regarding Ontario Electricity Generation and Costs, 2007 - 2015

This week I was handed some data indicating, by supply type, electricity generation and costs in Ontario. The data was a hard copy response of the IESO to a freedom of information request. There's nothing in the data that will surprise readers of my work, but perhaps it's time for a refresher, as today I read one flip comment by a mainstream journalist, joking they'd like to see "Ontario families can no longer afford skyrocketing nuke costs," and an opinion piece on the public broadcaster's site which included:

...as data from the [International] Electricity System Operator clearly shows (sic), it’s nuclear and gas plants that are responsible for the lion’s share of increases. 

"Clearly."
It is time for a refresher.

Some background on the data I'll share. The 2015 Annual Report from the office of The Auditor General of Ontario included a chapter on "Electricity Power System Planning." The entire chapter contained a wealth of information and continues to be cited frequently, but for those chasing hard numbers one particular star of the work was a figure revealing the quantity, and cost, of generation from various sources, inclusive of not only the larger generators frequently reported by the IESO (the "I" is not for international, but it is the electricity system operator), but also the seldom reported distributed generation - which is where most solar exists.

The freedom-of-information requests handed to me included this request:

Breakdown of Generation Cost by Energy Sources for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015. The Breakdown for 2014, which was included in the Annual Report of the Auditor General of Ontario, is attached as reference.

The data table that follows responds fully with the request - I have only reformatted it:

Ontario may contract more imports from Quebec - badly

On the morning of Tuesday August 8th La Presse published an article reporting on a draft contract which would see Ontario pay Quebec approximately $500 million a year for the ability to import 8 terawatt-hours of electricity. By late morning the office of Ontario's energy minister denied an agreement was reached, and the ruling Liberal party's press office was slamming the opposition party for "spreading misinformation."
Perhaps nothing will come of the proposal, but it's worth noting what constituency it is designed to appease, how that appeasement impacted the draft agreement, and the concerns all Ontarians should have with the processes, and institutions, involved in the province's electricity sector.

A timeline surrounding the leaked draft document dated June 22, 2017:

• during May Ontario's Minister of Energy GlennThibeault and this Quebec counterpart, Pierre Arcand, discuss "the possibility of further enhancing electricity trade in order to cost-effectively improve our respective electricity systems," [source]
• La Presse's report, translated on Google Chrome, includes, "Thibeault sent a letter to his Quebec counterpart...on June 13 to explore the possibility of entering into a new long-term agreement to purchase electricity",
• June 20th Peter Gregg "takes on the role of IESO President and CEO",
• June 22nd Hydro-Quebec's Steve Demers writes a "Dear Peter" letter to the new head of Ontario's system operator introducing a written proposal valid until July 14,
• July 27 Ontario's Thibeault writes the June offer was "inconsistent with our discussions in May", notes following discussions between staffs of Premier's Couillard and Wynne HQ "would be instructed to work collaboratively with IESO on enhancing electricity trade..."

I think Thibeault's July 27th is very good. To communicate why, I will focus on a short technical quote from the leaked draft agreement which explains the shortcomings of Hydro-Quebec's proposal. 

First I'll note 8 TWh, the proposed annual import level, is only slightly higher than the total annual imports into Ontario from Quebec (much of which will be wheeled through to New York). There was some noise about whether the amounts were feasible with existing infrastructure: they are.