Canada’s wind power corporations are grateful for all your money

Big Wind is grateful to you for their success! You? Not so much...
Big Wind is grateful to you for their success! You? Not so much…

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) had this greeting on their website over the holidays:The industry reached a milestone of over 10,000 megawatts of installed capacity this year, and during the holiday season more than ever, our thoughts turn gratefully to all of you who have made our progress possible.”

Ontario is home to almost 50% of those 10,000 megawatts (MW) of industrial wind turbines (IWT) and CanWEA is right: they should be grateful. They should be grateful to the ratepayers of the province who have no choice but to pay for intermittent and unreliable wind power as it gets “first to the grid” rights, ahead of reliable power sources like hydro, nuclear and gas.

The source of the problem

The reason for CanWEA’s gratitude is evident when one reviews the Independent Electricity System Operator’s (IESO) 18-month Outlook for January 2016 to June 2017.  Due to low demand for electricity in Ontario, particularly during the spring and fall, IESO frequently experiences “surplus baseload generation” or SBG.  They note this as follows:  “Ontario will continue to experience surplus baseload generation (SBG) conditions during this Outlook period. The magnitude of SBG is trending higher with the addition of new renewable generation and decline in grid demand due to conservation and distribution-connected generation. SBG is expected to be effectively managed through existing market mechanisms, which include inter-tie scheduling, nuclear maneuvering or shutdown and the dispatch of grid-connected renewable resources.”

So, an official admission: Ontario’s power surplus “is trending higher” due to renewables!

In 2014 6.8 terawatts1. (TWh) of power was generated from wind turbines, and during 2014 OPG was forced to “spill” 3.2 TWh of clean hydro, while Bruce Nuclear was forced to “steam-off” 1.3 TWh of clean CO2-free nuclear (September 2014 to October 2015). At the same time, the turbines were curtailed from producing about 500,000 megawatt hours. All of the generated, spilled, steamed-off and curtailed generation was paid for by Ontario’s ratepayers along with the losses on our exports of surplus generation.

The costs of the 6.8 TWh and the curtailed 500,000 MWh was approximately $930 million (7.3 TWh at an average price of $125/MWh); spilled hydro’s costs were $179 million (3.2 TWh at an average price of $56/MWh), and the 1.3 TWh of steamed-off nuclear added another $87 million to the bills of Ontario’s ratepayers. That brought the cost of those 6.8 TWh of production from IWTs to almost $1.3 billion.   That alone translates to a cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) of over 19 cents — before charges for transmission, delivery, the Debt Retirement Charge2. etc. and before picking up the losses for surplus export generation. In 2014 that cost ratepayers $1.2 billion, and will end up at close to $2 billion in 2015.

The poor get poorer in Ontario

By November 2015 end, wind had already exceeded 2014 generation, at 7.9 TWh. Add its costs to constrained, curtailed, spilled and steamed-off power and the cost of electricity will continue its climb despite the false claim made by Ontario’s Energy Minister reported in Maclean’s in December 2013: “Looking to the future, we expect that rates will continue to increase, but we have taken very significant steps to mitigate those rate increases.”

Mitigation of rate increases is not in the immediate or near future: we just got hit with an increase effective January 1st, 2016 of 10% with the removal of the Clean Energy Benefit and a new charge to support the almost 600,000 Ontario households living in “energy poverty.”  We can also expect a further increase May 1, 2016 to pay for the costs associated with more renewable energy coming on stream (700 MW of wind and 300 MW of solar) in the next 18 months, exacerbating SBG and the cost of dealing with it.

CanWEA’s members certainly had a merry Christmas, but all the Dom Perignon was on you.

©Parker Gallant.

January 7, 2016


  1. 6.8 TWh is equivalent to 6.8 billion kilowatt hours.
  2. Small businesses will continue to be charged for the DRC.

A record-breaking November for Ontario’s hard-hit electricity customers

More wind power not needed as Ontario continues to sell surplus power at a loss
More wind power not needed as Ontario continues to sell surplus power at a loss

Figures on exports of surplus power show wind isn’t needed, yet the government plans on adding more

November once again had Ontario ratepayers picking up the bill for subsidized electricity exports to our neighbours in New York, Michigan, etc. With the Canadian dollar in a depressed state the costs to our U.S. neighbours was considerably less than the $230 million CAD subsidy1. provided, but nevertheless, it removed about $45 after-tax dollars from the average Ontario ratepayer’s pocket.

