energyresources4election

[energyresources4election]

Feed-in tariffs, or FITs, are the cornerstone policy of the Green Energy Act, which pays renewable energy producers to feed energy onto the electricity grid. Studies have found that feed-in mechanisms achieve larger deployment at lower coststhan other policy mechanisms such as quotas, direct incentives or voluntary goals — making feed-in tariffs the most efficient and cost-effective policy to procure renewable energy.

Feed-in tariffs have also largely been credited for supporting green job creation in Europe.  The FIT in Ontario is crucial to foster the urgently needed transition to clean energy, maintain jobs creation and ensure investment from domestic and global players. While the Green Energy Act could and should be improved now that it has been in operation for two years, it is still arguably the most progressive renewable energy policy in North America in the past 20 years.

[energyresources4election]

The criticism of the price Ontario currently pays for renewable energy ignores twoimportant facts: renewable prices are still falling, while the costs of fossil fuels and nuclear are rising — and the government subsidizes fossil fuels and nuclear energy to a much greater extent than green energy.

The nuclear industry has been subsidized since day one. Nuclear has accumulated over $20 billion in subsidizes federally, including over $1.2 billion in the past five years — and it continues to collect federal subsidies now, even after being sold to SNC Lavelin.

Compare that to wind, solar and biomass industries that together have received about $1.7 billion from the federal government, which are being spread out from 2002 to 2021. In other words, 10 years from now, renewable energy will have received about 10 per cent of the subsidies nuclear has received — assuming no more nuclear subsidies are paid out in the next 10 years.

The California Energy Commission estimated new nuclear costs between 17-34 c/kWh in 2010. The low end of that estimate is still more expensive then Ontario's prices for wind power under the feed-in tariff, and the high end approaches the feed-in tariff price for large-scale solar power projects at current costs, which have been dropping rapidly (down 50 per cent) in past five years.

[energyresources4election]

Because Ontario is still developing its clean energy economy, it is difficult to calculate exactly how many jobs have been created and will be created through the Green Energy Act. However, there is no question the legislation is creating jobs:

The Blue-Green Alliance has developed a map of existing and proposed jobs at the 40 new manufacturing facilities in Ontario that have been announced. This summer, ClearSky Advisors released studies estimating that by 2011, solar energy in Ontario generated two billion dollars of private sector investment and 8,200 jobs, and they estimate that solar PV energy itself is will create 70,000 jobs in Ontario by 2018.

A recent Pembina Institute analysis found that all renewable energy technology, including energy efficiency, currently generates three to 10 times the number of jobs per hour of energy generated than fossil fuels or nuclear (see table below).

TABLE: Job creation per hour of energy generation

Comparison of jobs created from various types of energy generation. Source: http://www.pembina.org/pub/2178

The potential for green energy investment and manufacturing in Ontario is only growing, meaning that this is one sector that will continue to generate jobs and economic stimulus now and in the future. Cancelling our green energy program and killing these jobs would be harmful to Ontario's economy, which is faring well in tough times thanks in large part to the Green Energy Act.

[energyresources4election]

Despite what some politicians are saying, smart power meters do not create an unfair burden by increasing electricity prices. Off-peak hours in Ontario begin at 7 p.m. on weekdays, while mid-peak pricing starts at 5 p.m. and any electricity used over the weekend gets charged at off-peak rates. It's good to consider how changes to Ontario's electricity pricing system will affect lower-income and fixed-income Ontarians, but there's little evidence that time-of-use pricing presents additional cost burden on those households.

A case study in Milton, Ontario, looked at the effect of moving to time-of-use pricing, from flat rates for electricity, based on data from1020 households. They found that for 98.2 per cent of customers, the move to time-of-use billing amounted to less than a five per cent change (either up or down) in their electricity expenses. On average, the switch to time-of-use billing resulted in a 0.233 per cent increase. In another study, a master's student at the University of Guelph looked more specifically at low- and fixed-income households. She found that they were slightly worse off with time-of-use rates in the summer and slightly better off with time-of-use rates in the winter. In both cases, the differences were reasonably small.

