TORONTO — Ontario ratepayers will benefit from $790 million in savings thanks to the Government of Ontario’s decision to cancel and wind down 758 renewable energy contracts, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines Greg Rickford announced today…
All of the cancelled projects have not reached project development milestones. Terminating the projects at this early stage will maximize benefits for ratepayers.
Rickford also confirmed that the government intends to introduce a legislative amendment that, if passed, will protect hydro consumers from any costs incurred from the cancellation. Even after all costs are accounted for, ratepayers can expect to benefit from $790 million in savings from this one decision.
I thought a short post is in order as the incoming mainstream media reports are not informative or in any way helpful.
A spreadsheet I regularly update with data on industrial wind turbine (IWT) generation in Ontario is cited in Parker Gallant’s recent, Wind: worst value for Ontario consumers. The same post cites the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) commentary on Ontario’s recently released Long Term-Energy Plan 2017, which included:
New wind energy provides the best value for consumers to meet growing demand for affordable non-emitting electricity.
Let’s examine the “value” as electricity – as there is no market in Ontario for any subset of that commodity, including “affordable non-emitting”.
“The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.”
“The worth of something compared to the price paid or asked for it.”
By the first definition wind is clearly the least valued generation type in Ontario. Using only very basic hourly data sets of Hourly summary totals of grid-connected (Tx) generation by type, valued at the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP), value factor can be calculated. A value factor above 1 means more valuable than average, below 1 means less valuable, and the lowest number consistently means wind.
On July 26th Alberta’s electricity market hit its regulated peak price of $1000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and stayed there for hours 17, 18 and 19. The price soon dropped back down but the commentary continues.
Upon seeing there had been a price spike, I checked to how industrial wind turbines had performed and saw they’d performed exactly as I’d expected, with output dropping from hour 14 to hour 18.
I expected that as I’d seen it in 2014 and in 2012. I didn’t think this was a particularly big event. Prices have been very low in Alberta and this spike will do little to change the yearly average. Alberta is examining a capacity market, and the intent of those is to prevent high price hours – but Texas is an example of a jurisdiction thus far avoiding capacity markets/costs by upping the maximum peak market price. Theoretically, peak pricing can be healthy in encouraging new market entrants with peaking generation, or demand reduction, products. While seeing the one event as not particularly problematic, I did put some short thoughts up on twitter:
capacity credit of industrial wind turbines in Alberta is ~nil 30% renewable goal is 100% wrong-headed get the backbone clean 1st
Capacity credit is an awkward term I’ll return to.
A response to my tweet tagged Andrew Leach who later put some other suspects for the cost spike up on Twitter, including:
If you look at what pulled out of the market, you had BR5 and Milner out, and then one Keephills and one Sundance coal unit exit…
And, on top of having those 4 coal units out, two more ramped down and wind generation dropped…
As @JesseJenkins often points out, we need to re-think “base load” – AB had at least 6 “base load” coal plants out during summer peak.
“two more ramped down and wind generation dropped” is interesting. I’ll simply point to a recent post on flexibility as speculation on that point.
I rudely responded to the last point – which is the point the dreadful Pembina Institute now has a blog post picking up on.
So now I feel I must address the silly commentary from the time, and money, wasting Pembina and associates crowd.
The amount is about 2.4 times the production from the 40 megawatt (MW) “Northland Power Solar Facilities” over the past 12 months, according to the hourly generator output and capability reporting of Ontario’s system operator. Those facilities are located in the area of Cochrane, Ontario. While very north from the perspective of most Ontarians, Cochrane is only slightly north of the 49th parallel which forms Alberta’s southern border.
I’ve pulled data for the Northland facilities and the Grand Renewable Energy Park near Cayuga Ontario, roughly 650 km south of Cochrane. July is usually the peak month for total solar generation, and January can be the least productive. I’ve compared by hour using capacity factor due to the different sizes of the facilities, and will also note Ontario systems can be overbuilt – for instance, Grand Renewable has about 140 megawatts (MW) of DC panel capacity behind a 100 MW (AC) connection point. For my measurement the contracted (connection point) capacity is used in calculating the capacity factor.Read More »
A new post at the Energy Institute at Hass blog, Is the Duck Sinking?, discusses the growing appearance of negative pricing in California:
What do the negative prices tell us? At a fundamental level, they tell us that we have too much of a good and suppliers need to pay people to take it off their hands. Right now, California has too much renewable electricity. Emphasizing this point, a recent briefing from the California Independent System Operator [CAISO] noted that renewable “curtailments” were at record levels in March 2017, amounting to over 80 GWh, which is more than a typical day’s worth of solar production that month.
Is there anything to do about the negative prices? Negative prices certainly highlight the value of storage, where the basic idea is to buy low and sell high. Buying when prices are negative is especially lucrative…
Another solution is to expose more retail consumers to wholesale prices, or find other ways to encourage customers to respond to real-time prices. Economists have bemoaned the disconnect between wholesale and retail pricing for years…
If Catherine Wolfram’s post represents a significant concern for curtailments and negative pricing, it’s worth noting the situation in Ontario with Ontario’s system operator, the IESO.
