Liberal incompetence to cost Ontarions over $130 BILLION

Boges · December 10, 2015

The regular market price in ON is $.20 per kwh???!!!.

No wonder industry is packing up the factories and moving anywhere else.

Absolutely f**king clueless,and we get the govt we deserve.

Not quite that bad yet. 17¢ for Onpeak. Like 8¢ for Off peak. But it'll keep going up exponentially.

But that's not even the bad part of the bill. They tack on delivery which can be very expensive if you don't live in an urban area.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Boges

waldo · December 10, 2015

I don't know how much green energy is compared to the price of producing energy through natural gas.

don't stop there!!! ... apparently, since you can't produce the breakout costing, you don't know the price compared to any of the other generating sources within Ontario. But don't let that stop you from forever wailing/whining on about the cost of "Green Energy in Ontario".

Boges · December 10, 2015

don't stop there!!! ... apparently, since you can't produce the breakout costing, you don't know the price compared to any of the other generating sources within Ontario. But don't let that stop you from forever wailing/whining on about the cost of "Green Energy in Ontario".

Are you claiming the prices are comparable to electricity generated by Natural Gas? If so then why the need for a FIT program?

waldo · December 10, 2015

Are you claiming the prices are comparable to electricity generated by Natural Gas? If so then why the need for a FIT program?

I'm claiming you go on forever... and ever... and ever... about Ontario 'Green Energy' electricity costs. I'm claiming you do so without ever providing any information/data that presents that electricity price in relation to the overall cost fully qualified to delineate respective costs per generating source. I'm claiming you don't care that you haven't... and apparently can't... provide qualified per generation source electricity costing for Ontario, particularly in regards to impacting factors like wholesale pricing, Global Adjustment, etc..

Boges · December 10, 2015

I'm claiming you go on forever... and ever... and ever... about Ontario 'Green Energy' electricity costs. I'm claiming you do so without ever providing any information/data that presents that electricity price in relation to the overall cost fully qualified to delineate respective costs per generating source. I'm claiming you don't care that you haven't... and apparently can't... provide qualified per generation source electricity costing for Ontario, particularly in regards to impacting factors like wholesale pricing, Global Adjustment, etc..

My claim was, in response to a status update, that if you're going to say that green energy will be a boon for everyone, then the generation of said power can't be subsidized via FIT.

Green Energy is unsustainable if it requires such a generous FIT. Now it seems other parts of the world can generate Green energy at a more competitive rate, why can't Ontario?

Ontario has the highest price of electricity in North America. Other places are experimenting with Green Energy, why can they keep the cost low.

You're see to be the expert, why can't you enlighten me instead of giving me homework to do?

I was actually surprised to find out that, today, Wind and Hydro actually account for more electricity generated in the province than Natural Gas.

http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

Why the continued need for a generous FIT?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Boges

waldo · December 10, 2015

My claim was, in response to a status update, that if you're going to say that green energy will be a boon for everyone, then the generation of said power can't be subsidized via FIT.

my claim is broader and speaks to your overall oft repeated... never substantiated... claims concerning Ontario 'Green Energy' costs. FIT is a standard energy investment policy approach. I'm quite certain you don't want to head down the path of comparing historical subsidies provided to renewables versus fossil-fuels.

.

Green Energy is unsustainable if it requires such a generous FIT. Now it seems other parts of the world can generate Green energy at a more competitive rate, why can't Ontario?

another broad based statement "other parts of the world"! And the only basis for your statement is a big-time FAIL where you proceed to highlight a graphic that compares Ontario FIT costing to average U.S. costs... again, a large-country population reference without regard to any information on what subsidies may or may not have been involved in determining those U.S. costs. Notwithstanding, that comparison is a limited small snapshot sampling, you completely ignore the reductions showing even in that short span.

.

Ontario has the highest price of electricity in North America. Other places are experimenting with Green Energy, why can they keep the cost low.

and here you go again! Your "other places" implication is to state, without substantiation, that the high price for Ontario electricity can be attributed to 'Green Energy'. C'mon MLW member Boges, support your repeated statements... break that Ontario electricity cost down and show just how much can be attributed to respective generating sources.

