MacLeod demands Energy Minister act on electricity bills

This letter was sent to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli yesterday by PC Energy Critic Lisa MacLeod, MPP for Nepean-Carleton. If you want to help, write to your MPP, and ask that he or she add his or her voice to Lisa’s, and demand justice for the citizens of Ontario. Here is the letter.
Transparent Logo
Open Letter
Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli

Dear Minister,

Tonight’s television and radio news broadcasts in Ottawa were a sad testament to the utter failure of this Liberal government’s energy policies.

In fact it is an indictment of a litany of energy policy failures.

Wind energy from the over zealous subsidies to the sole sourced Samsung contract for wind turbines has been a costly failure which you still hide the true costs of from the public.

The gas plant debacle and subsequent cover up whose impact is still not felt will penalize rate payers in this province for decades.

The OPG is a scandal plagued organization that has been the subject of an Auditor General’s report that resulted in universal outrage. It is only made more horrendous by the fact that
the Liberal cabinet has known about abuses here for several years and done absolutely nothing.

Now Hydro One is threatening to disconnect honest hard working Ontario families in winter ahead of Christmas because of its failures to bill in an appropriate and timely manner and to the terrible failure of so-called ‘smart meters’ which truly have been more trouble than they were worth. I could go on but won’t at this time.

This letter is meant to draw your attention to the plight of Ontario families ahead of Christmas and in the midst of a series of winter storms. If any of these Ontario families are disconnected at this time or during this winter due to the incompetence of Hydro One or the failure of its questionable systems including smart meters it would be an injustice and a tragedy for which the government will bear ultimate responsibility. The government has no one to blame but themselves. You as Minister need to act and you need to act now.

I expect by Monday you will issue a public directive to Hydro One to either clean up its act or that you will clean house. The Legislature may not be sitting but I will still continue to hold you and the Liberal government to account for your energy failures.

Respectfully,

Lisa MacLeod, MPP
Nepean-Carleton
Ontario PC Energy Critic 

 

 

Ontario’s electricity costs a “freight train” says energy analysts

Here from AEGENT Energy Advisors, a commentary on the Ontario Long Term Energy Plan or LTEP.

Latest LTEP Can’t Stop the Electricity Cost Freight Train December 2013

  • One key message in the provincial government’s new Long Term Energy Plan is that projected cost increases are much lower than in the 2010 plan.
  • The essential fact about these cost increases is that they are driven mostly by the costs associated with new generation capacity coming into service that is the result of the government’s energy procurement priorities over the last several years. Virtually all of this capacity is contracted on terms that guarantee some level of above-market payments to the generator.
  • The increased costs on our electricity bills are the result of these contract terms. So if you understand the terms of these contracts then future cost increases are largely foreseeable, and for the next several years there is little that can be done to mitigate the increases.

On December 2, 2013 the Ontario Ministry of Energy released the latest Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP), entitled Achieving Balance.  The new LTEP is the first follow-up to the previous plan that was released in November 2010.  Areas addressed in the new plan include conservation, nuclear and renewable energy.
Two prominent messages in the new LTEP are that much has and will be done to mitigate costs and that projected increases are significantly lower than those forecast in 2010.  Figure 7 from the report shows the typical residential electricity bill forecast based on monthly consumption of about 800 kWh.
Read the full article here.

“Ecocrats” make millions while consumers pay and pay for renewables

This article from The Mail on Sunday tracks people involved in the U.K. renewables business…and discovers how much money they are making, while influencing public policy.
  It’s a shocker.

The fatcat ecocrats exposed: Web of ‘green’ politicians, tycoons and power brokers who help each other benefit from billions raised on your bills

  • Four of nine-person Climate Change Committee, official watchdog that dictates green energy policy, are, or were until recently, being paid by firms that benefit from committee decisions

By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 22:14 GMT, 14 December 2013 | UPDATED: 22:14 GMT, 14 December 2013

Other industries would stand accused of damning conflicts of interest but when it comes to global warming, anything goes…
The Mail on Sunday today reveals the extraordinary web of political and financial interests creating dozens of eco-millionaires from green levies on household energy bills.
A three-month investigation shows that some of the most outspoken campaigners who demand that consumers pay the colossal price of shifting to renewable energy are also getting rich from their efforts.

