In an unfolding plot that is part “The Sopranos,” part “An Inconvenient Truth,” authorities swept across Sicily last month in the latest wave of sting operations revealing years of deep infiltration into the renewable energy sector by Italy’s rapidly modernizing crime families.
The still-emerging links of the mafia to the once-booming wind and solar sector here are raising fresh questions about the use of government subsidies to fuel a shift toward cleaner energies, with critics claiming huge state incentives created excessive profits for companies and a market bubble ripe for fraud. China-based Suntech, the world’s largest solar panel maker, last month said it would need to restate more than two years of financial results because of allegedly fake capital put up to finance new plants in Italy. The discoveries here also follow so-called “eco-corruption” cases in Spain, where a number of companies stand accused of illegally tapping state aid.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the State of Wisconsin enact a moratorium to stop the permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found, and the State’s wind siting rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address ultra low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents.
Whereas, developers are in the process of attaining permits to build industrial wind farms statewide, and
Whereas, citizens living next to industrial wind turbines, including families living near Shirley Wind Farm in Denmark, Wisconsin, have made claims of suffering health issues potentially caused by low frequency noise and infrasound generated by wind turbines, and
Whereas, a report (Report #122412-1) released December 28, 2012, to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission by four acoustical consulting firms states that low frequency noise and infrasound created by wind turbines in the Shirley Wind Farm exists in some homes surrounding the wind farm, and
Whereas, the report (Report #122412-1) released on December 28m 2012 recommended additional study on an urgent priority basis, specifically:
a. A comprehensive literature search far beyond the search performed under time constraints of the initial report,
b. A retest at Shirley to determine the decay rate of ultra low frequency wind turbine sound with distance with a more portable system for measuring simultaneously at the three homes and at other locations,
c. A “Threshold of Perception” test with participating and non-participating Shirley residents…
There it was in black and white; the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) was granted by the Ministry of Natural Resources on December 20, 2012. The autograph at the bottom indicates Vic Schroter, P. Eng., Director 47.5, Environmental Protection Act, signed off on the REA to Ostrander Point GP Inc., as general partner for and on behalf of Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP. With the stroke of his pen Mr. Schroter, recently promoted from the position of Senior Noise Engineer, was unable to hear the noise from the 1500 people who choose to contact the Ministry with most objecting to the project. A plebiscite held in South Marysburg (where the turbines will be located) with an eligible voter turnout of 62% overwhelming (90.2%) voted against the project; but the “noise engineer” apparently was wearing earmuffs! The ability to kill, harm and harass birds, bats, blanding turtles, whip-poor-wills, flora, fauna was granted by a bureaucrat with a title that depicted someone operating to “protect” our environment but instead choosing to allow it to be decimated.
The Ostrander Wind Energy Park is a “nothing” in respect to the Liberal plans to inundate the Ontario countryside with these giant wind turbines that cause health problems, kill birds and bats and destroy nature and produce power when we seldom need it. Ostrander is a mere 22.5 MW project with nine 2.5 MW rated turbines. Those turbines will stand 525 feet tall and have blades with a sweep of 390 feet while they generate power. If they operate as all the other wind turbines do they will produce enough power to provide electricity to 20,500 homes for 29 % of the time those homes will need it-just don’t switch on the lights for the other 71 % of the time. The approximately 57,000 megawatt hours (MWh) they will produce in a full year was about half of what Ontario exported over the recent weekend. On Saturday and Sunday (January 19/20, 2013) Ontario exported over 90,000 MWh which was surplus to our needs so exactly why do we need these 22.5 MW is the question in everyone’s mind; and why place them in this sensitive nature area?
The approval granted by an individual within the Ministry of the Environment whose title with the words; “Environmental Protection Act” simply signed off on the approval to erect these turbines in a extremely sensitive “environmental” area of the county, an area globally known for it’s importance as an IBA (important bird area) and that is a mecca for naturalists due to its position on a migratory pathway as well as being a home to species at risk. This home to nature is shortly to be under attack, not from hunters or foragers but from a Government approved industrial wind developer. Those of us throughout the province who admire and want to protect nature stand in disbelief at the carnage that will unfold and that is a result of the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) passed by the GTA centric Liberal Party.