It’s worth noting both because CAISO is noting the curtailment, and negative pricing, and it is acting on it.
This graphic, from the CAISO presentation noted above, shows monthly curtailment in their system:
written by Gary Mooney, and reproduced here with permission.
I contacted the Ministry of Energy by phone to ask if 20-year electricity generation contracts – e.g. wind and solar — were going to be extended to match the government’s new 30-year amortization period for capital expenditures.
The answer that I got back was:
* There will be no negotiations to extend contracts at this time.
* But generators will be offered the opportunity to continue producing electricity beyond the 20-year point, at the market price (or a negotiated price, not sure which was mentioned).
This is consistent with Minister Thibeault’s comment, in justifying a longer amortization period, that wind turbines have a useful lifetime of 30 years.
The idea of an extension of wind contracts will be a major concern to those living with turbines, as they have been expecting that the problem will go away after 20 years. And worse, if there are no negotiations now, these folks will have to live with uncertainty for anywhere from 10 years (the earliest contracts) to 20 years.
To make an extension of the amortization period work, the province needs continued power generation over the whole period out to thirty years, either:
I started receiving messages last night on a sorta report by Environmental Defence (ED), and as I am still receiving them, I thought I’d write some thoughts – if only to simply copy a link when again asked for my thoughts.
Here is how ED’s Keith Brooks begins a blog post on their latest “work”:
Electricity prices in Ontario have risen in recent years, putting the squeeze on some Ontario residents and businesses. There are many reasons for the increase in electricity prices and renewable energy is one of them. However, the role of renewables in diving up electricity bills has been vastly exaggerated.
I wrote on a poor 2014 ED work and noted their new backgrounder contains a graphic with the same information as Figure 1 of their 2014 work. Without acknowledging any level of competency in the compilation of data for either ED graphic, here’s the elements of residential electricity bills as they report them for 2016 and 2014:
Perhaps the “role of renewables in driving up electricity bills” is perceived as being significant because:
Did a single by-election loss cause this awakening?
In this day of politicians seemingly and completely incapable of climbing down from heavily entrenched positions, this seems to represent at least some progress – admitting there’s a problem.
Upon hearing this news, my mind went to what the government would do to provide relief – the depth, breadth and source of funds. Since 2003, we’ve had a number of dubious band-aid solutions, including a retroactive price freeze, the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, an end to the Debt Retirement Charge (for residential consumers) and the Ontario Electricity Support Payment. What would be next?
We now know it’ll be a removal of the 8% provincial sales tax — for those who vote and perhaps small business. Estimates have put the cost at $ 1 billion per year – suggestive of a base of $ 12.5 billion per year. That looks to me something like 70 TWh at 18 cents/kWh or perhaps slightly more energy at a slightly lesser rate. The Regulated Price Plan is about 58 TWh per year and excludes those on retail contracts, so perhaps the threshold will be 250,000 kWh per year.
The inappropriateness of this new measure should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of energy policy instinct and yet the policy will have appeal for some. For all but the latter group, one has to wonder: does the government think we’re all stupid?
Some of the reactions have been bang-on, including Ontario Regional Chief Isadore Day’s reference to the move as a “shell game” and a Globe and Mail editorial referring to the move and electricity file as a “total mess”.
Yesterday Ontario’s system operator released a number of reports. Personally these reports provide opportunities to check the performance of the system compared to my expectations, and estimates, and they also provide an indication of how well the IESO adjusted to taking over the responsibilities of the former Ontario Power Authority (OPA) after 2014.
The data released includes:
Updated Ontario Energy Report website with 2016 1st quarter information, with related electricity report (.pdf), and data file (.xlsx)
2016 Q1 Progress Report on Contracted Electricity Supply (.pdf)
18 month outlook (.pdf) and related date file (.xlsx)
On first flip through the reports, the graphic that most caught my eye was the 18-month outlook’s “Table 4.1 Existing Generation Capacity as of…” This table shows not only what the IESO considers the capacity, by fuel type, participating in their market, but also what I will call “Capacity Value” and they call “Forecast Capability at Outlook Peak.” This is an important number because it’s used to measure the system’s ability to meet anticipated peak demand. The numbers that caught my attention were a 280 megawatt (MW) capacity of solar, with the forecast capability at peak of 28 MW. The 10% capacity value that indicates is sharply reduced from the 18 month forecast of June 2015.
Let’s ignore the low installed value for solar for a fleeting moment, and concentrate on the reduced capacity value. This June’s 18 month report explains it:Read More »
Some messages from my shadow report/estimates of the electricity sector in Ontario over the past 7 days.
The growth in solar capacity combined with the switch in “on-peak” pricing periods to the afternoon combined to make the “On-Peak” pricing periods the lowest valued periods of supply to the IESO market – in stark contrast to the valuation imposed on regulated price plan consumers, whom the Ontario Energy Board decided to have charged $180 per megawatt-hour during these hours.
Perhaps that variance in price makes sense. My estimates of hourly supply costs show solar now often exceeding nuclear:
For clarity, here’s the graph of generated megawatts by hour, which is not as similar to the graph of costs as some might expect.Read More »