Dewees, University of Toronto report; “Renewable Energy just too costly”, a wind turbine fire in Goderich, removing an eagles nest, etc., etc.

The foregoing, coupled with the recently announced price increases on our electricity bills come May 1st and the ongoing inquiry on the gas plant moves, simply underscores the mess the Liberals have created in Ontario’s electricity sector. The mess can be laid at the doorstep of the ENGOs who sold the Liberals on the concepts of renewable energy’s ability to save us all from “global warming”. The ENGOs were supported by the extensive group of lobbyists acting for the 400 plus foreign and local corporate members of CanWEA lining up to take the generous FIT subsidies created by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA).

In light of all this recent bad news the ENGOs have ramped up their efforts to stave off their failing green energy push though what appears to be an orchestrated effort to sway public opinion as the lemmings turn away from the cliff.  The Financial Post today has a letter from John Bennett, Executive Director of the Sierra Club kind of agreeing with Don Dewees (a former Director of the Sierra Club) but once again blaming nuclear cost overruns (Author’s note: caused by political interference) and also stating that “There are several thousand people doing jobs in green energy”. Just a few days ago Bob Chiarelli, the Minister of Energy told the Power Conference that green energy had “created 31,000 jobs”. So which is it?  Neither the Minister nor Mr. Bennett can point to the jobs created nor do they acknowledge how many jobs have been lost because of high electricity prices.

Another, previously unheard of individual, the Reverend Bob Oliphant, President and CEO of the Asthma Society of Canada, (ASC) has taken to writing letters to various rural newspapers using a “Dr.” designation when in reality he has a doctorate in religious studies. Twisting the truth by using false “medical” designations is not new as Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians (CAPE) has also allowed the “Dr.” designation to be used in his role as the Executive Director. Recently Forman has ramped up his rhetoric by posting about the wonders of offshore wind which perhaps is meant to frame himself with even more qualifications?

Another group “Friends of Wind”; an offshoot of CanWEA; also ramped up their efforts as they are obviously concerned that the NDP may eventually support the Ontario Conservatives to place a moratorium on wind development.  Friends of Wind’s website recently encouraged their followers to write their MPP in order to defeat MPP Lisa Thompson’s Bill 39.  They were successful as the NDP, led by Peter Tabuns, MPP for Toronto Danforth (still acts like he is the Executive Director of Greenpeace), joined with the Liberals in the Legislature to defeat the Thompson Bill.  NDP MPP Tabuns apparently feels its bad when the Liberals move gas plants and cost taxpayers money but it is OK to continue his support of the Liberals and the GEA which is draining billions from those same pockets. Hypocrisy thy name is NDP!

Friends of Wind is also supported by the County Sustainability Group of Prince Edward County (PEC) which appears to consist of a few members led by Don Chisholm who wrote a laudatory diatribe about the reputed founder of the Friends of Wind, Jutta Splettstoesser.  Jutta is a director of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) and a past CanWEA award winner. The County Sustainability Group are supporting the erection of industrial wind turbines in PEC; joining Gilead Power and the Ministry of the Environment to place those IWTs in an important bird area. Neither of these groups disclose where their money comes from or how many members they have, but this writer suspects the latter could be counted using only my remaining digits. I’m not sure about the former!

Also on the attack was David Suzuki (we are all maggots) who posted an article in Huffington Post that claims no health effects from IWTs and cites faulty and discredited studies produced by pro-wind advocates like the recent Simon Chapman report out of Austraila. He also credits the Canadian Medical Association for their report on deaths (21,000 premature) and illnesses (92,000 emergency room visits plus 620,000 visits to a doctor’s office) caused by air pollution and cites a study from the Pembina Institute claiming $300 million in health costs caused by electricity production in Alberta from burning coal.  Two of the organizations behind that report were (surprise) the ASC and CAPE.  The Oak Foundation of Geneva, Switzerland, provided the bulk of the funding for the Pembina report. NB: The Oak Foundation provided US$404K in 2012 to Pembina for “environmentally responsible tar sands development”.  The computer modeling used in the CMA and Pembina reports appears to be one developed by DSS Management Consultants (DSS).

DSS/RWDI Air Inc. brought us the 2005 DSS study for the Ministry of Energy that is the document Liberal MPPs cite continuously, but has no reference to wind or solar as a means to generate clean energy and had this caveat buried in the report.

“In actual fact, it is impossible to identify which specific deaths that occur over a given period of time are actually attributable to air pollution. Air pollution is a contributory factor in a multitude of deaths and is almost never the overriding or irrefutable single cause of death.”