If there was ever a “line in the sand” in respect to an REA from the Ministry of Natural Resources, thousands, perhaps millions of Ontarians felt that Ostrander would be it! Instead, those opposed to the project must of necessity and common sense line up to fight the granting of the approval in front of a environment review tribunal who have yet to overturn a single previously approved REA.
Those in the County of Prince Edward who oppose this are shaking their heads in disbelief as are million of Ontarians throughout the Province.
Our politicians now have a good reason to repeal the GEA!
January 22, 2013
Sweetener doesn’t appear to work
Despite throwing out a sweetener – a promise of more than $8 million in local benefits for Snowy Ridge and Settlers Landing wind projects – Sprott Power got the same chilly reception from hundreds of people who attended the meeting.
The company has promised to form a community liaison committee prior to construction, to improve community relations and so locals can be informed.
They have also pledged to contribute $8 million toward local initiatives over the 20-year life of the the projects. They said there would also be property tax revenue for the City of Kawartha Lakes and local spinoffs from construction and operations.President and CEO Jeff Jenner said each project would pump $4 million into local coffers – 60% would be spent during the construction phase, buying local services; 20% would be spent on property taxes and 20% on community programs. Jenner estimated it would mean a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year.
Jenner said they are big supporters of all of the communities they are in For example, in Amherst, Nova Scotia, he said they support the hospital and YMCA.
He said here, they would like the community liaison committee involved in where money is spent.
Asked if he thought that would change anyone’s mind in Pontypool, Jenner said “I don’t think it will sway anyone here tonight.”
That was one thing he and Ward 16 Coun. Heather Stauble could agree on.
Stauble said they first heard about this offer at the Dec. 13 meeting. However, she said the company had been “a little vague” about details.
|Picture from source article|
With a general idea of the “where,” pinpointing the mysterious “what” that’s causing the Windsor hum might become a reality thanks to some local research expertise and funding from the federal government.
On Monday, Bob Dechert, parliamentary secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird, came to Windsor to announce the government’s plan to fund a $60,000 research project that will help figure out what is causing the strange l0w-frequency noise that has been plaguing the city’s west end since the spring of 2011.
“We want to protect citizens’ quality of life,” Dechert said. “This study is a step in the right direction.”
A recent article authored for the Financial Post outlined the costs to ratepayers of renewable energy. Those costs are partly a result of the passage of the Green Energy and Economy Act by the incumbent prorogued Provincial Liberal Government. The article drew the following letter to the editor which follows in its entirety:
Letters to the Editor: Financial Post website January 21, 2013
“It’s about coal
An article by Paul Morden, in the Sarnia observer, quotes the program’s writer/director as stating “…obviously there is a problem,” and notes, “While wind energy is the subject of the film, it’s really about science.“
WIND RUSH A Look at the Wind Turbine Controversy on CBC TV’s Doc Zone, Thursday, February 7, 9PM
Driving by a wind farm, looking at the rural houses, it’s easy to be skeptical about the talk of wind turbines making people sick. We’re told that wind turbines are good and green. So how could those people living by them have an issue?
But there is a problem—and it’s there because some governments and wind companies didn’t do their homework before installing megawatt after megawatt of huge industrial machines. And as a result there are people living among the turbines who are suffering.
In the new documentary film WIND RUSH, produced for CBC Doc Zone by Toronto’s 90th Parallel Productions, the battleground for the pro and anti wind forces is southern Ontario. The government there pledged to wean the province off coal fired generation plants and replace them with green wind energy. WIND RUSH will be broadcast on Thursday, February 7 at 9PM (9:30PM NT).
But as soon as the turbines went up in places like Wolf Island, Amaranth and Bruce County, people realized they could hear them. Sometimes it was like a whisper, but other times it sounded more like a jet taking off.
And then it got worse.
New turbines started coming in at two and three times the size of the old ones. And they were even louder. It led to chronic sleeplessness for many people living close by—and that can lead to diabetes, depression and heart disease. Others were affected in their inner ears by low-level sounds that set off their equilibrium. Doctors started seeing patient after patient complaining of the same sets of symptoms. And then people started to realize that no one had done any significant human health studies before giving the green light to the turbine farms.