Total generation from Ontario’s various sources was 12.4 terawatts (TWh) for November, but Ontario’s demand was only 10.6 TWh, so the surplus was exported. That brought exports for the 11 months ended November 30, 2015 to a record 19.6 TWh, and that power was sold at an average of $24.72 million/TWh (based on the IESO November year-to-date Monthly Summary).  Total revenue (or “profit” according to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli) to Ontario ratepayers for those 19.6 TWh was about $483 million.  According to the IESO summary those exported TWh cost on average $115.16 million/TWh, another record (net of the DRC)—gross revenues for their sale was $485 million while the cost to ratepayers was $2.257 billion.

Ontario’s energy policy cost you about $360 for 11 months in 2015

So the cost for the average Ontario ratepayer, assuming 800 kilowatt hours monthly, is about $360 each for the first 11 months of 2015.

The Global Adjustment (GA) of $1.119 billion was also a record,as was the allocated costs of the GA to Class A shareholders at $136.7 million, a record and to Class B shareholders at $982.6 million setting another record!

Wind power was 40% of exports—clearly, we don’t need it

Up to this date in 2015, wind has produced intermittent record power of 7.933 TWh and represents over 40% of total exports; it is clearly power we didn’t need.  IESO exports our surplus production to ensure the electricity grid doesn’t crash and excess generation from wind, in particular, is noted for its unruly fluctuations.  Without the excess wind production the hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP) would clearly have been “bid higher” meaning costs to Ontario’s ratepayers would be less for the remaining exports.

Despite the obvious, our Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli has plans to add additional wind capacity to Ontario’s grid. A further 300 megawatts in contracts will be announced early in 2016. The continued flagellation of Ontario’s ratepayers should be recognized by the Minister as something that he has the power to stop.

Minister Chiarelli, we the ratepayers of Ontario appeal to you to cancel the acquisition of more unreliable, intermittent and expensive industrial wind generation capacity!   Do the right thing!

© Parker Gallant,

December 31, 2015


  1. The sale price (HOEP) for November averaged just $10.34 million/TWh so revenue was about $20 million whereas the costs of generation for the exported 1.9 TWh was $250 million ($129.53 million/TWh net of the DRC).

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: The standard response from the Minister of Energy is that wind power is needed for when Ontario’s nuclear units go offline for refurbishment; the truth is, wind cannot replace nuclear, which supplies baseload power.

A windy Christmas Eve meant more millions in cost to Ontario electricity ratepayers

The day before Christmas


T’was the day before Christmas when all through Ontario

the wind was ablowing without great demand

The turbines were spinning and generating power

and some were found to be curtailing in hope

Chiarelli would still pay them and not be considered a dope

The ratepayers were all snuggled in bed

and the Christmas lights were out because of the dread

that would surely come with the hydro bill

and make everything a whole lot worse than a little chill

The children were tucked in bed in winter gear

because their parents were so full of fear

the heat from the furnace would cause the meter to spin

driving up the bill and cause them to send more money to Wynne

The hydro was spilling, the nuclear steamed off,

the gas plants weren’t moving for fear of the racket

that might come to discredit Dalton and others caught sacking

e-mails and records meant to show their defects

and the way they harmed ratepayers and created negative effects


Excuse the poetry but it does highlight the mess we found ourselves in on December 24, 2015. To wit:

Ontario’s demand for electricity on December 24th was low based on IESO’s “Daily Market Summary” reaching only 315,336 MWh and “Total Demand” was 385,704 MWh.  The hourly Ontario Energy Price or HOEP market, priced it in a negative way valuing it at -$543,843. What that means is the 72,336 MWh we exported cost Ontario’s ratepayers an extra $102,000 based on the weighted average HOEP price per MWh of -$1.41.  The average cost of production of those exports based on the IESO November average price of $129.53 (net of the DRC) means the 72,336 MWh exported rang up a cost of $9.4 million to be borne by Ontario ratepayers.

That’s not all the costs though! IESO instructed Bruce Nuclear to steam off about 35,000 MWh at an estimated cost of $60.00/MWh or $2.1 million and curtailed 23,500 MWh of wind generation at a cost of around $120.00/MWh adding a further $2.8 million to the day’s costs for ratepayers.