Just as Suzuki cited the Chapman report which concluded that wind turbine sickness is spread by word of mouth so does OSEA and Environmental Defence. The Chapman report has been dumped on by many in the medical profession (Chapman is a sociologist) because it lacks the credibility of actual research with the people who claim health problems due to living in proximity to IWTs. That omission hasn’t stopped the ENGOs or CanWEA from making sure it gets more media attention then it deserves. When you are having a bad day I guess you want to lash out and blame others and that is exactly what we are seeing.

On the economic side it is disheartening to see John Spears of the Toronto Star picking up where Tyler Hamilton left off (former “greenie” TorStar writer) by citing statistics that claim the price of electricity is rising because of nuclear and gas costs. The Navigant report he mentions in his recent article reported that in 2012 only 17% of the Global Adjustment (GA) cost (about $1.1 billion) was caused by renewable energy (wind, solar and biomass). He fails to note non-hydro renewables only produced 3.9% (consumer cost of $300 million) of the 151.8 terawatts generated in the Province for a GA cost that is 4 times the cost of other production. Surprisingly the article was carried in the business section.

With that kind of biased reporting from the Star and the push-back from the ENGOs we will have trouble waking up Premier Wynne and her minions or convincing Andrea Horwath that Tabuns doesn’t give a damn about the little guy!

In the Liberal and NDP minds it appears rhetoric trumps economic and common sense.

Parker Gallant,

April 19, 2013

Parker Gallant: Ontario Power Conference Notes

Speaking Notes: Ontario Power Conference April 16, 2013 

NB: Highlights of Minister Chiarelli’s Keynote Speech Follow below my presentation. 

Examining the Politices of Energy: An Exploration of Competing Visions of Ontario Energy Policy

1.  Parker Gallant: more background:

a) Self appointed guru – former Energy Minister
b) “Parker Gallant knows nothing” – tweet from one of the authors of the GEA
c) Threatened by a lawsuit from well known founder of several Environmental Not-for profits and charities supported by a myriad of Provincial entities.
d) Director of Wind Concerns Ontario fighting poorly sited industrial wind projects.

2.  I am personally against industrial wind turbines. Generating electricity from wind is old technology invented by John Blyth of Scotland in the late 1800s. It didn’t work well then and it still doesn’t!

I, and Wind Concerns Ontario, are on the side of rural communities who are suffering the consequences of the GEA which has taken away democratic rights in respect to the ability of rural municipalities to plan for their community-about 90 municipalities have passed “not a willing host bylaws” and notified the Premier of that.

I believe wind turbines do affect people’s health, decrease property values, kill birds and bats and put certain species at risk.

I believe wind turbines will continue to drive up electricity prices causing job losses and

I believe they have done nothing to reduce emissions.

I find it strange that the people in the rural communities must use their own resources (money) to fight Renewable Energy Approvals issued by the Ministry of the Environment via an ERT while their tax dollars are used to fight them. 

I don’t understand why politicians feel the need to interfere with the electricity sector. The entities that exist to generate, transmit and distribute electricity in the past have generally done a pretty good job at producing the power we need at prices that were very competitive and attracted industry of all stripes to the province. It doesn’t seem to matter what politicial party the politicians come from. When the party achieves power it seems to have this need to muddle where they don’t have an understanding or knowledge about the electricity system.

The Electricty sector seldom gets high profile in any runup to an election except from the Green Party (global warming) but it probably will in the next election because of the increase in pricing and the rural objections to IWTs.

If you go back in time, Bill Davis stopped and started the Darlington Nuclear build three times and we could probably point to $6 billion or more of the cost overruns that those delays caused through interest accumulation, staff training, etc.

Bob Rae appointed Maurice Strong as Chair of Ontario Hydro and Strong proceeded to decimate the institution, reducing staff, stopping development which eventually caused a shortage of power for the province.

Harris tried valiantly to privatize parts of the sector but then along came his successor Eves who froze prices; perhaps for similar reasons to the gas plant moves and put an end to the Harris plans. Yesterday we heard from the AG about one of those moves and it turns out we will eventually wind up with a gas plant that will be ready to back up intermittent wind and solar but at a ridiculous cost. Long term planning was an issue that the Liberals originally touted in the Legislature and supposedly brought to the table on this portfolio. So what happened?