WIND RUSH takes viewers to southwestern Alberta, where wind has been an energy staple for more than twenty years. There is plenty of room for humans and windmills to coexist—a stark contrast to Ontario, where the same prairie technology was installed in a dramatically different landscape. The film then moves to Denmark, a country long considered the poster-child for the wind energy movement. But as WIND RUSH reveals, the relationship between the Danes and turbines has soured.
WIND RUSH talks to people on either side of the turbine divide, and then turns to scientists to try and determine what has gone wrong. In the next several years the turbines will double in size again—bigger, louder and more powerful. But without sufficient research have the people who live among the wind farms been forgotten?
WIND RUSH is produced by 90th Parallel Productions of Toronto. Gordon Henderson is Executive Producer. WIND RUSH is produced, written and directed by Andrew Gregg.
For further information, etc. please contct:
Publicist, WIND RUSH
Did we all miss some parliamentary declaration that created an Ontario focused Spin Week?
With the bulk of the MSM (main stream media) focused on Spence, of hunger strike fame (not the Spence of Toronto District School Board plagiarism fame) and Bill 115, Ontario’s charter busting affrontry dealing with the various teacher’s unions/federations/associations “right to strike”, it was hard to keep up with the rest of the news coming from the Liberals and the energy sector. Much of that latter news was simply skimmed or ignored by most of the press.
One item that gained a fair amount of traction with the media was related to the erection of several wind turbines in rural Ontario and the damage they will or could cause. The story wasn’t connected to either human health, the negative effect on property values or the economic effect of industrial wind turbines on our electricity bills, it was about nature. One of those large foreign companies (NexTera) that rushed to Ontario to get those lucrative contracts handed out under the Liberal’s Green Energy Act received permission to cut down a tree containing one of only 57 bald eagle nests in Southern Ontario. They got permission from the Ministry of Natural Resources where the reigning, career Liberal politician and Minister Michael Gravelle is in charge. A few years ago Gravelle was really excited about his riding attracting a 99 MW industrial wind farm which is owned by Enbridge. The uproar on the granting of approval to remove the eagle’s nest was considerable throughout rural Ontario and received wide coverage in their media. Another event that also garnered some media attention for the past couple of weeks was the granting of the approval to erect nine wind turbines at Ostrander Point, a sensitive environmental and important migratory bird path in Prince Edward County. Those industrial wind turbines with a capacity factor of 22.5 MW are not needed but despite that, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources blessed their erection.
The eagle’s nest removal, to allow an access road for the erection of industrial wind turbines, wasn’t picked up by the MSM however other events were, including the announcement by Premier McGuinty on the closure of the last two remaining coal plants in the Province. The Premier spoke to that issue to the media when expounding on the expansion of the Green Belt, despite the media getting him off topic by raising the upcoming planned illegal “action” by two of those teachers unions. Those unions had supported the Liberal party in the last three provincial election campaigns via “Working Families” and supported the Green Energy Act. In 2011 those two unions (ETFO & OSSTF) donated almost $100,000 to the Liberal Party, just over $100,000 to the NDP and zero to the PC Party. The Working Families coalition reputedly spent millions on media advertising during the 2011 and prior election campaigns.
McGuinty’s announcement and a January 11, 2013 press release from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) were enough to intrigue two of the Toronto Star’s “reporters” in the form of John Spears and Tyler Hamilton who within hours of the release of IESO’s annual mid-January media missive (pinpointing how much electricity Ontario consumed and how it was produced) had written about the events. Hamilton wrote on the issue of how anti-wind people fail to understand how, as a generation source, wind fits into the grid and reduces fossil fuel use from coal plants but he does admit that “wind isn’t perfect”. For Hamilton that latter admission is a big step forward.
The McGuinty announcement about the coal plant closures failed the “union” test as the only quasi-union I could find that spoke out on this issue was the Society of Energy Professionals who lashed out “over planned coal plant closures.” Ironically the newly appointed President of the Society, Scott Travers is a “Senior Analyst” with IESO. The Society didn’t appear to contribute to any political party from a search conducted by the author.
