Category Archives: Cost Benefit

What’s the plan Premier?

connecting GEA

“…neither the environment nor the economy is served by aggressive environmental policies that prove to be economically unsustainable. The energy transition requires good planning and sustained momentum.

But the province has yet to revise its policies to reflect this lesson. For instance, it has not repealed the Green Energy Act which set overly expensive rates and led to overly generous long-term electricity contracts. It has suspended, but not cancelled, the second round of its Large Renewable Energy Procurement (LRP II) process, despite forecasts showing that this additional electricity supply will not be needed.”

To build a cost-effective, low carbon, reliable and resilient electricity system, Ontario must learn from its mistakes and face its challenges and risks.

Written By: John Haffner, Mark Cameron, Jim Burpee
April 20, 2017  

READ ARTICLE: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2017/ontario-still-needs-an-electricity-policy-plan/

Cameron-fig1_en

 

Motion to Halt Industrial Wind Turbines- Queen’s Park

sam oosterhoff- queens park
Motion tabled at Queen’s Park to halt industrial wind turbines by MPP Oosterhoff

(Queen’s Park)  April 6, 2017

Niagara West-Glanbrook MPP Sam Oosterhoff :
“The Liberal government forced turbines on municipalities across rural Ontario against the wishes and concerns of residents and communities such as West Lincoln,” said Oosterhoff. “This stubborn initiative of the Liberals shows no respect for municipalities or for the ordinary concerns of Ontarians.”
“Industrial wind turbines are one of the causes of our sky-rocketing energy costs because of the unaffordable contracts made by the Liberals,” noted Oosterhoff. “Heat or eat is not a decision people should have to make.”
“The Liberals have a long history of ignoring municipalities and local residents. The NDP pretend to support local decision-making, but instead they supported the legislation that left municipalities without a voice on the placement of industrial turbines,” said Oosterhoff. “Tomorrow, they will have a chance to make amends and show respect for our communities by voting for my Motion.”
Motion:
“That in the opinion of this House, the Government should place a moratorium on the installation of industrial wind turbines in unwilling host communities in the Province of Ontario.”
Debate on the Motion:   
Media Articles:
Recorded vote:
vote of IWT motion

MPP Oosterhoff tables motion to Stop Industrial Wind Turbines

sam oosterhoff- queens park
MPP  Niagara West-Glanbrook: Sam Oosterhoff    Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Today, I tabled a motion in the Legislature to place a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development, that will be debated this coming Thursday, April 6. Queen’s Park

SHARE this post if you want to see the Liberals stop the wind turbines!

Across Niagara, and across the province, residents and municipalities have seen industrial wind turbines shoved down their throats by a government that fails to recognize local decision making.

My motion reads as follows:

“That, in the opinion of this house, the Government should place a moratorium on the installation of industrial wind turbines in unwilling host communities in the Province of Ontario.”

MPP Sam Oosterhoff for Niagara West-Glanbrook

Wind Turbines --- say NO

COMPLETE A FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE AMHERST ISLAND WIND PROJECT

snowy-owlIMMEDIATE RELEASE

STELLA- March 23, 2017  

Following the Ontario Energy Minister’s statement that there is a robust supply of energy for decades to come, the Association to Protect Amherst Island  (APAI) called on the Provincial Auditor-General, Bonnie Lysyk, to examine why the provincial Liberal Government is not exercising its right to terminate an expired wind turbine contract signed in February 2011 and save the Ontario taxpayers more than $500MM over the next 20 years. Windlectric, a subsidiary of Algonquin Power and Utilities Corporation, continues with plans to build a 75 MW wind project on Amherst Island that would produce unnecessary and expensive electricity costing  $140 per MWh.

Although Premier Wynne admitted that the “green energy” policy is a mistake and that the electricity rates were too high, the Association’s numerous attempts to have the project terminated have been ignored.  Michèle Le Lay, APAI President, questioned the Liberal Government’s logic: “Why is the Government proceeding with the industrialization and the destruction of the natural and cultural heritage of a community, allowing twenty-six, 50-storey-tall wind turbines to be built in bird and bat migratory routes, endangering at-risk species’ habitats and at the same time, risking the health and safety of the people who live there for unneeded, costly energy?”