.

You're see to be the expert, why can't you enlighten me instead of giving me homework to do?

that's rich! You want someone else to do your research for you? You want someone else to help you support (or not :lol: ) your oft repeated unsubstantiated statements? As for your 'expert' snarc, I only need to be as expert as needed in pointing out your apparent inability to substantiate what you're stating/claiming.

.

I was actually surprised to find out that, today, Wind and Hydro actually account for more electricity generated in the province than Natural Gas.

http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

Why the continued need for a generous FIT?

Ontario FIT wasn't intended to change pricing for hydro, biogas, biomass and landfill gas... it also has a degree of offset/alternate investment relative to coal shuttering. That effective 5 year period is small relative to longer-term investment requirements.

.

Boges · December 10, 2015

The premiere herself said the increased cost is associated to the green energy program so I'm not sure how it's unsubstantiated.

And you're going to ignore the AGs report without refuting any points made.

And it's not critical OF Green Energy as much as the government ignoring internal advice repeatedly.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Boges

-1=e^ipi · December 11, 2015

so... in the context of Ontario electricity costs associated with ALL generating sources... you're presenting a chart showing a historical comparison of Ontario solar/wind FIT compared to U.S. average costs.

Market prices are determined by the marginal cost of producing electricity, not the average cost. And due to Ontario energy policy, the marginal cost mostly reflects renewables (minus subsidies of course).

Edited December 11, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

Argus · December 11, 2015

I'm claiming you go on forever... and ever... and ever... about Ontario 'Green Energy' electricity costs. I'm claiming you do so without ever providing any information/data that presents that electricity price in relation to the overall cost fully qualified to delineate respective costs per generating source. I'm claiming you don't care that you haven't... and apparently can't... provide qualified per generation source electricity costing for Ontario, particularly in regards to impacting factors like wholesale pricing, Global Adjustment, etc..

One of the reasons it can be hard to separate out the costs it that Ontario does its best to hide them. Hydro bills are a confusing mix of charges, most of them unexplained. However, if you look around you can find a few facts

Solar costs between 35 and 80 cents per kilowatt hour for an average of 50 cents per kwh. The vast difference is because small producer get paid more by the government than big ones.

Wind costs 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour but is basically only useful when the wind is blowing.

Natural gas costs 11 cents per kwh

Nuclear costs 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour

hydro costs 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour

https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/affordable/power-rates/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-to-cut-rates-paid-for-wind-solar-power-1.1157717

Edited December 11, 2015 by Argus

waldo · December 11, 2015

Market prices are determined by the marginal cost of producing electricity, not the average cost. And due to Ontario energy policy, the marginal cost mostly reflects renewables (minus subsidies of course).

no - in the context of this discussion, consumer costs, the bill electricity 'market clearing' price (as only one component of consumption pricing, the HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) component) is an hourly weighted average electricity cost over a respective bill's monthly period. That weighted average electricity price reflects on an ever changing supply versus demand influence; one subject to all generating supply sources within the energy mix makeup... ALL generating sources inclusive of baseload, intermittent and peaking sources. I am certainly keen for you to present something that supports your statement that Ontario market pricing, as reflects directly upon Ontario residents (and the bills they receive), mostly reflects upon renewables...

waldo · December 11, 2015

One of the reasons it can be hard to separate out the costs it that Ontario does its best to hide them. Hydro bills are a confusing mix of charges, most of them unexplained. However, if you look around you can find a few facts

Solar costs between 35 and 80 cents per kilowatt hour for an average of 50 cents per kwh. The vast difference is because small producer get paid more by the government than big ones.

Wind costs 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour but is basically only useful when the wind is blowing.