Eliminating the harmonized sales tax (HST) from electricity bills is not the solution to high electricity bills, because doing so would increase consumption at a time when we're facing a critical need to reduce and electricity demand overall. Implementing better energy conservation programs would reduce energy use while saving consumers money. In comparison, removing the HST from energy bills would increase consumption and cost us all more in the end because of the need for additional power sources and expensive infrastructure.

[energyresources4election]

In June, I toured parts of Ontario with a German farmer, Hans Feddersen, who has been living with more than 60 turbines in the fields of his local community for 20 years. After a few media interviews, the farmer expressed confusion and frustration because the questions were so focused on health issues — rather than the tremendous benefits of renewable energy.

According to Feddersen, Germany addressed those issues years ago; Feddersen said health concerns associated with wind energy "isn't a topic anymore" in his country, which is leading the world in wind power production.

The first policies to form the German equivalent of Ontario's Green Energy Act were instituted 20 years ago in Germany. Those policies have been updated and improved over time by successive governments on both ends of the German political spectrum. Similarly, Ontario's Green Energy Act has room for improvement, and we can learn from Germany, where strong community involvement in the program has led to both profits for rural residence along with strong support.

While we recognize that renewable energy technologies — ranging from hydro, to biomass, to wind turbines — do have local impacts that need to be minimized and addressed through effective, local public consultations, fossil fuels pose a more serious threat to human health and the environment.

[energyresources4election]

Even if Ontario stopped all new investment in renewable power today, electricity prices would continue to rise. This is due to the inevitable expense of upgrading our ageing electricity grid and building new power plants as old ones retire.

This recent Pembina Institute report compared how replacing renewable energy with power from fossil fuels would affect Ontario electricity prices. Click for more detail.

Critics of green energy are falsely comparing the cost of renewable energy projects today with the price of electricity from facilities built thirty years ago. Any comparison should be against the cost of building and operating any new power plant.

The Pembina Institute recently modeled these complex interactions for Ontario's electricity system. Our report on that study, Behind the Switch, found that cancelling the Green Energy Act would likely result in a slightly slower price increase in the short term — saving the average household about the cost of a cup of coffee and a muffin per month. In the longer term, however, the Green Energy Act would result in cost savings for consumers, since the cost of renewables will continue to decrease every year, while the price of natural gas is forecast to continue increasing over the next 20 years.

[energyresources4election]

Ontario has taken the laudable step of closing down its entire fleet of coal-fired power plants — a move supported across partisan lines. This, however, is but one of the many changes that is coming to Ontario's electricity system.  Tim Weis Director of renewable energy & energy efficiency, answers some of the most frequently asked questions about the role that renewable energy could play in the future of electricity generation in Ontario.

[energyresources4election]

The Pembina Institute's detailed platform analysis compares the commitments the Ontario Liberal, NDP and Progressive Conservative parties have made on a range of sustainable energy priorities.

The analysis looks at where the parties stand on issues such as investing in renewable power generation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating incentives for energy conservation and expanding transit systems. The results identify clear leaders in building the province's clean energy economy.

[energyresources4election]

The Conservation Council of Ontario's polling shows that:

conservation is important to you (87%)

you think conservation is good for the environment (86%), the economy and jobs (78%), public health and reduced health care costs (69%) and lowering the cost of living (67%)

you practice conservation regularly (91%)

you want to see government leadership for a healthy future. Only 12% want smaller government, and only 14% want lower taxes.

[energyresources4election]

The Ministry of energy has created a web page tracking new clean energy projects that are up and running.  

[energyresources4election]

A great site to find out what is really going on in the energy sector.  Tyler provides keen insights into the current situation and trends that are developing. Renewables, conservation, efficiency, electric vehicles, storage and more!