She explained that: “Right across the channel from the Island, the Lennox and Addington Gas Plant operates at less than 3% capacity and the new Napanee Generating Station being built right beside it is slated to operate at about 30% capacity.  Even worse, in early 2017, the Ministry of Energy forced the closure of Northland Power Generation Station (across from the Island) that offered to provide electricity to the grid for $59 per MWh. Something is not right about all of this”. She added : “The Liberal Government could save the Ontario taxpayers and electricity consumers between $400- and $600-million dollars over 20 years by cancelling the Windlectric contract”.

“Ontario taxpayers could use a break on their electricity bills.  Why pour more money into the pockets of a large utility at taxpayers’ and electricity consumers’ expense?” said Mayo Underwood, a resident of the Island.

A formal letter has been sent to the Auditor-General of Ontario seeking a financial investigation on why the Ontario Government refuses to terminate an expired wind turbine contract and agrees to pay for the next 20 years a wind company the highest rate ever ($140 MWh estimated average rate) for unneeded electricity.

 

Contact(s):  Michèle Le Lay (613) 929-2979  or  protectai@kos.net

Protect Amherst Island 

 

There is good money and there is bad

siemens-indiana-672x372To the Editor:

The proposed industrial wind turbine “farm” is not welcomed by the majority of the people. It will inhibit our view of the sky, cause health problems for people and animals, and cost this community, and surrounding communities a fortune in lost property values and revenue.

At a recent town hall meeting in Hopkinton, one of the contract holders stated, “Where is National Grid based?” This was in response to the issue of Iberdrola being out of Spain. Well, this was the most pathetic attempt at drawing a parallel that I’ve heard, so far.

Dear Mr. Contract Holder, National Grid does not require me to erect anything on my property that robs my neighbors of their health and property values. National Grid does not sneak into our community, like a snake in the grass, to pit me against my neighbors to further their subsidy mining. National Grid is providing a necessary evil, I’d love to be off grid.

I could go on, but I want to tell you about the woman who spoke before him. She stood up to tell us how she needed this contract to pay her taxes. Her tax burden was too heavy. She went on to talk about how the house across the road from her had been on the market for three years and hadn’t sold.

Maybe it’s because her property, directly across the road is contracted to house industrial wind turbines? And that’s part of disclosure to potential buyers. Could she possibly have her Iberdrola blinders on too tight? There are a lot of elderly people in our community. They will be passing on, who’s going to buy their properties with industrial wind turbines hulking over them? And you, Mr. and Mrs. contract holder, what if no one wants to buy or inherit your property when you pass on. God willing, my husband and I will be alive for another 50 years or more.

We don’t want to deal with your shortsightedness. Some of you are very near the end of your lives, at least statistically. When you’re gone, people will either lament your passing, or want to forget what you did to our community. Will your families want to be associated with the so and so’s of Hopkinton/Parishville, who destroyed the quality of life for an entire community, to make a buck?

Finally I’d like to state that we don’t hate people for their mistakes, and implore the same from you. If you’re a contract holder, you have most assuredly made a mistake. Iberdrola is a $44 billion company. Blindsided, you were no match for them. It’s a mistake we may have made, if we were in your shoes. We have seven children, five still living at home. Money is important, and fun! But there’s good money and bad money.

Whether God allows this project to come to completion or not, all of us need to put our differences on this matter aside and rise above the mess that Iberdrola has brought to our community.