Enquiries by this newspaper have revealed:

  • Four of the nine-person Climate Change Committee, the official watchdog that dictates green energy policy, are, or were until very recently, being paid by firms that benefit from committee decisions.
  •   A new breed of lucrative green investment funds, which were set up to expand windfarm energy, are in practice a means of taking green levies paid by hard-pressed consumers and handing them to City investors and financiers.
  • £3.8 billion of taxpayers’ money funds the new Green Investment Bank, set up by the Department of Business and Skills. One of its biggest deals involved energy giant SSE selling windfarms to one of the new green funds, Greencoat Wind. The Green Investment Bank’s chairman, Lord Smith of Kelvin, is also chairman of SSE. The bank says it ‘provided expertise’ to enable BIS to take a £50 million stake in Greencoat, which helped fund the SSE sale.
  • The same bank’s chief executive, Shaun Kingsbury, is one of the UK’s highest-paid public sector employees. His £325,000 salary is more than twice the Prime Minister’s.
  • Firms lobbying for renewables can virtually guarantee access to key Government policy-makers, because they are staffed by former very senior officials – a striking example of Whitehall’s ‘revolving door’.

Among the most astonishing features exposed by our investigation is the way in which vehement advocates for radical policies designed to curb global warming are making huge sums of money from their work. Here are some of the key  figures among the new breed of  fat-cat Ecocrats…

Globe advice to Ontario: you’re in a hole, stop digging!

From the Globe and mail, advice to Ontario: your electricity policy is kneecapping consumers and business.

Globe editorial

Ontario’s low-voltage electricity policy

The Globe and Mail
Last updated

The first rule of political holes: If you get into one, stop digging. When it passed the 2009 Green Energy Act, Ontario’s Liberal government built itself the political equivalent of a giant, supercharged auger. A half-decade later, the government still hasn’t figured out how to turn the machine off. And the hole keeps getting deeper.

The act, a misguided industrial strategy masquerading as an environmental plan, has been driving up electricity prices ever since its passage. On Monday, a government that continues to search for ways out of this fiasco of its own making released its latest long-term energy plan. Electricity prices are expected to continue to climb sharply in the coming years – though less sharply than previously estimated. It’s a promise to keep digging, just more slowly.According to the latest government estimates, Ontario residential electricity rates will rise 9.6 per cent next year, 5.8 per cent in 2015 and 15 per cent in 2016. Ten years from now, the average family will be paying 50 percent more than today. All of that is well above the rate of inflation.
The pain would be even greater if government were not subsidizing residential electricity bills with something known as the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit – which has nothing to do with clean energy, and is not beneficial. It’s a straight, $1-billion-dollar-a-year payment from taxpayers to electricity users – your right pocket is paying your left – financed through deficit spending.

For the full editorial, read here.

Ontario’s power system needs change, not blame

Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli released a new Long Term Energy Plan at Queen’s Park today. The result? Nothing much has changed. Unfortunately.

  The “new” plan maintains the same targets for wind power development, just to be accomplished within a longer time frame. That’s bad news for ratepayers and taxpayers affected by higher electricity rates as a result of the province’s push for “green” power.
   “Ontario never did a cost-benefit analysis for wind power, but now we know what the costs are,” said Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson.
   “Very little power produced, power produced out of phase with demand, and few of the thousands of jobs promised. At the same time, the costs are skyrocketing electricity rates, plummeting property values, and absolute tyranny through industrialization of Ontario’s rural communities with huge wind power plants.”
   Wilson noted that the Energy Minister’s response to criticism about electricity rates is to produce a new website that featured a tutorial on how consumers can better use electricity.
  “That was pure insult,” she said, “especially to rural residents forced to pay horrendous delivery charges for power, and who are already doing all they can to conserve while the government continues with policies that drive up costs.
   “We need change, not blame.”
Wind power by the numbers:

  • ·         Currently 3,700 megawatts of wind power under contract but not yet connected to the grid– could mean another $1 billion per year to Ontario costs or $250 to average ratepayer’s bill annually
  • ·         Over 6,700 huge industrial wind turbines are already built or are proposed for Ontario
  • ·         76 Ontario communities have declared themselves “Not A Willing Host” to wind power project
  Contact Wind Concerns Ontario at windconcerns@gmail.com

Long Term Energy Plant release today

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli will release Ontario’s new Long Term Energy Plan today at Queen’s Park, sometime after 1 PM.
The question is, will the government continue its push for expensive wind power for which there was NEVER a cost-benefit analysis done, and which has not produced the thousands of jobs promised, not delivered power, and which has caused electricity rates to rise dramatically, affecting business and consumers alike?
Check back here analysis and comments.

PC Energy Critic Macleod: Ontario communities, businesses suffering

With today marking the first day of Ontario’s new rates for electricity use for both business and consumers, it’s appropriate to repeat a few words from PC Energy Critic Lisa MacLeod, at Queen’s Park yesterday.

 
“In the few seconds I have left, let me talk about North Gower. They’re a community that is living this hydro nightmare because they are going to be forced to deal with these wind turbines. They’re not a willing host, and they know that their neighbours down the road in Bells Corners…struggling to stay in business are going to have to pay for high hydro hikes as a result of the government’s disastrous green energy policy. That is, I think, a perfect example of the Green Energy Act assaulting rural communities, and just 15 minutes down the road, businesses going out of business. I couldn’t make that point more clearly.”
 
 

Pembina and Greenpeace have the Energy Minister’s ear
No thanks: I already know what I am supposed to think
Following Ontario Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli around the province is an interesting exercise that raises questions.   Back on September 10th  Minister Chiarelli and Premier Wynne were feted by Bruce Power at an exclusive fundraiser that reputedly generated $100,000 for the Ontario Liberal Party.
On the same day, a joint Pembina Institute/Greenpeace report was released titled “Renewable is Doable” with the following statement:
“Ontario has experienced an absolute decline in electricity demand in recent years, due in part to the province’s successful conservation programs.” 
One can challenge the veracity of that statement: the decline in demand for electricity is due to the demise of Ontario’s industrial manufacturing base, which is being exacerbated by high electricity prices.  There’s more: the report was prepared by three graduates in “environmental studies,” and from the charts and writing, one discerns a lack of basic math capabilities. 
That aside, the report is all aglow about Conservation and states:
“Ontario’s new “Conservation First” initiative provides the opportunity to continue electricity savings [writer’s emphasis: presumably meant in an non-monetary way]. The evidence presented in this report shows that putting conservation first, and supplementing it with a diversified portfolio of green energy sources, can be more cost-effective [writer’s emphasis again:that would be the math problem] than renewed investment in nuclear stations whose costs continue to increase [not according to the Minister’s remarks below].”
Scrolling through the Executive Summary one also finds this: “Can Ontario replace nuclear reactors with a cost-effective, low-carbon energy mix?”
Well, the report’s title says it all so the conclusion is, it can!   Examining the report and several of the charts you find the words “typical”and “averaged,” butnot “actual”!  If one specifically looks at the charts depicting how “renewables” can replace nuclear you find the phrase “Modelled from historic output data”!   The report smooths or averages intermittent production from wind and solar and fails to note they produce at both the wrong time of the day and the wrong time of the year.  The report also ignores the cost of back-up gas plants, as well as the costs of exporting surplus energy, additional transmission cost, and the costs of constraining wind and solar.  All of these billions of dollars are omitted.
With all these flaws, our Energy Minister wouldn’t buy into that report, would he?  He did! On October 25, 2013 he Tweeted:
That Tweet by the Minister followed the news reports of Thursday October 10th of criticism by the PC Party and a comment from the NDP Leader, Andrea Horwath, who said,“the optics are very, very bad.”
The CBC reported:
“Ontario’s Liberal government on Thursday abandoned plans to spend billions of dollars to build two new nuclear reactors, saying the province doesn’t need the power to meet its electricity demand.
“New nuclear will not be part of the long-term energy plan which we hope to finalize before the end of this year,” Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli told reporters.
“We’re in a comfortable surplus position at this point in time, and it’s not advisable to make the major investments in new nuclear.”
Costs have fallen since the province first paused its plans to build two new reactors in 2009, when the estimated price was said to be as high as $26 billion.
“The costs have come down, but they have not come down enough to justify us building new nuclear when we have a very comfortable surplus,” said Chiarelli.
“It is not wise to invest billions and billions of dollars in new nuclear when the power is not needed.”
Sure sounds like the Minister bought into the “Renewable is Doable” diatribe of the joint report. Instead, he will take “billions and billions” from ratepayers pockets to satisfy large and mainly foreign corporations who came to Ontario for above market rates paid for wind and solar developments.
The coincidences over the past two months are just too obvious to ignore: the fund raiser and the release of the joint report on the same day; then Minister Chiarelli’s visit to Bruce Power on October 7thand three days later he announced cancellation of the 2,000 MW of new nuclear to be built by Ontario Power Generation and confirmationof the refurbishment of nuclear reactors at Bruce and Darlington. 
When can the people of Ontario expect to see competent and transparent management of this portfolio?   I leave that question to the voters for the next election. I certainly hope they will reflect on the obvious.  Their pocketbooks will be not be protected by anyone appointed by the Ontario Liberal government!
Parker Gallant                                                                                                                                     October 28, 2013  
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the policies of Wind Concerns Ontario.