Natural gas costs 11 cents per kwh

Nuclear costs 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour

hydro costs 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour

https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/affordable/power-rates/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-to-cut-rates-paid-for-wind-solar-power-1.1157717

"does its best to hide them" - bunk/nonsense! I've gone down this path a few times in the past... my immediately preceding post spoke to one component of consumption pricing seen on Ontario resident's bills... let me play out a couple of past posts below that speak to the other half of consumption pricing, the more significant cost of the two consumption based components, the Global Adjustment. Now these are dated in relation to past threads... as much as MLW member Boges wanted to be handheld through his aversion to doing actual research... I'll leave it for you guys to find more current breakout numbers:

in 2005 the Ontario Government instituted the Global Adjustment (GA) charge as a means to collect from Ontario customers any shortfalls in the costs of generation contracts or regulated rates. Per a 2011-2012 Ontario Energy Board Report, since 2006 a breakdown of the sources behind GA charges has been:

- 45 percent is attributable to the Bruce Power and OPG nuclear units

- 28 percent is attributable to OEFC‟s NUG contracts and contingency financial support for OPG‟s coal-fired generation

- 13 percent is attributable to CES and early-mover gas-fired generation contracts

- 8 percent is attributable to other sources such as demand response and payments for the output of OPG‟s prescribed hydroelectric assets

- 6 percent is attributable to renewable assets, primarily wind and solar resources

Power Advisory LLC deconstructed a representative Ontario customer electric bill:

... electricity supply costs account for about half of the total average monthly bill of $154.42 for 2012. Delivery costs made up 30% of the total bill, taxes 12%, and the rest was split up between Regulatory Charges and the Debt Retirement Charge.

Of the supply costs, about half (49%) is paid to nuclear generators, 18% is for generation from hydroelectric sources, 15% is for gas-fired generation, and 6% is for coal. Wind is 5% of the total supply cost and solar, biomass and other sources make up the remaining 7%

Smoke · December 11, 2015

Just getting a chuckle out of Waldo. Actually trying to defend the record of incompetence from the provincial Liberals. Hahahahahaha

Argus · December 11, 2015

Just getting a chuckle out of Waldo. Actually trying to defend the record of incompetence from the provincial Liberals. Hahahahahaha

I knew he already knew the information I was going to post. His continued demands for it were simply a debating tactic.

Argus · December 11, 2015

"does its best to hide them" - bunk/nonsense! I've gone down this path a few times in the past... my immediately preceding post spoke to one component ,of consumption pricing seen on Ontario resident's bills... let me play out a couple of past posts to

Let me ignore your past posts since I have on interest in your attempts at deflection.

The complaint is that renewable costs far more than fossil fuels or nuclear, and the more of it we have, then the higher energy costs will be. We cannot keep adding on solar power generation when it costs 50 cents per kwh when nuclear costs one tenth as much.

waldo · December 12, 2015

Just getting a chuckle out of Waldo. Actually trying to defend the record of incompetence from the provincial Liberals. Hahahahahaha

I encourage you to actually attempt to contribute meaningful content to the thread discussion... anyone can 'drive-by snipe'!

waldo · December 12, 2015

Let me ignore your past posts since I have on interest in your attempts at deflection.

The complaint is that renewable costs far more than fossil fuels or nuclear, and the more of it we have, then the higher energy costs will be. We cannot keep adding on solar power generation when it costs 50 cents per kwh when nuclear costs one tenth as much.

speaking to recent/current costs actually appearing on Ontario residential electricity bills is, apparently, a most inconvenient "deflection" to you! :lol:

Ontario needs and will continue to need into the future new electricity generating capability. A quick glance at the most recent U.S. EIA levilized costs for new generation resources ($/MWh)... without subsidies... shows that the average LCOE ($/MWh) for wind is significantly less than nuclear as well as significantly less than most variants of natural gas fired generation (while being slightly less than 'conventional combined cycle natural gas' and only a single dollar more than 'advanced combined cycle natural gas')... notwithstanding the decade it takes to plan/build/deploy a nuclear plant.

