Eco-Warriors are Strangling Energy Advances at a Cost to Consumers

Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

Back in 1989 Greenpeace Canada lost it’s charitable status with the CRA and they kept trying to get it back without success but suddenly in late 2020 for some reason the CRA suddenly allowed the newly formed Greenpeace Canada Education Fund to have charitable status. The latter claim they are “focused on research, investigations and education” and reputedly have engaged “more than 17,000 students from K-12 and 328 presentations across Canada”.  One should presume those engagements have been to scare our children and grandchildren that the world will end unless we deal with “climate change”. 

As a coincidence an unrelated “Google” search led to finding an entity called the Green Energy Coalition which has been an “intervenor” with the Ontario Energy Board and on occasions; jointly with Environmental Defence.  Members of the GEC are none other than; Greenpeace Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club of Canada…

View original post 370 more words

COVID for Easter?

2 years into a pandemic Ontario data collection, and reporting of such, aren’t much improved. Some thoughts as we enter another super-spreader event (a.k.a. holiday).
Hospitalizations are increasing – but not by so much as most think

With testing availability altered/restricted at the end of hospital statistics should be best, but only since January 10th do we have data to distinguish hospitalized due to COVID from hospitalized and incidentally…

Picturing science-y stuff

Data journalism was becoming a thing about the time I started blogging a little over a decade ago. One format for that once-novel data-driven journalism was presenting a single powerful graphic accompanied by text explaining the graphic in depth. Jump ahead 10 years and we see data hasn’t sparked the interest some of us hoped. Instead of building a narrative to explain data, it’s far more common to invent numbers to explain a narrative. I will use a single slide to illustrate, from a recent presentation of the “Science Table: COVID-19 Advisory for Ontario.“

I tracked down this information after reading a ridiculous sentence in a report from the mainstream media:

“If strong measures stay in place, the daily total could drop to below 1,000 at the beginning of June and a high of 2,000 by mid-July.”

Why would cases start to rise after June begins “if strong measures stay in place.” The linked report includes an embedded video which shows only the graph section of the above slide, but it’s text of the slide that explains the bizarre forecast.

Hurting Michigan

---

Parker Gallant has called for the Ontario government to “shutdown the intertie line with Michigan” – in an article that notes some of my work. I feel I should offer some support as Michigan is being a lousy neighbour and it would feel therapeutic, if nothing else, to respond.

I’ll try to stick to data.

The system operator in Ontario (IESO) data indicates the Michigan intertie is the most lucrative for exports – but that’s not saying much: exports at that intertie were bought in Ontario for an average of just 1.2 cents/kWh ($12/MWh) in 2020 – but were in such high demand another 0.9 cents/kWh of congestion rent was paid. Over the past 5 years congestion rents comprise 46% of the revenue on the Michigan intertie. The IESO’s insiders’ committees are considering sharing this revenue with exporters, whereas in the past its only benefitted internal Ontario consumers.

Action #1: hell no. Issue a ministerial directive that congestion rents will only benefit consumers in Ontario.

Thee to WE: the foundations of Canada’s Green Stimulus – part 2

The following is the second section of a work I’ve been preparing for my main site. As rumours of the federal government proceeding with the externally-developed policy framework I have been researching, and because of the length the work has grown to, I decided to post the work in parts here as sections are completed.  (Part 1)

---

The May 19th announcement of the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery (TFRR) ended with, “The work of the Task force will conclude in July with the release of a final report,” but by August only a “Preliminary Report” had been shared, and that document is more of a mind mapping exercise than a reporting one. The mapping listed, as Funders, the Ivey, McConnell, Schad and Echo Foundations. The appearance of Ivey wasn’t unexpected as the task force included Bruce Lourie, who is the President of the Ivey Foundation and a key player in previous “green” campaigns including ending coal-fired electricity generation in Ontario and the Green Energy Act.