[energyresources4election]

Check out OSEA's second commercial "Renewable Energy".  Be sure to talk to your candidates about why conservation and renewable energy are important to you and why you want them to support the Green Energy Act and FIT.

[energyresources4election]

Check out OSEA TV Spot "Right Here" (by OntarioSEA2009) supporting green energy policy in Ontario.

[energyresources4election]

"Recently there has been much media attention paid to the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Sometimes the information available is not complete, and sometimes it is not accurate. We want to help with some myth-busting."

[energyresources4election]

(Sept. 15, 2011, Toronto, ON) Responding to the growing discussion about the future of green energy in Ontario, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) today unveiled a pair of television advertisements profiling the strengths and benefits of an Ontario-made green energy economy.

[energyresources4election]

Myth, Magic or Misinformation? - Does Anyone understand our electricity Bills?

By Marion Fraser

In 1906, Sir Adam Beck created Ontario Hydro to provide Ontario with “public power at cost”.  His legacy was us a highly reliable system which, from 1906 to 1960 delivered declining electricity rates as economies of scope and scale resulted from the electrification of Ontario.  Our homes, farms and industries benefitted from amazing productivity improvements. 

Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act is setting the stage for a new energy paradigm in Ontario – a sustainable energy future, where consumers and communities are able to become generators and conservers as well as consumers of energy. Opportunities for economic development will abound in all areas of the province for farmers, First Nations, the North, our communities and our industries.

But changing paradigms creates debate.  Debate should be healthy.  When a casualty of debate is truth, we must be concerned. A consistent hallmark of anti green energy arguments in the press and on energy related blogs as well as in the legislature illustrates our collective confusion about energy pricing in general and electricity pricing in particular. 

  This lack of comprehension of our electricity bills is not the fault of the average consumer.  For millions of consumers in Ontario, energy and water expenses are buried in rents at home or in monthly condo fees.  Hundreds of thousands of business owners are also in the dark; they are charged for their energy and water use based on square footage rented.  In industrial plants, bills are based on the readings from a meter located at the plant gate not on specific processes.  

It is disappointing that the few, but vocal opponents to green energy have exploited our misunderstanding of our bills to reinforce our confusion and prey on our fears. The Green Energy Act, they say will drive up electricity rates.  The truth of the matter is any new electricity supply is going to cost more than our current supplies. 

The cost of power from Niagara Falls is about 1 cent per kWh – but we don’t have any more fully paid-for mega plants like those at Niagara Falls.  Ironically, the cost of electricity from Adam Beck’s Niagara Falls in 1910 was 12 cents per kWh in the dollars of the day about the same as we pay today.  At the same time a pound of butter cost 4 cents.  Today a pound of butter costs about $5.00 – and close to $10 if you opt for an organic product.  With that kind of multiplier, electricity would cost us $15  to $30 per kWh if early improvement in economies of scale hadn’t triumphed over inflation.

Where did this confusion come from?  We used to multiply the number of kWh consumed by its price per kWh and that is what we paid.

In the late 1990’s Ontario restructured the electricity market and the price of each cost element has made separate, in a spirit of transparency.  And then, in 2002, the government of the day capped electricity prices at 4.3 cents per kWh.  Suddenly everyone in Ontario thought that this was the price of electricity. 

So if you used 1000 kWh per month, which was the average for homeowners in Ontario, could you have expected a BILL of $43.00 per month? 

No! That 4.3 cents per kWh did not include the cost of transportation (transmission and distribution), the physical losses resulting from sending power long distances across transmission and distribution lines, or paying down about one half of the outstanding debt from the former Ontario Hydro. 

Nor did it include the out of market costs associated with reliability purchases from US utilities, the full cost of most new supply in the province, conservation or the cost of running organizations like the Ontario Power Authority or the Independent Electricity System Operator which are buried in something called the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM) which is also known as “the provincial benefit”. 

Confused yet?  There is more!