Parker Gallant on Ontario’s Energy Ministry: aiding the fortunes of…Quebec
No, no, don’t confuse me with the facts!

Endorsing fallacies, avoiding realities—Ontario’s Ministry of Energy
Global Adjustment charge jumps from $800 million to $6.5 billion in four years
Watch out Ontario, Quebecis targeting our industry!  That’s the message one gets from the announcement by Premier Pauline Marois that Quebec will use Hydro Quebec’s surplus power to attract job-creating industries to Quebec.  An article in the October 8, 2013 edition of the Financial Post states Hydro Quebec will set aside 50 terawatt (TWh) hours for that purpose.  To put that in perspective, 50 TWh represents 35% of Ontario’s total power demand (141.3 TWh) in 2012, or enough to power five million average Ontario households.
So what is Ontario doing to stave off this aggressive push from Quebec?  Well, since being named Premier, Kathleen Wynne has overseen the Ministry of Natural Resources issue renewable energy approvals for about 811 megawatts (MW) of industrial-scale wind power.  Three of those, including a Samsung contract (Armow Wind for 180 MW), occurred in just the last two weeks!  Her government also announced October 10, 2013 that they will scrap the plan to build 2,000 MW of new nuclear.  That 2,000 MW was part of the Long-Term Energy Plan issued by Brad Duguid in late 2010 when he was Energy Minister.
Here is what Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli had to say about abandoning the new nuclear build:  “We’re in a comfortable (electricity generation) surplus position at this time and it’s not advisable to make the major investments in new nuclear. Some time in the future we might be looking at it.”
To put that into perspective, it would take approximately 7,000 MW of industrial wind turbines to produce the equivalent power of the proposed 2,000 MW of nuclear.  That 7,000 MW would entail the erection of almost 3,500 turbines spread throughout the province, producing power at 29% of their rated capacity.   That same 7,000 MW of wind would produce power 80% of the time when we don’t need it—the middle of the night, during the spring freshet, and in the fall when our demand for power is the lowest.  And, when we don’t need the power we will often pay the wind companies to not produce power. We will also require other power sources to back up those turbines (now expensive gas plants, two of which were moved at a cost of over $1 billion ) so Ontario ratepayers will pay twice for any power we may need.  
So what will this cost us?
A report from the Ontario Power Authority (that no longer appears on their website) pegged the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM) for the 12 months ended January 31, 2009 at $800 million.  Fast forward just four years to January 31, 2013 and the total GAM had jumped to $6.5 billion for the comparable 12 months.  The GAM looks sure to hit the $8 billion mark by the end of January 2014. That GAM pot principally reflects renewable energy costs along with money spent on getting Ontarians to conserve.
Looking at what the cost of 2,000 MW of new nuclear might be to the Ontario ratepayers and  using the original estimate of $26 billion, you get a capital cost of $43.4 million per TWh (assuming a 40-year lifespan).  That includes a fuel cost of 6.3 million per TWh.  For those who like to equate that to a kilowatt hour (kWh) the cost (without Operations, Maintenance and Administration [OMA]) would be 4.43 cents per kWh and 8.3 cents per kWh when OMA is included both less than recently announced average (8.88 cents) time-of-use (TOU) prices set for the next six months.
