Greening Ontario electricity ... the true story

[Lake Girl]

Heard Hydro One (the Ontario electric utility) will be getting the third rate hike since November. Apparently with the mild winter, Ontario residents have used less electricity. A good thing you would think ... conservation being a concept pushed in the media and their fliers that come in the mail. Not so fast ... Hydro One sold off some of its shares to raise capital for provincial infrastructure projects and with lower electric use, profits are down. Apparently generation is higher than needed and sold off to our neighbours in the US. Good for them as Hydro One is selling at a loss. Who makes up for that loss in profits? You guessed it ... Ontario residents who are a captive audience...hence the rate hike. The moral of the story, it costs more to use less
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157

 

[Highbeam]

Heard Hydro One (the Ontario electric utility) will be getting the third rate hike since November. Apparently with the mild winter, Ontario residents have used less electricity. A good thing you would think ... conservation being a concept pushed in the media and their fliers that come in the mail. Not so fast ... Hydro One sold off some of its shares to raise capital for provincial infrastructure projects and with lower electric use, profits are down. Apparently generation is higher than needed and sold off to our neighbours in the US. Good for them as Hydro One is selling at a loss. Who makes up for that loss in profits? You guessed it ... Ontario residents who are a captive audience...hence the rate hike. The moral of the story, it costs more to use less
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157

Repeated at every utility everywhere. Water, sewer, power, even garbage. It comes from the fairness of an adequate base rate for having the utility available balanced with a consumption fee that actually reflects the price per unit. People don't like high base rates but that would smooth out the revenue and prevent most of these rate hikes.

 

[LowbanksArcher]

Don't forget the high taxpayer cost of shoving massive wind turbines down that throats of rural Ontarians like myself. Our peaceful country side has become and industrial construction warzone.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[Lake Girl]

Noticed the windmills on the way to Dunnville from the lake. Here we have feed-in solar arrays that were encouraged by a high rate of return so the province could tout how green our energy is...

Base rate? That would be the delivery charge that is essentially equal to the electrical usage...

 

[Highbeam]

Base rate? That would be the delivery charge that is essentially equal to the electrical usage...

Right, but the delivery charge is used to pay for all of the powerlines. It's probably also billed to you as a cost per kwh, right? We all know that the powerlines aren't any harder to maintain if they deliver more or less energy to your home so the delivery charge is just a thinly disguised consumption charge.

A real base rate (delivery charge) would not float based on consumption, it would be fixed to cover the actual cost of delivering power whether you used it or not. Then there would be less incentive to conserve but a more stable bill. Also, it costs the same to make power available to your home with 100 kwh hours use per month as it does to your neighbor who used 2000. So you would pay close to the same amount.

The actual floating cost of power is a low part of the utilities costs. It's all of those wires and overhead, the fixed costs, artificially made floating by tying them to consumption in an effort to be fair.

 

[jb6l6gc]

Don't forget the high taxpayer cost of shoving massive wind turbines down that throats of rural Ontarians like myself. Our peaceful country side has become and industrial construction warzone.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

Yes gotta love all those windmills behind us eh lowbanks.
Im just in between dunnville and cayuga on the grand, so very close to you, thankfully from my place they are barely visible through the forest.
I just saw all the new ones going up toward niagara area on friday, I really love how those transmission lines and huge poles make the nice scenic rural drive look now... What a freakin joke the ontario government is.

 

[Lake Girl]

Was really saddened the last time I went through Vineland ... used to go get canning veggies from there with my Great Auntie. The old orchards and farms have disappeared and replaced with condos. The wine/ice wine market seems to be doing well though

 

[LowbanksArcher]

Yes gotta love all those windmills behind us eh lowbanks.
Im just in between dunnville and cayuga on the grand, so very close to you, thankfully from my place they are barely visible through the forest.
I just saw all the new ones going up toward niagara area on friday, I really love how those transmission lines and huge poles make the nice scenic rural drive look now... What a freakin joke the ontario government is.

I likely drive past your house everyday then. Live near the village of Stromness, but work in Ancaster. Ya, it's getting real ugly around here. These will be the biggest ever built in North America(so far), 575ft tall, and they've built one 80 meters from the property line of our family farm. Pretty ridiculous. Worst part, I had planned to build a house in that spot in the next few years. That dream is now gone.
That said, since putting in my woodstove a couple months ago, my hydro bill dropped $40+. It must drive Wynne nuts. Not using as much of her hydro, AND burning fuel she can't tax! I can see a wood stove tax in the future

 

[Lake Girl]

Just found this proposed wind turbine plan ... existing and new. Wow. A lot of farmlands are no longer farm lands. Wonder if they are a property lease system.