Jim and Angela Spear

Parishville, New York

Published- North County NowMarch 16, 2017:  http://northcountrynow.com/letters/opinion-put-differences-aside-wind-tower-matter-say-parishville-couple-0194077

Wynne’s 50 billion dollar ‘mistake’

elephant in the roomPremier Wynne’s $50-billion elephant – Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

Do a Google search of “premier wynne+elephant in the room” you get 1,140,000 hits while a search for just “premier wynne” only gets 486,000 hits. The word “elephant” has been used by Ontario’s premier on a number of occasions. For example, the “elephant” popped up at one of the expensive Ontario Liberal Party fundraising dinners a year ago where she declared, referring to the provincial deficit, “So while some want to characterize Ontario’s deficit as the elephant in the room, I think a panda is the more appropriate metaphor,” she said. “Truly, Jia Panpan and Jia Yueyue [visiting pandas at the Toronto Zoo] were adorable. But the pandas are leaving Ontario in 2018, and in 2017-18 our deficit will be gone, too.”

The “elephant” has returned for her government in the form of high electricity prices but instead of cute little “pandas,” Premier Wynne was forced to call them her “mistake”!

Let’s look at that elephant now.

The recent release of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) 2016 annual report provides enough information to allow one to figure out exactly what created the elephantine mistake and where to point the finger. To do that we will compare the results of 2016 to 2009* and show the cause of the above market climb in electricity prices.

Price Comparison

IESO’s (Independent Electricity System Operator) data discloses the cost of electricity generation in 2009 was 6.22 cents/kWh or $62.20 per megawatt hour (MWh) or $62.2 million/TWh (terawatt hour) and in 2016 was 11.32 cents/kWh or $113.20/MWh or $113.2 million/TWh. The increase from 2009 to 2016 represents a jump of 82% in only seven years and in simple terms, is a jump of 11.7% annually.

Using the above prices to show the full cost of electricity generation in those two years is accomplished by multiplying total generation by the cost per TWh so:

Total generation 2009: 148 TWh X $62.2 MM= $9,205 MM

Total generation 2016: 149.5 TWh X $113.2 million = $16,923 MM

(Source: IESO)

That means an increase of $7,718 million (+83.8%) in the raw cost of the commodity-electricity.

Finding the “mistake”

Why did the cost jump 83.8%?

Let’s start with the generation produced by OPG who, according to their 2009 annual report generated 92.5 TWh and 78.2 TWh in 2016. Bruce Nuclear in 2009 generated 35.7 TWh and in 2016 they generated 46.1 TWh. Collectively OPG plus Bruce generated 128.2 TWh in 2009 and that represented 86.6% of total generation (148 TWh) by all generators that year. In 2016 the collective total was 124.3 TWh which represented 83.1% of all generation (149.5 TWh) in that year as reported by IESO.

Costing the generation

2009

For OPG: The costing of generation coming from OPG is a relatively simple task requiring only their gross revenue for the year divided by the generation they reported. For 2009 gross revenue was $5,640 million for the 92.5 TWh delivered making the all-in cost $61 million/TWh.

For Bruce Nuclear: The reported price paid to Bruce was $65.90/MWH. So, for the 35.7 TWh they generated, the gross revenue generated was $2,352 million or $65.9 million /TWh.

The combined costs of $5,640 million from OPG plus the $2,352 million from Bruce was $7,992 billion to produce 128.2 TWh making the combined cost per TWh $62.34 million or 6.23 cents/kWh.

As noted above, total costs for all generation reported by IESO for 2009 was $9,205 million meaning $1,213 million ($9,205 million less OPG/Bruce combined of $7,992 million) was spent to acquire the 19.8 TWh generated by the other private generators, making their costs per TWh $61.3 million or 6.13 cents/kWh. (Note: 9.8 TWh was generated by OPG’s coal plants in 2009.)

2016

For OPG: As noted above OPG in 2016 generated 78.2 TWh and their gross revenue was $5,653 million making their generation cost per TWh $72.3 million (7.23 cents/kWh). Included in OPG’s gross revenue was a $207 million payment for hydro spillage of 4.7 TWh due to SPG2. (surplus base-load generation).

For Bruce Nuclear: Bruce in 2016 generated 46.1 TWh at a reported cost of $66 million/TWh making so gross revenue was $3,043 million including the cost of steaming off almost 1 TWh due to SBG.

The combined costs of $5,653 from OPG plus the $3,043 million from Bruce was $8,696 million to produce 124.3 TWh making the combined cost per TWh $70 million or 7.0 cents/kWh.