Now compare that to the cost of a TWh from wind turbines and assume they will produce at 29% of their rated capacity.   At 11.5 cents per kWh the cost to produce the same power jumps to $115 million per TWh (plus another 20% cost of living increases) without adding in the costs of back-up power from gas turbines, the spilling of clean hydro or “steaming off” nuclear power from Bruce.  The back-up alone adds over $80 million per TWh bringing the cost per kWh to 20 cents. 
So how do Ontario’s electricity rates for large industrial customers compare with Quebec?  According to Hydro Quebecenergy costs in Montreal at $100 would cost $223 in Toronto and $90 in Winnipeg. 
It may be time for Premier Wynne and Minister Chiarelli to do a reality check.  Why didn’t they simply announce that Ontario doesn’t need more electricity production from wind, solar and nuclear “due to our comfortable surplus position” instead of the fallacy that we need more wind? 
We certainly don’tneed electricity generation that will complete the process of making Ontario the most expensive place to operate energy intensive industry in all of North America.  Stop the spin, stop the fallacy that wind can replace nuclear!
Parker Gallant,
October 21, 2013

Energy Minister peddling “empty promises” on power plant siting

In a letter published in The Ottawa Citizen today  Wind Concerns Ontario vice-president Parker Gallant writes:

Ottawa Citizen, October 18, 2013

Peddling empty promises

RE: Angry Ontarians talk turkey with Wynne over $1B gas plant bill, Oct. 10

On the same day that Ontario’s new Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk, released her report on the Oakville gas plant cancellation, Ontario’s Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli tried to deflect the bad news in a  news releaseheadlined “Ontario Improving Decision-Making on Large Energy Projects.” In it was a link to 18 recommendations by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
The recommendations were fluff. Words like “outreach,” “understand,” and “enhance,” were used but nowhere was any mention of returning local planning to the communities where these large power projects are to be sited.
Minister Chiarelli declared that “We want to get these decisions right … we are committed to ensuring communities have their say right from the start.”
Sending out a news release dealing with siting power projects on the same day that the Auditor General disclosed that the cost of moving the Oakville gas plant cost the ratepayers and taxpayers of the province $675 million,  is not just an admission that they got the siting process horribly wrong, it  pretends it is being fixed.
The truth is, the Ministry of Energy remains firmly in charge and will decide what it wants. To tell Ontario communities that they will “have their say from the start” is insulting.  In just four days in early October, approvals for three more huge wind power generation projects were announced, the largest with a capacity of 180 MW. All these were without community consultation.
Mr Chiarelli is peddling more empty promises to detract from the mess that the Ontario Liberals have made of what used to be a competitive electricity sector.
Parker Gallant
Wind Concerns Ontario