The cost of the exports (negative HOEP of $100 thousand) plus production costs of $9.4 million, steamed off nuclear of $2.1 million and curtailed wind of $2.8 million means just one day cost Ontario’s beleaguered ratepayers $14.4 million without factoring in HST costs.

Premier Kathleen Wynne, her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, and her Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli are responsible for delivering those lumps of coal we found in our stockings Christmas morning.

Ho, ho, ho!

(C) Parker Gallant

December 26, 2015

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

Big bucks for Loyalist Twp for wind farm? Or crumbs off the developer’s table?

Loyalist Township

Loyalist Township’s Deputy Mayor is a cheap date

The CKWS Newswatch team reported that “Loyalist Township stands to rake in some big bucks once 26 wind turbines are built on Amherst Island.”

Two key agreements with Windlectric have been authorized by the township related to the 74.3 MW (megawatt) project that will see 26 turbines erected on the island. While the project has been authorized by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), the Association to Protect Amherst Island has appealed the approval.  The start date is therefore unknown as the developer must await the ruling of the ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal) which is not expected until the early Spring of 2016.

The term “big bucks” is relative to the size of the project and, perhaps, to the recipient of those “bucks”! In this case the community benefit agreed to is $500,000 annually for the next 20 years. On the surface it sure sounds like big bucks, but the really big bucks will wind up in the pockets of Windlectric’s shareholders.

Here’s how.

If the 74.3 MW capacity development operates at the expected average of 30% of its rated capacity, it should produce almost 2 million megawatt hours (MWh)of electricity and deliver that to Ontario’s grid — whether it’s needed or not. The math is simple:74.3 X 30% X 8760 (hours in a year) = 1,952,604MWh.

We should assume the Windlectric contract was executed prior to the slight downward movement in the feed-in-tariff (FIT) pricing, so for each MWh produced, Windlectric will be paid $135.00/MWh. If you do the math on what their annual revenue will be you might be surprised at the really “big bucks” they will receive!  The gross revenue for Windlectric will be about $26.4 million annually (1,952,604 MWh X $135 = $26,396,010) which most of us would consider “big bucks”!

Loyalist’s ‘big bucks’ is not even 2% of the developer’s revenue

The township will get $500,000 of the $26.4 million which amounts to 1.9% of the takeaway by Windlectic.   If the Amherst Island residents are, as the Deputy Mayor suggested, put “at ease” they shouldn’t be; council should have bargained much harder.

As one resident suggested, the “big bucks” may not be sufficient to even repair the damage to Amherst Island’s infrastructure after construction. And that doesn’t even consider the devaluation1. of property close to the turbines, destruction to migratory birds, plant and animal life, and of course to the 15 to 20 % of people who may feel the effects of the audible and inaudible noise on their health.

What a cheap date!

©Parker Gallant,  December 21, 2015

  1. Property devaluation will lead to reduced assessments and an eventual realty tax loss to the township.

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

Ontario’s energy costs and the mining industry: investment interest slipping says Parker Gallant

Ontario's Ministry of Northern Development and Mines : using the  increase in gold value to prove policy success. (We're not buying it.)
Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines : using the increase in gold value to prove policy success. (We’re not buying it.)

Ontario’s ministries of selective facts 

On December 11, 2015 Michael Gravelle’s ministry Northern Development and Mines, issued a press release announcing a renewed Mineral Development Strategy (MDS) and, as is generally done with those provincial press releases, it contained a “Quick Facts” section.  Also as usual, you only see the positive ones.

As an example, one of the “Quick Facts” listed in the release states: “The value of mineral production in 2003 was $5.7 billion. In 2014, the value of mineral production was a record $11 billion.”

On examination of that fact via data from the Mining Association of Canada’s (MAC) 2014 report you learn that in 2003, Ontario produced 28.3% of the value of all Canadian mining production, but by 2013 the “value” had dropped to 22.5%.   If you then look at the value of the three highest valued minerals mined in Ontario, you see they are gold, copper and nickel. The value of those three minerals increased by 142% in the 2003/2013 period, from $5.7 billion to $13.9 billion.  So, in other words, the claim made in the Quick Facts shows an increase of 92%, which is considerably less than the commodity price increase.