The IESO missive disclosed that for the first time ever (in Ontario) electricity produced by industrial wind turbines (4.6 terrawatts-TWh) surpassed production from coal plants (4.3 TWh) and the Star reporters jumped on the news. Spears obtained quotes from a CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association) officer and headlined his article as; “Wind out-produces coal”! What Spears failed to note in his article is that wind gets “first to the grid” rights and coal generation gets “last rights” (actual and metaphysically speaking) for the past several years. He funnily quotes how the numbers “delighted” the CanWEA spokesperson. The “delight” expressed by the CanWEA spokesperson is akin to a runner of a 100 yard dash starting 50 yards behind ”the starting line” and told they must hop on one foot for the first 50 yards. Obviously your opponent will win the race hence the “delight” from the winner who in this case is represented by the CanWEA spokesperson. Somewhat amusingly Spears suggests the price of electricity “crept up by 2.9%”. In the process he ignores the elephant; the actual “wholesale price”; referred to as the “hourly Ontario energy price” (HOEP) fell by 23.5% ($7.10 per MWh) from 2011. He also failed to note that the price of the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM) had risen 23.7% ($9.50 per MWh) over 2011. The GAM pot is where the difference between the HOEP and the “contracted” rates are dumped before allocation. Combining the two brought the increase to the 2.9% Spears says “crept up”!
The creep, ascribed by Spears, only affects Ontario’s consumers. The IESO report disclosed that Ontario demand was 141.3 terrawatts (one TWh is equivalent to 1 billion kilowatts), a slight reduction from 2011. It also disclosed Ontario exported 14.6 TWh. The foreign buyers of those 14.6 TWh are not required to pay for anything in the GAM pot nor do they pay for the stranded debt, or regulatory charges. They pay only market prices.
The 14.6 TWh exported generated about $352 million @ $24.1 million per TWh in 2012. That power cost Ontario’s ratepayers ~$1,076 million (14.6 TWh @ $73.7 million per TWh) for a direct hit to ratepayers of $724 million as that money went into the GAM pot. The foregoing hit to ratepayers is without factoring in the weighing of production from wind and solar. It also doesn’t reflect costs of nuclear steam off, the shift (about 5%) from Class A to Class B of the GAM, the revenue loss to OPG to spill hydro, NRR (net revenue requirement) for the gas generators, or even the HST on the GAM allocation.
The actual subsidized cost of those 2012 electricity exports using the average 2.41 cents per kWh measured against the average of 8.2 cents that Ontario’s residential ratepayers paid under time of use (TOU) rates indicates the subsidy was 5.8 cents per kWh or about $850 million for the 14,6 TWh exported; up considerably from the 4 cents per kWh ($420 million) estimated subsidized costs of 2011. That subsidy caused more than the Spears creep and had those exports not occurred, ie demand and production were matched, ratepayers may have actually experienced a small decline in the cost per kWh.
More spin came from the Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller on January 8, 2013 when he released Volume Two of his 2011 Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report to the Ontario Legislature (which is prorogued) and castigated all Ontarians for not conserving enough and in the process claimed that it only costs us 3 cents per kWh to reduce our consumption. An article I had penned a week before his release indicated that the cost of conservation was in fact closer to 14 cents a kWh based on the $4 billion that had already been dedicated to get us to conserve. His media event received scant attention due to all the other issues deemed more important and as the Legislature wasn’t sitting the opportunity for say, Peter Tabuns, the NDP Energy Critic to castigate the Energy Minister, Chris Bentley, for not spending more to conserve didn’t present itself. With our outgoing Premier, Dalton McGuinty, heading off on his China junket there also wasn’t any opportunity for the media to seek him out for his views on the report.
I think most Ontarians were insulted by one of the Commissioner’s comments when he said; “In the past, Ontarians were very conscious of the cost of heating their homes but that’s no longer the case.” Only moments before he claimed we were all “fascinated by the price of electricity”. Did Commissioner Miller appreciate the dichotomy of his statements to the media, or is he simply pushing his own agenda which in this writer’s opinion is very confusing.
Commissioner Miller’s media event presented a perfect opportunity for him to speak out about that eagle’s nest being moved or the Ostrander Point industrial wind project but he chose to remain silent. So just what is important to the Environment Commissioner is clearly not the harm that wind turbines are causing to nature or the environment but it is tough to figure out just what is!
What this province now gets is too much spin and not enough transparency or honesty from our politicians and bureaucrats.