I can't seem to (easily) find a complete accounting of published levelized costing for NEW Ontario electrical generation resources - perhaps that onus to present those costs should rest with you, yes? Your prior provided (pro-nuclear) reference link doesn't qualify the type of costing or distinguish between existing versus new deployments.

in regards solar, certainly residential rooftop solar continues to be higher priced; however, broadly, that's not the case in terms of "utility scale ground mount Solar PV (crystalline or thin film). As I interpret, the high cost of solar in Ontario reflects upon a questionable approach taken within the incentive tariff program... rather than technology focused. One figure I've found is that it added, on average, $57 dollars to an Ontario household's full year costing in 2013... less than $5 per bill for the year.

Bob Macadoo · December 12, 2015

As I interpret, the high cost of solar in Ontario reflects upon a questionable approach taken within the incentive tariff program... rather than technology focused. One figure I've found is that it added, on average, $57 dollars to an Ontario household's full year costing in 2013... less than $5 per bill for the year.

Wasn`t that the focus of this thread before all your rants? The mismanagement of the FIT program, etal. that produces this inflated cost. The gov't thought if they overpaid (for a period) they'd suck in the big players (manufacturers/producers) to sustain the market after they pulled out. Well I look around and the big guns aren't here and we are still propping it up. When do we get the eraser out?

Look at the deal Bruce Power just got to delay refurbs until 2020. This will hurt.

As for your percentage breakdown, that was a reflection of the energy mix not AUP. Now that coal is gone, hydro/renewables have gone up and nuclear has had a dip the prices would be different. Could you delineate the AUP from those 2 datapoints? Maybe, but your data reflects nil to your point.

Argus · December 12, 2015

speaking to recent/current costs actually appearing on Ontario residential electricity bills is, apparently, a most inconvenient "deflection" to you!

Given those bills are deliberately designed to obscure the costs, yes.

Ontario needs and will continue to need into the future new electricity generating capability.

Ontario has far more energy generating capacity than it needs. And given the disastrous mismanagement of the economy and the apparent deliberate attempt by the Liberals to destroy all manufacturing in Ontario, I don't think we'll need a lot more any time soon.

A quick glance at the most recent U.S. EIA levilized costs for new generation resources

Not interested in non-Canadian numbers

I can't seem to (easily) find a complete accounting of published levelized costing for NEW Ontario electrical generation resources - perhaps that onus to present those costs should rest with you, yes? Your prior provided (pro-nuclear) reference link doesn't qualify the type of costing or distinguish between existing versus new deployments.

Go to town.

We estimate that solar and wind systems provide just under 4 percent of Ontario’s power but account for about 20 percent of the average commodity cost.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/what-goes-up-ontarios-soaring-electricity-prices-and-how-to-get-them-down.pdf

Edited December 12, 2015 by Argus

waldo · December 12, 2015

Wasn`t that the focus of this thread before all your rants? The mismanagement of the FIT program, etal. that produces this inflated cost. The gov't thought if they overpaid (for a period) they'd suck in the big players (manufacturers/producers) to sustain the market after they pulled out. Well I look around and the big guns aren't here and we are still propping it up. When do we get the eraser out?

MLW member Boges brought a status update exchange into this thread - that focus was electricity prices Ontario residents pay. MLW member Argus certainly extended on that theme with an emphasis on an (undeclared type of) costing per Ontario resource type... a costing that didn't differentiate between existing and new deployments. Your second sentence, as quoted, presumes to attribute increased costs that Ontario residents face solely to the FIT program (for solar/wind).

I'm shocked that you 'anti-Greeners' would attempt to speak to overall costing and isolate that solely on incentive tariff programs for wind/solar. Shocked I tells ya!

apparently, to you, something you don't agree with... or asking questions... or providing a broader perspective, that is, as you say, a "rant"!

.

Look at the deal Bruce Power just got to delay refurbs until 2020. This will hurt.

hurt? Easy for you to say... but why? This CBC article certainly doesn't give me any suggestion of your declared "hurt" in delaying the refurbishment of nuclear plants... by 4 years. Again, why?

.

As for your percentage breakdown, that was a reflection of the energy mix not AUP. Now that coal is gone, hydro/renewables have gone up and nuclear has had a dip the prices would be different. Could you delineate the AUP from those 2 datapoints? Maybe, but your data reflects nil to your point.