When the Liberals were elected in 2003 the one smart thing they did was take the freeze off the electricity prices but then as they say; disaster struck. What started as a modest experiment to add small amounts of renewables to the grid (at reasonable prices) while instructing their new creation; the Ontario Power Authority; to do some long term planning they appointed George Smitherman as Energy Minister. He turned the sector on its head! Right after his appointment Smitherman tripped though Europe quickly with his hand held by some greenie who convinced him Ontario should go all out for renewables like Denmark, Germany, Spain and Portugal. Smitherman tossed the long term plan and today we find ourselves with the highest electricity prices in Canada and verging on the highest in North America despite having clean hydro and clean nuclear that on most days can satisfy our demand.

My personal opinion is that politicians that occupy the Energy Ministry portfolio should be acting as overseers, and stop thinking they are experts. We have thousands of well qualified people running our publicly owned electricity sector and it should be the Minister’s responsibility to ensure they remain competent or he should fire them. The 2003 blackout wasn’t Ontario’s fault but they keep insisting it was.

Ontario now has one of the most convoluted energy sectors in the world. What exactly is a “Global Adjustment” supposed to be; because it is not global-its a “made in Ontario noun”! It seems that it was simply created to somehow deflect the political interference we have seen over the past 9 years—blame it on the rest of the world-make it global!

We must stop the nepotisism in the system and we must stop the politicians from thinking they know best. Let the politicians focus on ensuring the system is functioning properly, give the OEB back their regulatory powers and stop issuing directives when you come up with a brainstorm! No directive should ever be issued by any future Energy Minister without a cost/benefit study as pointed out in the Auditor General’s report of 2011.

If you must appoint someone to run one of the publically owned electricity sector companies base the appointment on competence not on an ideology defined by Bob Dole or David Suzuki or Hermann Scheer.

Thank you!

Parker Gallant

Minister Chiarelli’s speech to the CI Power Conference April 16, 2013

Minister of Energy Chiarelli was the keynote speaker at the CI Power Conference today and during his speech he delivered the following main messages:

  • 31,000 jobs have been created by the GEA 
  • peak consumption is down by 1900 MW 
  • the Long Term Energy Plan will be reviewed by the OPA and the report issued within the next 6 months 
  • all Ontarians will be able to comment via the web and they are looking for feedback on the “supply mix”, “conservation” and the “predictability of the clean energy process” 

The Minister also spoke to how the NEW Liberal government want to “mitigate rate increases” with “affordable energy” and to the NEW government’s commitment to let municipalities pick and choose on generation projects.


NB:
I (Parker Gallant) have requested a copy of Minister Chiarelli’s directive to the Ontario Power Authority in respect to the review of the Long Term Energy Plan.

CanWEA: Locked and Loaded

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) were prepared for the Fraser Institute’s report of April 11, 2013 as within hours of the release of that report they issued a press release headlined “Wind energy a good deal for Ontario” which attempts to dispute the findings of the Fraser report.

CanWEA’s secret weapon was prepared by Power Advisory LLC whose Canadian subsidary is headed up by Jason Chee-Aloy, a former employee of the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) where he was the Director of Generation Procurement. A couple of earlier articles had explored the “conflict of interest” issues surrounding his position with Power Advisory LLC as their client list included OPA wind contract holders; Samsung, NexTera, Pattern and IPR-GDF North Suez. Contact with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner and the Lobbyist Registry, at that time, disclosed the former couldn’t do anything because the OPA wasn’t on their list of Provincial entities their Act governed nor were Power Advisory registered on the Province’s Lobbyist Registry. As of yesterday they still appear unregistered.

The Power Advisory report prepared for CanWEA is dated February 15, 2013 and was obviously the secret weapon held by them to dispute upcoming reports that might prove (as the Fraser report does) that wind generation is a useless and expensive way to generate electricity in Ontario; doing harm to humans, nature, destroying property values and producing power when we don’t need it (80% of the time).
The unleashing of the CanWEA secret weapon to counter the Fraser Institute’s report does nothing to dispel the principal facts as it simply looks at electricity generated by industrial wind turbines (IWT) in isolation claiming the production of wind energy represents only 5% of total supply costs on an average Burlington Hydro ratepayer’s bill.

What the Power Advisory report doesn’t refer to are the effects caused by the addition of wind generation to the grid that were highlighted by the Fraser Institute report. The Power Advisory report fails to note that wind requires backup from gas plants (which are paid to not produce), spilling of cheap clean hydro when wind produces power we don’t need (depleting revenue to OPG) , steaming off of nuclear plants (which are also paid to not produce), the expenditure on transmission lines to hook up IWTs and of course the costs of exporting excess generation. Wind’s costs, including the foregoing would easily double what their report claims without considering the other destructive attributes of IWTs.