PS The family property is above the "b" in Lowbanks...

 

[jb6l6gc]

It is a lease system for the land. I
Know for the ones that are already up, they require 1acre of land when finished and an access road. The property owners will get somewhere around 67k$ per year , per windmill for 20 yrs. Then if I remember correctly the ownership of the turbine
Is turned over to the property owner. So me and my Neighbour were dicussing how your gonna see these things as skeletons in the skyline of a bad decision as I doubt anyone is gonna
Refurbish them when they've reached their lifespan.

Low banks you probably do drive right by my place. I am at the Corner of haldimand 17 and 32(which turns to hwy56)

 

[jb6l6gc]

I likely drive past your house everyday then. Live near the village of Stromness, but work in Ancaster. Ya, it's getting real ugly around here. These will be the biggest ever built in North America(so far), 575ft tall, and they've built one 80 meters from the property line of our family farm. Pretty ridiculous. Worst part, I had planned to build a house in that spot in the next few years. That dream is now gone.
That said, since putting in my woodstove a couple months ago, my hydro bill dropped $40+. It must drive Wynne nuts. Not using as much of her hydro, AND burning fuel she can't tax! I can see a wood stove tax in the future

I Wish my hydro was $40. My
House is all electric cause there is no gas unless you drill your own well. That said when I'm On wood I Was able to get my bills around $75 last year, but
Hooray this year I used less and paid more. Another kick in the b***s!
I think the government Thinks we the regular folk are a never ending cash cow. As well I Don't think wynns government has any respect for rural folk. Maybe she thinks we should all live in Toronto and pay a million bucks for a
Townhouse!!

 

[LowbanksArcher]

I Wish my hydro was $40. My
House is all electric cause there is no gas unless you drill your own well. That said when I'm On wood I Was able to get my bills around $75 last year, but
Hooray this year I used less and paid more. Another kick in the b***s!
I think the government Thinks we the regular folk are a never ending cash cow. As well I Don't think wynns government has any respect for rural folk. Maybe she thinks we should all live in Toronto and pay a million bucks for a
Townhouse!!

No no no. Not a $40 hydro bill total. I mean my hydro bill went down by $40 since running my woodstove instead of forced air propane furnace. So more like $110 instead of $150. I'm pretty sure I'll never see a bill under $100 again.

 

[jb6l6gc]

Sorry read that wrong!

 

[jebatty]

A real base rate (delivery charge) would not float based on consumption, it would be fixed to cover the actual cost of delivering power whether you used it or not. Then there would be less incentive to conserve but a more stable bill. Also, it costs the same to make power available to your home with 100 kwh hours use per month as it does to your neighbor who used 2000. So you would pay close to the same amount.

The actual floating cost of power is a low part of the utilities costs. It's all of those wires and overhead, the fixed costs, artificially made floating by tying them to consumption in an effort to be fair.

I think there is room for disagreement on this, meaning that it makes a lot of sense for a base rate to float based on consumption. It doesn't cost the same to make power available to a home that uses 100 kWh/month as it does to the neighbor who uses 2000 kWh/month. If all users were at 100 kWh/month, then much less transmission capacity (and at much less cost) would be needed than if all users were at 2000 kWh/month. The high consumption users should pay a higher base rate than the low consumption users, otherwise the low consumption users are subsidizing a transmission system needed because of the high consumption users.

It would make more logical sense to price the base rate on a user's peak demand because that is what would more accurately reflect the user's need for transmission capacity.

 

[jb6l6gc]

I think there is room for disagreement on this, meaning that it makes a lot of sense for a base rate to float based on consumption. It doesn't cost the same to make power available to a home that uses 100 kWh/month as it does to the neighbor who uses 2000 kWh/month. If all users were at 100 kWh/month, then much less transmission capacity (and at much less cost) would be needed than if all users were at 2000 kWh/month. The high consumption users should pay a higher base rate than the low consumption users, otherwise the low consumption users are subsidizing a transmission system needed because of the high consumption users.

It would make more logical sense to price the base rate on a user's peak demand because that is what would more accurately reflect the user's need for transmission capacity.