One could easily surmise the drop in Ontario’s percentage values of all Canadian production was caused by a reduction of investments (Ontario ranked 4th) in mining and processing/refining activities — but that wouldn’t make for a snappy positive “quick fact”.

For example, the “Ring of Fire” got the Ontario government plenty of media attention because of their lack of commitment to infrastructure spending. That resulted in the exodus of several large and small mining companies seeking to develop mines in the region.   Nothing in the Mineral Development Strategy suggests anything will change!

As a coincidence to the Ministry’s press release and the MDS, the Ontario Mining Association (OMA) a week prior had posted on their website a “welcome” release to a report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) titled Digging Deeper: Strengthening Ontario’s Mining Advantage, which carried the following message deemed worth repeating on the OMA post:

“In recent years, however, the sector has struggled due to both global factors, including economic uncertainty and lower demand for mineral products, and Ontario-specific challenges. These challenges include rising costs, particularly electricity rates as well as regulatory uncertainty and a lack of essential infrastructure.”

The message in the MAC 2014 report was similar but wasn’t specific to Ontario:

“Canada’s processing facilities operate in a global arena, where China and other countries are expanding their capacity and competing fiercely for raw materials. The cost of electricity is also a factor in some Canadian jurisdictions. Given the energy-intensive nature of these value-added processes, high-cost power jurisdictions dampen the competitiveness of existing operations and can deter future investment.”

The Ministry’s response on the issue of high-cost electricity was contained in one of their “10 point action plans” in the MDS, released days after the OCC report: “Improve our cost competitiveness by reviewing current energy programs and providing ongoing assistance to mining and processing operations to ensure competitiveness.” Which means, another review! 

While the mining sector endorses the use of renewable energy they note the high capital costs associated with both wind and solar power generation and the need to continue to generate their electricity with diesel fuel, due to the lack of grid connection availability in many mining and processing locations.

That latter issue is obvious to Southern Ontario’s rural communities saddled with the industrial wind turbines connected to the grid to supply intermittent power to large urban communities such as Toronto and grids to export surplus power to our neighbours in New York, Michigan, and others who purchase it for cents on the dollar.   Selling surplus power at a huge discount penalizes not only residential ratepayers, but also our mining sector which estimates the cost of electricity/fuel is their second highest expense at over 60% of labour costs on a Canada-wide basis.

It’s about time for some real facts from Ontario’s Ministries!

©Parker Gallant

December 13, 2015

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


Bombastic bombardment: Parker Gallant on Ontario news release barrage

Embedded image permalink

Or, just forget the whole thing

Ontario news releases are not really “news” says Parker Gallant

Wow! Signing up to receive updates from the Government of Ontario apparently means your e-mail in-box will pile up with a myriad of announcements that, on the surface, seem focused on making one believe the Ontario Liberal government is creating a utopia for everyone.

On December 7 three media messages popped up in my in-box: the first was all about putting HOT (high occupancy toll lanes) on the QE to relieve congestion. The Province’s oldest divided highway has apparently not been paid for yet, even though it opened in 1939; hence we need to put in toll lanes!

The second message was all about how Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba had signed a MOU (memorandum of understanding) “to facilitate their intent to link the cap and trade programs in Ontario, Québec and Manitoba under the Western Climate Initiative, further strengthening North America’s largest carbon market.” I was a little confused about what “ to facilitate their intent to link the cap and trade programs” actually meant until I read Premier Wynne’s quote which said: “Greenhouse gas emissions do not recognize borders, so climate change cannot be fought by individual governments alone. The new MOU on climate change among Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba commits us to collaborating on a broad range of initiatives, including cap and trade, to address climate change and meet emission targets. We can accomplish much more when we work together — only through our continued cooperation can we succeed in building a sustainable and prosperous world for future generations.”

Read more Bombastic bombardment

The power system is broken, says Ontario AG: Parker Gallant

The sad (and very expensive) truth. Ontario fleeced out of $37 billion
The sad (and very expensive) truth. Ontario fleeced out of $37 billion

Financial Post, December 3, 2015


by Parker Gallant

Almost a year ago Bonnie Lysyk, Ontario’s Auditor General, issued a report related to the “smart meter” program, estimating it cost double its projected costs. Bob Chiarelli, the Ontario Minister of Energy, was quick off the mark to defend his ministry by stating “The electricity system is very complex, it’s very difficult to understand,” he said. “I can tell you that some of our senior managers in discussing some of these issues with some of the representatives from the Auditor General’s office got the feeling that they didn’t understand some of the elements of it.”