The Power Advisory report is nothing more then the same old smoke and mirrors that the Liberal politicians have accepted as gospel.

CanWEA’s secret weapon only serves to bring out the fallacious nature of their spin about IWTs and undermines their cause but it presumably gives the Energy Minister some talking points in the Legislature.

Parker Gallant,
April 12, 2013

OPG Sinking Slowly: The numbers tell the tale

While the current Liberal Government in Ontario seems to simply adore Hydro One as pointed out in a previous article they seem to be bent on grinding OPG into the dust, or perhaps its their unmitigated love of wind and solar generated energy that is causing OPG’s slow demise.

In an effort to try and grasp what has happened to OPG one needs to go back to 2005 which reflects the time when we were all promised that the new Liberal created Ontario Power Authority (OPA) would develop an Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP). Time passed and the Liberals rejected the original IPSP and came up with their version, instigated by the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) and putting the emphasis on wind and solar generation. The incredible subsidies handed out by the OPA created the gold rush to Ontario to sign those wind and solar contracts. Coincidentally Ontario’s move to subsidize wind and solar generation was about the time subsidy programs were being abandoned by the rest of the world (the USA being the other exception).

If one looks back to those 2005 OPG results you find at that time, they were responsible for generating 108.5 terrawatts (TWh) or 68.8 % of consumption and 76.7% of total generation (Ontario inported 11 TWh in 2005) versus the 83.7 TWh they generated and sold in 2012. OPG’s 2012 production was a 22.9% drop from 2005 and the 83.7 TWh OPG produced, represented 59.4% of what we consumed. Factoring in what Ontario exported (14.6 TW) in excess generation, OPG produced only 55.3% of total generation. To put that in further perspective; 2005 was a hot dry summer which impacted hydro production and resulted in hydro generation falling to 34 TWh from the prior years level of 37.8 TWh.  In 2012 hydro production was only 33.8 TWh despite it being a relatively good year for water flows. On the latter we suspect that OPG was instructed to spill hydro during the times wind and solar were producing electricity surplus to Ontario’s needs but that information is not made available in the public domain.
Now if you look at the prices that OPG received (on average) for their 2005 production, it was 4.9 cents per kWh or $49 million per TWh so the revenue generated would have been approximately $5.3 billion. In 2012 OPG received 5.1 cents per kWh which is a jump of only 4% over that 7 years. The 2012 generation of 83.9 TWh therefore generated total revenues of about $4.3 billion. The net result is that production fell by 24.8 TWh or 22.9% and revenue dropped by $1 bllion or 18.9%.

Based on the nominal growth in revenue per kWh that OPG received since 2005, 2012 should have been good for consumers as the 4% increase that OPG received should have tempered any electricity price increases but that is not what happened. Over that same period of time the average price charged to the consumer for electricity jumped from 5.2 cents per kWh in 2005 to an average of 8.0 cents for 2012. The difference of 2.8 cents per kWh meant the ratepayers in Ontario saw the price of electricity jump significantly (53.8%), exceeding both inflation and what OPG received. In 2005 the consumer only paid .1 cent more per kWh for OPG’s production but by 2012 the difference had jumped to 2.9 cents or 55.8%, meaning OPGs ability to temper price increases fell in a meaningful way.

OPG’s production held down the price of electricity in 2005! As more wind, solar and gas generation (to back up wind and solar) have been added to the Ontario grid, OPG is playing less of a role in keeping that price down. As all the additional wind and solar planned (together with the additional cost of the gas plants) by the Energy Ministry are added over the next few years, and as OPG’s role shrinks, Ontarians will continue to see rising prices. OPG’s production in 2012 was 95% CO2 free meaning the last 5% of CO2 emissions that the Liberal Government want to eliminate will cost the ratepayers billions of dollars and those emissions will be replaced by similar emissions from gas plants.

While OPG will shortly wind up producing no CO2 the costs to the ratepayers will mean extracting billions of dollars from their wallets to pay for wind, solar and gas subsidies and will further shrink OPG and its value to the Province.

The Government seems determined to provide a McGuinty/Wynne legacy (“Today, all Ontarians can breathe a little easier,” said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in a statement on January 10, 2013) that will cost ratepayers billions in hard earned dollars and cause OPG to shrink even more. Some plan, some legacy!

Parker Gallant,
April 4, 2013