I would disagree on this for sure, every other thing you buy cost goes down as consumption goes up (the old buy in bulk addage). Let us not forget we're talking about a province that is far over producing power and then selling it to you guys for peanuts of what its costing us to produce, and ontarians like me are the ones stuck footing the bill for all these green energy initiatives and all these new transmission lines.
Residential lines are usually only redone when they've hit their usable life expectancy, the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not. Also In most rural areas allot of people have to use more electricity that the average city dweller, just due to availability of other alternative utilities, ie.natural gas etc.

Not trying to start an argument here, just my opinions on the matter

 

[jebatty]

Certainly areas of agreement and disagreement. The utility markets are a mixture of regulated prices (rates) and competitive prices. I suspect that the wind turbines were built not just to serve your area of Ontario but instead were built to be part of a regional or national plan of clean energy grid development. Therefore, it is likely that more were built than locally needed and transmission capacity and substations were built to meet the larger capacity and larger market, not just your local needs.

Unfortunately, it also is likely that some of the larger market (sales to the US, for example) is competitive and your local market is not competitive, with the result being that regulators have shifted to the local market fixed costs (turbines, transmission lines, substations) that cannot be recovered in the competitive market.

I don't agree that "the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not." The question is how much power, not that they always are carrying power. They need to carry enough power to meet peak demands in a service territory. Defining the territory is an issue. Determining who is consuming the most power is an issue. As mentioned above, if everyone only needed a small peak load, it would be easy to plan the system. But if some have erratic and large peak loads, then capacity needs to be provided to meet that need. And in my opinion, it is the larger, peak load customers that need the more expensive transmission capacity, and they should pay a larger share of the fixed costs as compared to a small user. Therefore, fixed costs should be variable based on the peak load needs of the customer.

I understand your plight. I would gripe too in your situation. I face a similar situation as our local utility keeps raising the base rate (fixed charge). My efforts of conservation (and also my own solar PV system) have greatly reduced my kWh usage, but my bill has gone down little due to increases in the base rate. I have no objection to a "fair and reasonable" base rate, but I would argue that the "fair and reasonable" base rate needs to be variable and increase according to the peak demand of the customers. How to measure and do that may be complicated, but a simple flat charge regardless of usage is not fair and reasonable.

 

[jb6l6gc]

Certainly areas of agreement and disagreement. The utility markets are a mixture of regulated prices (rates) and competitive prices. I suspect that the wind turbines were built not just to serve your area of Ontario but instead were built to be part of a regional or national plan of clean energy grid development. Therefore, it is likely that more were built than locally needed and transmission capacity and substations were built to meet the larger capacity and larger market, not just your local needs.

Unfortunately, it also is likely that some of the larger market (sales to the US, for example) is competitive and your local market is not competitive, with the result being that regulators have shifted to the local market fixed costs (turbines, transmission lines, substations) that cannot be recovered in the competitive market.

I don't agree that "the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not." The question is how much power, not that they always are carrying power. They need to carry enough power to meet peak demands in a service territory. Defining the territory is an issue. Determining who is consuming the most power is an issue. As mentioned above, if everyone only needed a small peak load, it would be easy to plan the system. But if some have erratic and large peak loads, then capacity needs to be provided to meet that need. And in my opinion, it is the larger, peak load customers that need the more expensive transmission capacity, and they should pay a larger share of the fixed costs as compared to a small user. Therefore, fixed costs should be variable based on the peak load needs of the customer.

I understand your plight. I would gripe too in your situation. I face a similar situation as our local utility keeps raising the base rate (fixed charge). My efforts of conservation (and also my own solar PV system) have greatly reduced my kWh usage, but my bill has gone down little due to increases in the base rate. I have no objection to a "fair and reasonable" base rate, but I would argue that the "fair and reasonable" base rate needs to be variable and increase according to the peak demand of the customers. How to measure and do that may be complicated, but a simple flat charge regardless of usage is not fair and reasonable.

Agreed but funny thing is we've been on variable time of use and peak rates for a long time. Here we don't have any choice in our provider. We must buy from whomever owns the area!

 

[Highbeam]

I don't agree that "the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not." The question is how much power, not that they always are carrying power. They need to carry enough power to meet peak demands in a service territory.

Good points jebatty but I think you are giving far too much weight to the size (capacity) of a transmission line being a significant part of the transmission costs. It's not and as such, the peak demand or relative average demand is of nearly no consequence. Also lumped in with "transmission" costs are all of the overhead, billing, profit, the poles, the ROW maintenance, etc. that make up the huge the majority of the delivery charge.