I noted the 2012 datedness and encouraged MLW member Argus to provide more timely information/data... I note you haven't provided anything other than your unsubstantiated opinion. Perhaps you could assist your compatriots, yes?

.

waldo · December 12, 2015

Given those bills are deliberately designed to obscure the costs, yes.

information is available. I even provided an earlier breakdown of that bill pricing as done by independent consulting firm, Power Advisory LLC.

.

Ontario has far more energy generating capacity than it needs. And given the disastrous mismanagement of the economy and the apparent deliberate attempt by the Liberals to destroy all manufacturing in Ontario, I don't think we'll need a lot more any time soon.

notwithstanding the extended time frame to design/plan/build/deploy certain types of generating sources, I'm keen to see you support your statements on generating capacity, current versus projected requirement timelines.

.

Not interested in non-Canadian numbers

perhaps you should speak to your compatriot MLW member Boges... or the AG herself... comparing to U.S. costs seemed 'de rigeur' for them! Aren't you the guy who quite regularly references other countries in your zeal to compare Canada/Ontario to them... that's not you? So you're only selectively interested, hey?

.

Go to town.

We estimate that solar and wind systems provide just under 4 percent of Ontario’s power but account for about 20 percent of the average commodity cost.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/what-goes-up-ontarios-soaring-electricity-prices-and-how-to-get-them-down.pdf

now the question is, should I accept this veritable freebee you tossed me... or not? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't actually know who Ross McKitrick is. I'll simply leave it to describing McKitrick as a "fake skeptic" with a "do nothing, delay at all costs" position on AGW/CC.

on the other hand, do you think it wise to push/tout a McKitrick/Fraser Institute article that recommends re-opening 4 of the now shuttered Ontario coal plants while putting a moratorium on new wind/solar/hydro deployments? You ask me to "go to town" - I'll match your "go fetch" link with one of my own... as originates from that same "Power Advisory LLC"... a quite short review that points out the glaring inadequacies, methodology failings and assumptions within that McKitrick/Fraser Institute article you dropped:

McKitrick and Adams focus on one component of the electricity bill: the {global adjustment} GA. The GA is one of two components of the wholesale supply cost, with the other being the market price of electricity (the Hourly Ontario Energy Price, or HOEP). The GA varies inversely with HOEP because of the way that nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, gas and other plants are paid: when HOEP is low and generating plants earn less from the market, they are topped up out of the GA. As a result, any change in HOEP is approximately offset by an inverse change in the GA , with virtually no net change in consumers’ bills.

Given the inverse relationship between the GA and HOEP, it is more useful to analyze and forecast the wholesale supply cost, which is the sum of the two, rather than each separately, because consumers pay the sum. But even this is not the full picture because consumers’ bills include a number of other components, including transmission, distribution and regulated charges. The Debt Recovery Charge of 0.7¢/kWh ($7/MWh), for example, is largely due to Ontario’s nuclear plants and their stranded debt, but is not included in the wholesale supply cost. Power Advisory estimates that wind and solar each contribute approximately 7% of the wholesale supply cost, and 4% of a typical consumers’ total electricity bill.

.

.

Wind has contributed to the increase in the GA over the last ten years, as wind contract costs are paid in part out of the GA. As discussed above, this amounts to approximately 4% of the total electricity bill of a typical consumer. Contrary to McKitrick and Adams’ claim, there is no secondary impact.

.

.

Table 4 on page 17 of McKitrick and Adams’ report shows the results of their econometric model. Having left out HOEP, the price of natural gas, and even a time trend, the only two conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from their results are:

- A variable that has tended to increase over time, such as the GA, is positively correlated with other variables that have increased over time, such as wind generation and wind capacity, solar generation, new hydro capacity and exports, and negatively correlated with variables that have decreased over time, such as coal generation and imports.

- Regression equations with large numbers of independent variables can, after sufficient iterations, result in high R2.

As every first-year student of statistics is taught, correlation is not causation. The fact that wind capacity, for example, is correlated with the GA does not mean the increase in wind capacity caused the increase in the GA (any more than it means that the increase in the GA caused the increase in wind capacity); it merely means that both increased over time.