Paying down the rest of the former Ontario Hydro’s outstanding debt of $38 billion is also added to the cost of generation, transmission and distribution in the form of the debt retirement charge. 

The purveyors of misinformation on pricing like to the use the Hourly Ontario Energy Price from the Independent Electricity Operator as their starting point.  Today that price is 5.3¢ while the so-called provincial benefit is 3.4¢.  And to the credit of the IESO, it is now showing both amounts on its website, but even this combined total of 8.7¢ still doesn’t include transmission and distribution charges, the debt retirement charge, and coming soon, the harmonized sales tax which add another 13% to our energy bills.

The Provincial Benefit was so named because when it was created, it represented a credit on our bills resulting from the fact that some of Ontario Power Generation’s plants were regulated in a way which ensure the benefit of the “heritage” assets, like Niagara Falls benefitted all Ontarians.  The Provincial Benefit ensures reliability by providing adequate generating capacity for Ontario. It accounts for differences between the spot market price and the rates paid to regulated and contracted generators. As a result, its value may be positive or negative, depending on the fluctuation of prices in the spot market. The rate is set to reflect the difference between the spot market price and:

The regulated rate paid to Ontario Power Generation’s base load generating stations;

Contracted rates paid to Non-Utility Generators.

Payments made to suppliers that have been awarded contracts through the Ontario Power Authority. These include new gas-fired facilities, renewable facilities (like wind farms) and demand response programs which are already delivering power to the grid; and

Critics of green power would like you to also believe that it is the new feed in tariff (FIT) program that is responsible for these higher rates.  Also not true – few and then only small FIT contacts have been turned into projects generating electricity.

And finally, critics of green power also like to point out the intermittent nature of some renewable energy.  “The sun doesn’t always shine.” and “The wind doesn’t always blow.”  Both statements are true, but Ontario will not be paying generators of solar or wind energy when they are not generating.  This is not the case for the new gas fired peaking plants.  Should these plants not run as often as their owners would like, through the Global Adjustment Mechanism, their owners will be compensated to keep them whole from an investment perspective.

Of course, the biggest myth of all is that nuclear power is cheap.  In France, almost 75% of its power comes from nuclear plants and less than 1% from new renewable energy.  Yet its household rates are over 18 cents per kWh in Canadian dollars.

Recently, the Ontario government put their plan to building additional nuclear reactors at Darlington on hold.  The price tag on those reactors (a reported $26 billion) caused the government sticker shock, and the procurement process was suspended in June 2009. AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity. By comparison, in 2007 the Ontario Power Authority had assumed for planning purposes a price of $2,900 per kilowatt, which works out to about $7 billion for the Darlington expansion. During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas.

In other words, we can’t blame renewable energy alone for higher prices.  Any new form of generation will cost us more.  Our only hope to deal with rising energy rates is conservation that will reduce our bills.  The most important item is the amount of the bill, not the rate per kWh.  While the average monthly electricity bill in Toronto is still about $100; the average bill in Germany is 54 Euros or $86 (in Canadian Dollars) and in the US it is $120 with New York at $123 both in Canadian Dollars. Canada’s national average hides the significant variations in costs in different parts of the country.  In Canada, household electricity rates range from 6 cents per kWh in Winnipeg to 15 cents per kWh in Moncton, with Toronto coming in at about 12 cents per kWh.  In the US, the variation is even greater from less than 7.3 cents per kWh in Wyoming to more than 30 cents per kWh in Hawaii.  With New York state averaging 18 cents and New York City topping 24 cents per kWh.  (As US figures in Canadian dollars)

The only road to lower electricity bills is not artificially low rates, it is conservation. 

The Canada Green Building Council has estimated that homes and buildings can cut their consumption of energy and water by 50% through a combination of better insulation, new technologies, better operating and maintenance strategies and understanding how home or buildings compare to other similar facilities. 

To achieve this, we have to go beyond just thinking about conservation, but to actually do it.

[energyresources4election]

Details of polling done by CANSIA and a great handout on solar