Cost of the “other” generation

The all-in costs for generation for 2016 was, as noted above, $16,923 million. If one deducts the combined costs of OPG and Bruce Nuclear for their generation in 2016 ($8,696 million) the balance of $8,227 million went to pay for the 25.2 TWh produced by other generators. Simply dividing the $8,227 million by the 25.2 TWh creates a cost per TWh of $326.5 million or 32.7 cents/kWh. ***

Had the 25.2 TWh cost ratepayers $70 million/TWh, or the same as the OPG/Bruce Nuclear generation combination (25.2 TWh X $70 million = $1,764 million), Ontario ratepayers would not be on the hook for the $6.9 billion in excess costs! ($8,227 million – $1,764 million= $6,932 million or the very high $326.5 million/TWh)

In just one year’s data, compared to 2009, we have located many of the reasons for higher electricity costs. The Premier now claims $50 billion was needed to invest in transmission and generation but her “mistake” was in not seeing the costs would go up more than 83%, principally related to the acquisition of intermittent, unreliable renewable energy from wind and solar!

There may be even more elephants in this particular room.elephant in the room 2

*The choice of 2009 is related to the Legislative passage of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) in the Spring of that year creating the FIT and MicroFIT programs and subsequent acquisition of renewable energy at above market prices.

**Surplus Base-load Generation is simply anticipated “base-load less Ontario demand”.

***The per TWh cost reflects the FIT contracted generation for industrial wind turbines, solar panels, bio-mass along with curtailed wind, conservation spending, the cost of selling our surplus power to other jurisdictions at only 15% of its cost, etc. etc.

READ AT:  https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/premier-wynnes-50-billion-elephant/

 

Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

wind-blown

Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

March 8, 2017

While the Premier was promising relief for Ontario electricity customers (and blaming lots of other people), more proof of the government’s mistakes was occurring …

The press conference and press release on March 2nd for Premier Wynne’s announcement on reducing electricity bills by 25% took a full hour — she and Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault hung around to answer questions from the media.

The speech and the press release were a mea culpa — she apparently hadn’t noticed rates had climbed and referred to those high rates as the “elephant in the room.” She laid the blame on all previous governments in her answers to questions, for example:

Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.

The decision to eliminate Ontario’s use of coal and produce clean, renewable power, as well as policies put in place to provide targeted support to rural and low-income customers, have created additional costs.

If the premier was genuinely interested in the cause for high electricity bills she could have looked no farther back than her immediate predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty brought Ontario the Green Energy Act and the misinformed, unfounded belief that getting power from industrial wind turbines and solar panels, while paying at price multiples of other available reliable power, would work!

Those wind turbines and solar panels were generating power out of phase with Ontario demand even during her news conference, for which ratepayers are paying as much as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh).

During the news conference hour, Ontario ratepayers consumed 17,300 megawatt hours (MWh); 85% of that consumption was provided by nuclear (10,000 MWh) and hydro (4,900 MWh). The balance came from gas, wind, solar and biomass. The average generation cost of nuclear and hydro generation was about $59/MWh (5.9 cents/kWh) and $191/MWh (19.1 cents/kWh) for the 15% provided by gas, wind, solar and biomass. The former costs include the “water tax” on hydro generation and the “decommissioning and fuel disposal” costs of nuclear whereas the latter does NOT include the cost of curtailed wind, idling costs of gas plants or the costs of moving those two gas plants from Oakville and Mississauga to save Liberal seats during the McGuinty era!

Also during that hour, Ontario exported 1,075 MWh to Michigan and 1,203 MWh to New York. Those 2,078 MWh (20% of Ontario’s demand) were sold to our neighbours at an average of $11.38/MWh (1.14 cents/kWh). The exports cost about $202,000, under the contract terms, yet resulted in just $23,000 of revenue to offset that cost. Ontario ratepayers picked up the loss of $179,000.

In fact, for that whole day, “net exports” hit Ontario’s ratepayers with a cost of $2.4 million.