Another truism is that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” While McKitrick and Adams’ analysis proves nothing about why the GA has increased, it is nonetheless true that wind and solar have contributed to this increase – though far less than what McKitrick and Adams estimated. Power Advisory estimates that wind is now responsible for approximately 8% of the GA, and solar for 9%, up from zero in 2005 when there was virtually no wind or solar generation in Ontario. Of more relevance to consumers, both wind and solar contribute approximately 4% to a typical consumer’s total electricity bill.

.

.

Ontario’s electricity system is complicated, and in Power Advisory’s opinion cannot be captured in a simplistic linear regression model. Power Advisory uses multiple models to analyze and forecast HOEP, but these use what McKitrick and Adams refer to as “an accounting methodology”, in that they explicitly track the fundamental factors and the relationships between them. In fact, the accounting methodology which we use to estimate the GA is essentially the same methodology that is used to set electricity rates for most low-volume customers in Ontario.

Power Advisory’s analysis indicates that the increase in wind and gas generation is one of a number of factors that have contributed to increases in the cost of electricity in Ontario. Any new source of supply is likely to be more expensive than Ontario’s existing nuclear and hydro plants which have been in service for decades and have largely been depreciated. Whether consumers’ bills would have been lower if Ontario had followed some other path that excluded wind and solar is a complex question that cannot be answered with a simplistic regression model.

.

Keepitsimple · December 13, 2015

information is available. I even provided an earlier breakdown of that bill pricing as done by independent consulting firm, Power Advisory LLC.

.

notwithstanding the extended time frame to design/plan/build/deploy certain types of generating sources, I'm keen to see you support your statements on generating capacity, current versus projected requirement timelines.

.

.

Oh c'mon Waldo - these guys have been incompetent, corrupt or both for more than a decade. It's unfortunate that there hasn't been an alternative that's canny enough to know hoe to defeat an opponent that is so clearly enmeshed with labour. Tim Hudak was a dufus - I guess we'll just have to wait for sanity to prevail.

Get a grip Waldo - even by Liberal standards, these guys don't deserve your obsequience!

Bob Macadoo · December 13, 2015

Given those bills are deliberately designed to obscure the costs, yes.

They aren't. Do you see the whole breakdown on mix of costs and profits in any bill you get? In fact I find transparent than most. Analysis is out there for breakdowns if you look.

Ontario has far more energy generating capacity than it needs. And given the disastrous mismanagement of the economy and the apparent deliberate attempt by the Liberals to destroy all manufacturing in Ontario, I don't think we'll need a lot more any time soon.

Not as simple as that with Pickering Nuclear shuttering it's doors ...currently... in 2020. Thats 3000 MW baseload gone at the same time the first unit is down at Bruce (800 MW) and the last unit (maybe....but likely not) at Darlington (800 MW). That's alot of imported power. Edited December 13, 2015 by Bob Macadoo

Keepitsimple · December 13, 2015

Not as simple as that with Pickering Nuclear shuttering it's doors ...currently... in 2020. Thats 3000 MW baseload gone at the same time the first unit is down at Bruce (800 MW) and the last unit (maybe....but likely not) at Darlington (800 MW). That's alot of imported power.

If that actually happens, it's just another example of the gross incompetence/corruption of the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals - wouldn't you say?

Bob Macadoo · December 13, 2015

If that actually happens, it's just another example of the gross incompetence/corruption of the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals - wouldn't you say?

That was a result of inaction after the Rae-Darlington construction fiasco and the knee jerk Harris-Hydro dereg. The McGuinty Coal mothballing surely didn't help. Just like the hole left in the workforce due to the boom/bust cycle of baby boomers the same can be said for power. There is a gaping hole after Darlington construction with nothing......things age and need refit/replace. NIMBY was alive and politicians were more than happy to oblige. Inaction kills just as much as action.

overthere · December 13, 2015

It seems the Ontario strategy to avoid costly increases to generating capacity is to decrease demand by driving all business out of province/country. So far, so good.