It doesn't cost the same to make power available to a home that uses 100 kWh/month as it does to the neighbor who uses 2000 kWh/month.

Strongly disagree. It really does cost the same to make power available to each of those neighbors. Both of those homes are equipped with residential services and each has the potential to have the same peak demand. Utilities that offer service must offer a complete service so whether the user uses it fully is not part of the calculation.

 

[jebatty]

Strongly disagree. It really does cost the same to make power available to each of those neighbors. Both of those homes are equipped with residential services and each has the potential to have the same peak demand. Utilities that offer service must offer a complete service so whether the user uses it fully is not part of the calculation.

I think you made my point. Reduce the potential of having the same peak demand among a population of users and the need for a more robust distribution system disappears. Users of electricity have been living in a culture of unlimited power availability without need for conservation. Change the culture and the need for capacity in the distribution system diminishes. Fewer substations, lower transmission line voltages, less robust poles and smaller ROW's, less generation capacity, etc. No need for that new nuclear or coal plant to be funded by charges for generated power. In fact, an ability to retire without replacing aged generating facilities.

 

[jb6l6gc]

Users of electricity have been living in a culture of unlimited power availability without need for conservation. Change the culture and the need f

You may have missed in this thread where Ontario is raising rates due to conservation and less usage amongst users. I believe I speak for most when I say that we are using less electricity than ever before. At least here in Ontario that is!
Less usage is equaling higher rates, at least here in Ontario

 

[jb6l6gc]

They are raising the rates to pay for the governments pet projects in green energy. They've closed many coal fired plants and built these windmills and now solar farms without any demand for more production.

 

[jebatty]

Didn't miss that thread at all. If a utility has costs of X, and rate revenues of $A due to sales of kWh, and sales of kWh fall for whatever reason, it will want to raise revenues to $A+B to cover costs. The utility in a monopoly regulated environment has a failing business model. Any other business would have to cut costs, be innovative, find new product lines, etc. to survive. But not the utility - just raise rates!.

Land line phone companies faced and continue to face the same scenario with cellular competition. So now also the wired cable companies with competition from satellite. It is another discussion on what regulated utilities must do to survive in changing world.

 

[jebatty]

They are raising the rates to pay for the governments pet projects in green energy.

Without dealing with any issue of over production, raising rates to pay for green energy has the effect of a carbon tax on non-green energy. The higher rates for green energy are paying for 0 carbon, 0 acid, 0 mercury, 0 heavy metals emitted by coal fired power plants. In other words, the higher rates are now are requiring users to start paying the previous non-measured costs of pollutant energy, costs that were there in health and environmental destruction but not being paid for in rates. More and more electricity will now avoid those costs. Higher rates, yes. Lower health costs, yes. Cleaner and healthier air, water and soil for all living things, yes.

 

[peakbagger]

In order to support going green, Ontario had to build some very large power plants about 8 years ago. I believe they had a third party build them and guaranteed a future demand for power over some long period. Usually its take or pay so if there is a large contribution from renewable the utility is also paying the natural gas plants not to run. I am aware of a 990 MW plant in Brampton and 660 MW retrofit just north of Toronto and expect there were a few more built elsewhere in the province.

 

[Lake Girl]

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/12/green-energy-puts-ontarians-in-the-red

Feed-in rates: (broken link removed)

Atikokan GS was converted from coal to pellets... $200M project but not sure what costs are associated with pellet supply. Nanticoke GS was just closed.

Hydro-electric dams: http://www.opg.com/generating-power/hydro/northwest-ontario/Pages/northwest-ontario.aspx
This does not include others ie Kenora, Fort Frances, Crilly Lake ... I'm sure there are others. These dams were owned by pulp/paper mills and have been separated from those operations as a stand alone. I know the bio-gen that was built with government subsidy has sat idle for 2 years on the Resolute property.

Dunnville transmission availability is done ... Very limited options in my area.
FITs availability chart: (broken link removed)
http://www.hydroone.com/RegulatoryA...t A/Tab_6_Sched_1-Transmission_System_Map.pdf

Manitoba Hydro
7.672¢/kWh with base fee of $7.57 monthly

Minnesota 11.35¢/kWh not sure on the base rate

Ontario $8.3 off peak; $12.8 mid peak; $ 17.5 peak plus transmission rate approximately equal to kWh use. Another rate hike real soon...