January 13, 2013
An article in the Ottawa Citizen on Boxing Day indicated Ontario was the only place in North America forecasting negative growth in demand for electricity for 2013-2022 and carried quotes from an Ontario Power Authority (OPA) spokesperson on the reason. Chuck Farmer, director of planning policy had this to say about Ontario’s position: “It’s really because the growth is being offset by energy efficiency in one form or another and I think that’s quite a success story.” Ontario’s ratepayers know that “energy efficiency” is another way of saying “conservation” and it is impossible to open up your hydro bill without finding coupons or energy efficient rebate offers or an offer to pick up your old fridge for free. In Ontario we hear ads on the radio, see them on TV and find them in newspapers and webpages and they all all aimed at helping us save energy.
Ontario also has “smart meters” which were touted by our Liberal government as energy savers when introduced by then Minister of Energy, Donna Cansfield in 2005. Minister Canfield said: “By helping Ontarians make smart choices about how and when they use electricity, we’re helping them save money and making the most of our electricity supply.” Ms. Cansfield promised to couple that “with a pricing structure that reflects the cost of power production at certain times of day and year, allows consumers to make informed decisions about their electricity use. This will save money for Ontario consumers and reduce the strain on the power system at peak periods.”
The “pricing structure” referred to by Minister Cansfield, begat time-of use (TOU) pricing reputedly to allow us all to save money. Just prior to that announcement the OPA had been created and Minister Cansfield in the November 3, 2005 press release indicated that they would appoint Ontario’s first “Chief Energy Conservation Officer.” Almost exactly one year later the appointee to that position; Peter Love, (part of the Bruce Lourie circle) delivered a speech to the Empire Club about conservation and opined on how it would all save us money. Included in his speech were the words; “When it comes to being of benefit to the economy, electricity conservation has a multiplier effect. It truly is a gift that keeps on giving.” The OPA has led our publically owned energy sector companies in spending billions of ratepayer dollars to entice us to save energy as Minister Canfield envisaged and as so persuasively stated by Peter Love.
Several years have passed since our Liberal politicians first began pushing “conservation” so lets have a look at what we have achieved, the money we have saved, and if it is the “success story” that Mr. Farmer says it is and the gift “that keeps on giving” as Peter Love said. Lets examine a few facts;
- Smart meters cost ratepayers about $2 billion with the principal purpose; to allow our local distribution companies (LDC) to bill on a TOU basis. The Liberal government told us TOU pricing would allow ratepayers to choose when to do our laundry or cook our meals to “save us” money.
- In 6 years (2006-2011) the OPA budgeted spending on conservation initiatives of over $1.6 billion and have developed over 30 programs aimed at getting us to conserve energy.
- Our 75 LDCs have also spent several hundred million dollars in the 6 years on conservation initiatives. NB: In 2011 alone they spent about $94 million over and above the OPA initiatives.
- The conservation initiatives were started in earnest, by our current Minister of Finance, Dwight Duncan when he occupied the Energy Minister’s chair. He issued his first directive on conservation matters to the OPA on May 2, 2005 and issued a definitive one July 13, 2006 that took the initative province wide. These directives always mentioned the reason behind the conservation initiatives was to allow Ontario to close those coal plants.
- Minister of Energy, Brad Duguid on April 23, 2010 issued a directive to the OPA to continue the conservation program to the end of 2014 (beginning January 2, 2011) after having issued one to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) March 31, 2010 instructing them to reduce peak demand by 1330 Megawatts.
- Millions of dollars have been spent by the OPA advocating conservation by advertising on radio, TV, in the print media and the internet all due to the issuance of Ministerial directives.
- When LDCs demonstrate they have met conservation targets they can freely apply for rate increases to the OEB to cover the loss of revenue from ratepayers conservation efforts.
So after spending $4 billion or so in six years to get us to conserve how did the ratepayers respond was the question that needed an answer! Was the money well spent so that the ratepayers of Ontario got value for those billions of dollars and was it the “success story” Chuck Farmer said it was?
The OEB annually, since 2005, has produced a report referred to as the “Yearbook of Distributors” which is a compliation of data, of an economic/actuarial nature. The report also contains all relative data in respect to the client base, annual consumption of electricity, number and class of customers and a myriad of other facts of each LDC on an individual and consolidated basis. Needless to say all of this data is beneficial in analyzing the effectivness of both the LDCs (individually and collectively), the programs initiated by their political masters and the oversight of their policy directives.