The Ivey Foundation is built on very old money: “The raw material for the Ivey family’s prosperity lay in the tin-mining industry that enhanced the value of their Cornish lands in the late 1700s.”. The Foundation was created 73 years ago, in 1947 (although the younger Ivey co-founder lived until last year). Until researching this work I was most familiar with the Ivey as a co-founder of the Green Energy Act Alliance, and its relationship with Bruce Lourie. 

I’ve estimated the cost of the procurement inspired by the Ivey-supported Green Energy Act at $4 billion a year, for 20 years. Ivey associated damage could have gone well beyond that as the Financial Accountability Office Of Ontario estimated “a net cost to Ontarians of $21 billion” due to a Fair Hydro Plan defended by, and probably developed at, the Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre.

Thee to WE: the foundations of Canada’s Green Stimulus – part 1

The following is the beginning of a work I’ve been preparing for my main site. As rumours of the federal government proceeding with the externally-developed policy framework I have been researching, and because of the length the work has grown to, I’ve decided to post the work in parts here as sections are completed.

2020 is throwing a lot at us. 

The pandemic is the feature event for most, but there’s no shortage of other issues long discussed on my blog re-emerging. I started writing in 2010, not long after the passage of the Green Energy Act (GEA) in my province of Ontario. The GEA was the cornerstone of a “building back better” recovery plan the last large economic downturn, and should therefore be a warning signal this crisis around. And yet… today many of the same people that lobbied for that failed experiment provincially have regrouped to push for a “resilient recovery” policy portfolio at the federal level. These weren’t good policies in 2010, and they haven’t got any better, but this work will be more interested in how bad policy is built, and who is behind its construction.

The novel coronavirus COVID-19 has sucked much of the oxygen away from other topics, particularly since March (when I wrote on it and developed a report which continues to update daily). I’ll note that I hope people try the app, wear a mask indoors in public places, get outdoors, wash your hands when possible, use hand sanitizer when not and try to stay fit physically and mentally, – so you can continue to live your life having tried to protect yourself and others while recognizing all life should not be paused. Aside from that, I mention the pandemic as it’s the crisis featured in today’s “Never Let A Good Crisis Go to Waste” machinations.

As Canada comes out of the COVID-19 crisis, governments and the private sector will turn their attention to building a long-term economic recovery. Let’s make that recovery … Task Force for a Resilient Recovery

2020 hasn’t just thrown the pandemic at us. In Canada, bystanders like me are currently enjoying the WE charity[?] scandal. In a summer where Black Lives Matter movement has re-emerged I’ve, coincidentally, half-joked WE could stand for White Entitled. I’ll leave the non-joke half as a sub-text for what follows about the communications campaign, and related politics, powering the “Task Force for a Resilient Recovery” (TFRR) vehicle. It could be seen as part 3 in my ‘Carbon Con” series (parts 1 and 2),  or as a case study in how to develop experts to create the appearance of consensus among apparent experts  for the purpose or exercising power in setting government policy that is likely to work against the broader welfare of the public.

The Case for Near-term Commercial Demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor

This is a 2012 post from Barry Brook’s Brave New Climate, which was a tremendous blog but one that is no longer maintained – and was left with a presentation scheme that is illegible.

I’m currently in Dubai at the 2012 World Energy Forum, as part of a delegation from the Science Council for Global Initiatives. Tomorrow (24 Oct) we will run symposium on “New Nuclear”, which will be chaired by Tom Blees and feature talks from Dr Eric Loewen (GE), Dr Alexander Bychkov (IAEA), Dr Evgeny Velikhov (Kurchatov Institute) and me (Dr Barry Brook, University of Adelaide). I will also chair a session later in the afternoon on “Vision for a Sustainable Future”, just before the closing address.