Here we are one year later and yesterday’s annual report out of the AG’s offices is all about the electricity sector and the condemnation of the planning and implementation processes that have emanated from the past and present energy ministers since the Liberals gained power.

Here is one of the condemnations that will prove hurtful to Minister Chiarelli and his predecessors: “over the last decade, this power system planning process has essentially broken down, and Ontario’s energy system has not had a technical plan in place for the last 10 years. Operating outside the checks and balances of the legislated planning process, the Ministry of Energy has made a number of decisions about power generation that have resulted in significant costs to electricity consumers.”

Here is another: “The Ministry has issued a total of 93 directives and directions to the OPA [Ontario Power Authority] between 2004 and 2014. Through them, it has made a number of decisions about power generation — decisions that sometimes went against the OPA’s technical advice.”

The AG has included many estimates on the costs of those “directives and directions,” estimating the FIT or feed-in tariff program alone will result in ratepayers picking up extra costs of $9.2 billion just for wind and solar contracts when the GEA [Green Energy Act] usurped the previous competitive procurement program. Other notable issues highlighted in the AG’s report include the Mattagami project, $1 billion over the original estimate, raising the cost of hydro production to $135 per megawatt hour, and the conversion of the Thunder Bay coal plant to biomass using imported wood as a fuel source and producing electricity that will cost $1,600 per megawatt hour.

The report is also critical of the “Conservation First” theme brought in by Minister Chiarelli in his most recent Long Term Energy Plan, due to our significant surplus generating capacity, past spending of $2.3 billion and future spending of $2.6 billion that simply raises the price of electricity for consumers. The effect of the surplus capacity is highlighted in noting that it is exported well below its cost and that curtailing power to ensure grid stability is paying generators for not producing.

That message alone highlights how “the Ministry of Energy has made a number of decisions about power generation that have resulted in significant costs to electricity consumers.”

As stated in the report, “Since power is exported at prices below what generators are paid, and curtailed generators are still paid even when they are not producing energy, both of these options are costly. From 2009 to 2014, Ontario had to pay generators $339 million for curtailing 11.9 million MWh of surplus electricity.”

Anyone observing Ontario’s electricity sector over the past 10 years will have no difficulty in nodding in agreement with the bulk of the report’s conclusions, having seen their electricity bills rise on a semi-annual basis for the past decade. Those who want a better understanding of why those increases have occurred will also appreciate the AG’s observation that “lack of transparency” has prevented ratepayers from being told why their bills keep going up.

While the Ministry has stated after each recommendation in the AG’s report: “The Ministry agrees with the Auditor General’s recommendations,” the concerns of ratepayers are likely to be tripped up by Premier Wynne’s promise to bring in her latest tax grab in the form of the promised “cap and trade” plan, which will surely result in additional costs that ratepayers will be forced to absorb.

The AG has demonstrated that she has far more insight into how the electricity system works in Ontario than the Minister or Ministry officials, but it remains to be seen whether the system can be fixed.

Parker Gallant is a retired banker who looked at his electricity bills and didn’t like what he saw.

(Parker Gallant is vice-president of Wind Concerns Ontario.)


Parker Gallant: let’s cap electricity trade in Ontario

SOLD! Ontario's expensive renewable power sold off to the highest bidder (in frequent times of excess supply). What did it cost YOU?
SOLD! Ontario’s expensive renewable power sold off to the highest bidder (in frequent times of excess supply). What did it cost YOU?

Let’s cap Ontario’s trade in electricity

Comparing 2008 to 2015 shows significant losses to Ontario’s electricity consumers 

On Wednesday, November 19, 2008, the year before the Ontario Legislature passed the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), the total demand for electricity in Ontario for the day was 434,000 MWh and, according to IESO’s summary, the market (hourly Ontario electricity price or HOEP) placed a value on that demand just shy of $30 million.  Ontario exported 24,600 MWh and received $1.6 million for those exported megawatts.  At the time the average price Ontario ratepayers were paying for a kilowatt hour (kWh) of power was 6.02 cents according to the Ontario Energy Board.