Co-incidentially the OEB just released (December 20, 2011) what they refer to as their; “Conservation and Demand Management Report – 2011 Results” (CDMR). This appears to be the first and only report from the OEB that deals with the “history” of the programs instituted to achieve what the Liberal political masters decreed so the data available is limited to just 2011. Each LDC was required to file a report and needless to say they vary in both size and achievements. In reviewing the Yearbook of Distributors from the OEB and the data presented in this Conservation and Demand Management report however one can extract certain key elements on the outcomes of that $4 Billion spent. Some of those facts follow:
- Comparing the Yearbook of Distributors for 2005 total consumption with that of 2011 show the drop in consumption was 2,733,000 MWh (megawatt hours) or enough to power 289,000 average homes. That drop in consumption over those 6 years represented a 2.2% decrease.
- The foregoing drop does not include “industrial users” (consumption of 5,000 MWh or more per month) whose population at the end of 2005 numbered 172 and had dropped to 144 by the end of 2011 for a decline of 16.3%.
- Big Industry presumably showed a significant decline in consumption helped out by the change in how the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GA) is now calculated allowing them to reduce their GA costs by picking the top five peak hours to reduce consumption which commenced January 1, 2011.
- The OEB’s CDMR report makes no mention of the effectiveness of “smart meters” and the move to TOU pricing in respect to ratepayers changing their habits despite it’s cost of $2 billion.
- The OEB’s CDMR report for the 2011 year indicates 2011 total “incremental energy savings” of 605,000 MWh which would represent 21.8 % of the consumption drop of 2.2% so one must assume the other 78.2% came in the prior 5 years.
- Using the $4 billion estimate of spending on conservation against the MWh saved (2006-2011), the 2,773,000 decreased consumption indicates each MWh saved cost ratepayers $1,442.
As noted above each LDC was required to file a report with the OEB in respect to their conservation efforts and those reports are available for viewing on the OEB website. A quick look at some of the reports shows the average length to be about 60 pages with some stretching to almost 100 pages so in total the OEB sorted through approximately 3,800 pages to produce their 20 page report. This writer intentionally took some time to review the reports from the two largest LDCs to uncover what their success was in getting their ratepayers to buy into the conservation sales pitch. The two examined were Hydro One Networks and Toronto Hydro (TH) who together are responsible for electricity distribution to approximately 40 % of Ontario’s households and businesses. I discovered some interesting facts about their individual conservation “success stories” which follow:
- In 2005 Hydro One had 24 large industrial users (see above) and in 2011 had none (zero) whereas, Toronto Hydro had 47 large industrial users in 2005 but in 2011 had 52.
- Hydro One’s customers consumed 500,000 MWh less in 2011 than 2005 representing a drop in percentage terms of 2.1% or less than the average of 2.2% whereas Toronto Hydro showed a drop in consumption of 1,688,000 MWh representing a drop of 6.4%.
- Toronto Hydro in their CDMR complained that the OPA didn’t provide them with “any evaluations of savings from TOU pricing” for allocation to the LDCs meaning TH could not “provide any verified savings related to” their TOU program.
- TH indicated “incremental energy savings” of 173,000 MWh for 2011which represents 29% of the overall “conservation” savings reported in the OEB’s 2011 CDRM report.
- Hydro One reported “incremental energy savings” of 126,000 MWh for 2011 which represents 20.8% of the overall “conservation” savings reported in the OEB’s 2011 CDRM report.
- TH spent in excess of $1.5 million on 8 conservation programs with no (zero) participants and Hydro One spent $220,000 on 3 programs with no (zero) participants.
- TH spent an average of $127 to pick up that old fridge or freezer and claimed that each one resulted in conservation of 385 kWh per annum whereas Hydro One spent $120 and claimed conservation of 420 kWh for each.
- Energy savings from retiring or replacing old fridges or appliances seems to be an arbirtrary decision by each LDC without common standards and appear to apply even if the appliance or the old RAC was simply gathering dust in the garage.
- TH spent an average of $186 each to remove and decommission room air conditioners (RAC) which is about the price of a new Frigidare 5000 BTU RAC. It cost Hydro One $125 each.
- TH spent an average of $443 each to provide and install a load control device for customers who enrolled in the “peaksaver PLUS” program but the cost for Hydro One was $348 each.