Tom and Nicole Blees of SCGI stand in front of the World Trade Centre in Dubai, during the World Energy Forum, Oct 2012. The sign behind them makes for some interesting reading…

In preparation for this meeting and as a result of a focussed conference at University of California Berkeley in early October, a white paper on the Integral Fast Reactor was prepared by Tom and me, on behalf of SCGI, and has garnered signatories from 8 key countries, including prominent people not attending the Berkeley meeting, such as climatologist  Jim Hansen. The white paper is given below.

——————–

The Case for Near-term Commercial Demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor

Demonstrating a credible and acceptable way to safely recycle used nuclear fuel will clear a socially acceptable pathway for nuclear fission to be a major low-carbon energy source for this century. We advocate a hastened timetable for commercial demonstration of Generation IV nuclear technology, via construction of a prototype reactor (the PRISM design, based on the Integral Fast Reactor project) and a 100t/year pyroprocessing facility to convert and recycle fuel.

Rants about Ontario’s electricity system

“I personally hope those of you who read this will forgive my rants and start ranting with me and the others who do the same!”

I particularly enjoyed Parker’s first point, and the last two sections.

Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

Canada Day came and went without parades or fireworks to celebrate the 153^rd year of Canada’s birth as the Covid-19 pandemic lock-down kept many of us confined to small social bubbles.  The exceptions were those who chose to defy regulations and participated in anti-racism protests, both indigenous and anti-black ones across the country.  To most it seemed a strange way to celebrate our country’s successes. At least the weather was sunny and very warm in Ontario on July 1st!

Industrial Wind Turbines on Canada Day In Ontario

As is often the custom in Ontario on hot humid summer days, most of the IWT (industrial wind turbines) took the day off so the 4,800 MW of capacity they have was virtually silent.  Had they operated at 100% of capacity they would have delivered 115,000 MWh but instead they only managed to puff out 7,440 MWh and had 400 MWh curtailed…

View original post 919 more words

different perspectives: The Ontario Energy Association, and me

I saw a tweet the other day that seemed like the Ontario Energy Industry would be addressing an issue of interest to me:

#ELECTRICITY RATES: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Join us as Vince Brescia presents findings by the #OEA & @IFSD_IFPD on how to reduce rates by 12%. This research will be useful for Ontarians to consider as we grapple with this challenge ahead.

More info: https://t.co/G9wNyYL0UI pic.twitter.com/PqpmWR08aK

— Ontario Energy Association (OEA) (@energyontario) April 23, 2020

Turns out it was a lot less interesting than I thought.

My quick scan of the OEA’s “Help those who need help” paper finds little I agree with presented from a perspective that is foreign to me – and yet I agree with the action option they steer people to agree with:

OPTION 3: PHASE OUT ELECTRICITY COST REFINANCING SUBSIDIES
This option is the lowest cost option for provincial taxpayers. It would see bills remain stable, increasing by about 1.5% more than inflation each year until such time as electricity bills cover system costs. This option would result in electricity bills for Ontarians that are, on average, 13% below the cost plan inherited by the government, exceeding the government’s commitment.

I’m pretty sure the current Premier campaigned on actual cost controls, and not more interesting accounting –  not that accounting is useless.

The industry perspective that sees cost savings as raising consumer rates above inflation deserves to, at least, have it’s historical presentation challenged.

The magic of the phantom demand

The Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel (MSP) released a report on December 19th which attracted some attention:

“Over the 11- month period in question, the estimated impact on the HOEP and transmission loss uplift combined could have ranged as high as between $450 million to $560 million, although a simulation accounting for additional potential variables could yield lower estimates.”

Some big numbers, but upon investigating I initially generated a thread on Twitter which concluded, “the impact of this mostly-grey money forensic investigation is an imperceptible lessening of the cost shift from class B to class A consumers.” My position was supported when the system operator (IESO) responded to the MSP report:” IESO analysis shows a net market impact across all customer groups of less than $10 million.”

And that’s sort of the end of that hysteria, but since I looked I can’t shake the feeling something is very wrong with the analysis – from the OEB report to the IESO response and the reporting on what occurred.