Admitting she made a “mistake” while blaming decades of previous “governments of all stripes” is not a solution. And the 25% reduction in bills isn’t real, either: Premier Wynne is kicking the can down the road and laying the burden of her mistake on taxpayers. She still doesn’t appear to have the political courage to admit she, Mr. McGuinty and their governments made a mistake believing the environmental non-government organizations who persuaded them to believe in a green dream that has now, negatively affected all ratepayers in the province, driving away jobs in the private sector.

The herd of elephants is still in the room. Premier Wynne should start clearing them out by cancelling all wind and solar contracts that have not put a shovel in the ground!

Source: Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

CANCEL WIND AND SOLAR CONTRACTS!!!

Toolkit for Turbines

house-surrounded-by-wind-turbines“Pressures to stop (new) wind energy production in Ontario have increased significantly since the controversial GEA. “

Opposition to wind turbines is facing a growing resistance not just in Ontario but globally. The acceptance and excitement over using an alternative way to generate electricity has  given way to the bitter nightmare  faced by abutting residents who are adversely impacted by these massive and intrusive structures. Courts worldwide are increasingly rendering decisions to compensate families and individuals who have been harmed.

The Toolkit document opines (give it a read and try not to choke on the obvious) as to why a few (smaller) turbines in a less densely populated rural area will meet with less resistance than clusters of hundreds (increasingly larger machines) placed adjacent to towns and settled areas.   It is suggested that entering into a more intimate relationship with wind development will mitigate the harms of not being able to give consent.

This is a false and misleading conclusion as landowners who host wind turbines have given witness that they too were harmed even when money was received.

“The ultimate goal is fairer and much less divisive turbine facility siting outcomes when governments and communities themselves decide that turbine development is the policy path they wish to pursue.”  Toolkit for Turbines: Wind Energy Development in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada

Harm from wind power will not be remedied with the stated goal. The document fails to address a fundamental flaw in reasoning- which is to examine if turbines justify the negative documented outcomes. Simply put the wind turbines are not fit for purpose. To continue to pursue an energy policy that accepts inflicting harm on a few without remedy and without proven benefits for the greater good is wilful blindness.

protest_02_72cd1___gallery
Protesters demonstrated in Oakville where Premier Kathleen Wynne was the guest speaker at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

Can’t Make This One Up

The absurdity for money making associated with wind power knows no limits.  Now you can purchase insurance to protect and maintain your cash flow when that pesky thing called weather interferes with your renewable energy installation.  No need to fret over wind or sun resources above or below par. Maintaining financial performance even with the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow (or blows too fast).

Weather Risk Transfer:

“For businesses and entities working in the renewable energy sector, the single greatest and most significant factor influencing availability and performance is weather. Wind and hydroelectric generators, in particular, face a persistent challenge as they look to manage the intermittency of wind and water resources.”

Source: http://www.gcube-insurance.com/en/coverage/weather-risk-transfer/ 

 

 

 

Controversial Donation tangles Lambton County Council

How does Lambton County end up taking money from a wind project it has been engaged in supporting residents bitter opposition to?  The County is being taken to task  over its recent action.  A staff report is to look at the process of how such tainted donations are accepted.

 

Agreeing that it’s too late to change the past, Lambton County Council has set new guidelines for handling possible donations from wind power companies.

Lambton’s Creative County Fund accepted a $200,000 donation from the Cedar Point II Wind Power Project in December.

Members of county council were not informed and many expressed concerns after, given the history of the project in Lambton County.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley hopes it never happens again.

“I think there was a great deal of disappointment and anger here, that the donation was accepted from a corporation, the industrial wind turbine group, who this county has been opposed to over the last three years and have gone to the courts to support the different organizations that have been fighting these industrial wind turbines,” says Bradley.

In the future, council has decided that all donations and financial or policy decisions pertaining to industrial wind turbines will be referred to county council.

County council also endorsed a motion from St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold, asking staff for a report on how the donation receipt process works.

READ AT: http://blackburnnews.com/sarnia/sarnia-news/2017/02/01/county-sets-new-guidelines-controversial-donation/