- TH performed 60 energy audits for owners and lessees of commercial, institutional, multi-family buildings at a cost of $8,402 each and these audits cost Hydro One $7,743 each for the 3 they conducted.
The individual LDC’s reports frequently highlight faults with a number of the programs and with incompatibilty of some of the devices installed (eg; load control devices and programmable thermostats etc. were mentioned) and with the failure to have a comprehensive plan for roll-out of some programs. With no standards applied to “energy savings” for say, decommissioned appliances; each LDC seem able to pick what they think they should be in order to meet goals set by the OEB under the Minsterial directives.
Monies spent on program administration seems consistently more than any benefit to the participant in most cases. From all appearances the Ministerial directives have resulted in LDCs creating another level of bureaucracy driving up operations, management and administration costs (OMA) that are recovered from ratepayers using money that should have instead gone to replacing or refrubishing infrastructure.
So the burning question is, was there “real” value in spending $4 billion dollars to achieve a reduction in consumption of 2,773,000 MWh? A reduction that appears to have been caused by the economic downturn and the flight of large industrial customers from the province?
Interestingly enough the 2,773,000 MWh in reduced consumption from 2006-2011 could have been achieved by simply buying each of the 4.5 million Ontario households five (5) LED 16 watt bulbs (equivalent to 100 watt incandesent) each at a cost of about $1 billion or $361 per MWh of the reduced consumption. I suggest LED bulbs because they do not use mercury (a poison) in their production and will last 20 years.
On another note the 2,773,000 MWh could have been supplied by one 400 MW gas plant with a price tag of about $400 million in capital costs (developers expense) and supplied the power at $70/90 per MWh meaning it would have taken almost 20 years to spend the $1,442 that Ontario ratepayers have paid to conserve those same MWh. I am confident that the Auditor General of Ontario, had he examined the “conservation” issue in his 2011 report, would have reached the same conclusion as he did on the push for renewable energy—the monies were spent without any consideration of a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis.
From the evidence presented in the reports noted above the only conclusion one can draw is that the spending on “conservation” has been a waste of ratepayers monies to achieve nothing substantial. Couple that spending with the new initiative to attract “industrial” consumers to the province to soak up surplus electricity production recently announced by Minister of Energy, Chris Bentley, and it is obvious that the push/pull of the Liberals confused policy directions on the energy sector show they are trying to push the rope up the hill.
The gift that Peter Love saw as one “that would keep on giving” and that Minister Cansfield saw as a spending program to “save money for Ontario consumers” has cost Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers billions of dollars that could have created meaningfull jobs.
In the end we are all conservationists and left alone Ontarians would have done a more efficient job at conserving without the Liberal government telling us they knew what we should do, and in the process throwing away billions of our hard earned dollars.
“This program will help create new jobs for Ontarians through incentives that attract significant new industrial investments and encourage existing companies to expand their operations. This is not only great news for Ontario’s industrial sector but will strengthen local economies across the province.”
The foregoing quote was made June 12, 2012 by Minister of Energy, Chis Bentley, when the Liberals announceda program to utilize some of Ontario’s excess electricity by trying to attract new industry to Ontario. This initial announcement was referred to by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) as “Stream 1”. The concept was meant to attract “new” industrial users to Ontario that would invest $250 million in a facility over a period not exceeding 5 years. That commitment would get the investor an “all-inclusive” electricity price of 5.5 cents per KWh. It was referred to as the “Industrial Electricity Incentive Program (IEI). So far, this has not produced one single press release announcing new investments of the magnitude envisioned and instead what we have seen is an announcement that GM will be shutting down the production line for the Camero and moving it to Michigan, a U.S. state that buys Ontario’s cheap electricity. One wonders about the influence of electricity prices on GM in respect to that move!
While not specified in any of the press releases or other documents, the presumed objective of Minister Bentley’s announcement was to soak up some of that surplus energy that Ontario had been exporting at a significant cost– a cost to both ratepayers and the Liberal Party. It was the Liberals who created the surplus base load caused by “first to the grid” rights granted to industrial wind and solar developers along with reputed “conservation” efforts of the OPA from directivesout of the Ministry of Energy offices.