Seven years later on Thursday, November 19, 2015 IESO reported Ontario’s total demand was 351,000 MWh (83,000 MWh less) perhaps reflecting the 78% increase in the average cost per kWh to 10.7 cents/kWh in those seven years!   The market value IESO recorded for the day of  the “Total Market Demand” (425,000 MWh) had a negative value of -$1,092,000.

That day IESO reported Ontario exported 75,000 MWh paying New York, Michigan, and others $2.57 per MWh to take it off our hands. That means it cost Ontario’s ratepayers an additional $200,000 over and above the monies paid to the generators of $9.4 million for those exports.  The $9.6 million estimated cost doesn’t include monies paid to generators for idling gas plants, steaming off power from Bruce Nuclear, spilling hydro or paying wind generators to curtail their production.

In the latter case, wind1. could have produced about 73,000 MWh, or almost 100% of the day’s exports; however, it appears that IESO forced/asked the generators to curtail 27,000 MWh for which they were paid just a few dollars short of their contracted2. price.   An estimate of the cost to ratepayers for the day’s generated and curtailed production would put it close to what it cost ratepayers for those exports, in the neighbourhood of $9 million.

While annual Ontario ratepayer demand fell over 5% in the seven years from 2008 to 2014 from 148 terawatts (TWh) to 139.8 TWh, the price increased at a rate exceeding inflation by a factor of 5:1. Much of it has to do with the addition of wind and solar generation to the grid, requiring it to be backed up with gas plants (a couple of which have been moved at a cost of $1.1 billion), transmission builds to bring both generation sources to urban communities, and spending (in excess of $3 billion) on conservation programs … all of these costs are absorbed by Ontario’s ratepayers!

Couple that with the cost of exporting our surplus generation to our neighbours and you have today’s outlook: Prices of electricity in Ontario are high and heading higher!

Time to cap the addition of more wind and solar generation, instead of burdening Ontario with a carbon price to further impact disposable income(s) while we are all trying to cope with the relentless climb in electricity prices.

Throwing $10 million a day over the fence to our neighbours has gone on long enough!

© Parker Gallant

  1. In 2008 wind generated .9 TWh and in 2015 to the end of September it has produced 5.9 TWh.
  2. IESO has not disclosed what wind generators are paid for curtailed production but rumour indicates it is only a couple of dollars less than the contracted rate.


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

Parker Gallant on rate increases, cheap power sell-offs, and customer manipulation

Parker Gallant's "peeves": Ontario electricity customers getting socked over and over
Parker Gallant: Ontario electricity customers getting socked over and over


Parker Gallant: recent pet peeves

Recently a number of issues from ruminations of Premier Kathleen Wynne and her appointed Ministers have driven me to distraction.  Couple those ruminations with the partial privatization of Hydro One and the promises to regulate it, as they have in the past, and it should make us all truly worried that the Ontario we grew up in is slowly sinking into the abyss!

I recently received a notice that the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) had reached their conclusions about regulating the OESP (Ontario Electricity Support Program), telling us that we will see our rates increase 0.11cents per kilowatt when the program is fired up on January 1, 2016.  A report prepared by the OEB a year ago indicated 570,000 households (12% of electricity customers) in Ontario live in what is referred to as “energy poverty.”1. The OESP is seen by Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli as a way to deliver a social program to help those in that dilemma.

Normally a “social program” of this nature is delivered via the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but Minister Chiarelli has decided Ontario ratepayers should pick up the costs because Finance Minister Sousa is trying to reduce the provincial deficit.  The OEB estimates the OESP will cost $158.4 million annually of which $13.4 million will represent “administrative costs.”   In the scheme of things, $158.4 million means little, adding about $1.00 per month to the average (800 kilowatts per month) ratepayer bill, but that dollar will be “after-tax” and it is based on bureaucratic estimates which are generally low, or coloured to avoid advising us of the real cost.


Reflecting on the foregoing, the OEB just announced our rates went up $4.42 per month effective November 1st, 2015 and Minister Chiarelli told us the OCEB (Ontario Clean Energy Benefit) that reduced our bills by 10% would no longer apply effective January 1st.   Couple that with the major issue he made about ending collection of the debt retirement charge (DRC) and how it would save us money, one would think our rates will finally go down!

Will they?

Read the entire article here: Parker’s Recent Pet Peeves (PRPP)