The OPA got busy designing the documents applicable to “Stream 1” but before they released the documents on December 12, 2012, Minister Bentley was in Chathamand on December 3, 2012 announced yet another IEI but was light on details to the media. Why he didn’t have details is questionable as by that time he had issued a comprehensive “directive” to the OPA dated November 1, 2012 instructing the OPA to develop “Stream 2” for existing Ontario based industrial users providing they agreed to increase consumption by at least 7,000 MWh (enough to power 730 average homes) per year.
The directive states; under this “Stream” the OPA “shall rebate charges for Global Adjustment, the variable component of incurred transmission charges, the IESO Administration Fee, the OPA Administration Fee, the Rural and Remote Rate Protection Charge, and Renewable Generation Connection Rate, in connection with all IEI eligible load (“IEI Eligible Load”). The participant shall also receive an offsetting payment in an amount equal to the Debt Retirement Charge in connection with all IEI Eligible Load.”
What will be left to pay by participants will be the cost of the HOEP which so far in 2011 has averaged 2.4 cents per kWh. Residential and small commercial ratepayers of the province will pick up all of the forfeited costs of 8 to 10 cents a kWh. The directive does not require the participant to create new jobs, only to commit to the consumption. Minister Bentley has limited the “fire sale” to 5 terawatts (TWh) or 5 million megawatt hours (enough to power 520 thousand average Ontario households). To sell off the 5 TWh Minister Bentley wants about 700 industrial companies in Ontario to agree to increase their consumption by 7,000 MWh per annum. The cost to those 700 companies would be approximately $120 million at the current HOEP per kWh. If the 5 TWh are committed to; the average ratepayer will be billed with the extra costs and if the HOEP remains at 2012 levels (2.41 cents per kWh) it will mean costs of about $375 million per annum or $85 per household added to ratepayers bills. Of course, this $85 doesn’t include the additional costs of Stream 1, in the event Ontario ever sees any new industry actually take up this “all-inclusive” offer.
Opening the Floodgates:
So, exactly how can Ontario afford to be so generous and why do we have all this surplus electricity that we are giving away to industry?
In 2011 Ontario exported 12.9 TWh (terrawatt hours) and if we received the average hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP) of 3.15 cents per kWh that applied that year, it would have generated about $400 million dollars. If that energy was produced by wind or solar and backed up by gas plants it would have been billed out at over $1.7 billion, meaning a loss to Ontario’s economy of $1.3 billion! That $1.3 billion was paid for by Ontario’s ratepayers and included in the electricity, regulatory, delivery or debt retirement lines of our bills.
What Minister Bentley is now attempting to do with these two “Streams” is to somehow attract industry to Ontario which might create jobs. With those jobs would hopefully come additional taxes and help to reduce welfare and other payments to attempt to reduce Ontario’s deficit sooner rather then later. Unfortunately it will be on the backs of Ontario’s ratepayers and for the start of the 2013 year the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is forecasting exports of 2,000 megawatts per hour, equivalent to 17.5 TWh per annum so ratepayers should brace themselves for more rate increases.
The Liberals have told Ontario’s ratepayers (without including the bad news in their press releases), we must be prepared to pick up the costs of attracting new jobs even though we have been picking up the costs of the subsidies for renewables for several years! Minister Bentley may have realized we are already paying for those costs for the electricity we are exporting and this “streaming” will make it better and may create actual jobs rather then those nebulous ones promised by the GEA.
Ontario’s surplus base load energy supply has been partly created by the subsidies we paid, and continue to pay, for wind and solar developers under the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA). We were told that these subsidies would create 50,000 jobs. We were also told that our electricity rates would rise by only 1% per annum by George Smitherman; the Minister of Energy who ushered in the GEA, but neither of these Liberal forecasts entailed a cost/benefit analysis as noted in the Auditor General’s report of last year and neither of those forecasts had any validity.
These moves by Minister Bentley to create these “Streams”, in my humble opinion, are an admission by the Liberals that those promised “green” jobs haven’t materialized, nor have the costs of our electricity risen by the promised 1%–he just won’t admit it!
The reputed conservation we have achieved along with its benefits to Ontarians is also touted as the reason for our surplus electricity and another wonderful Liberal creation that they have falsely told us has and will continue to, save us money, but that would turn this rant into a tome so I will save that story for another day.
December 28, 2012