tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90827863088628989802024-03-05T14:15:45.108-05:00Cold AirCold Air: Analysis and commentary on energy, environment, and politicsScott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.comBlogger432125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-33149847622671693062024-02-12T11:26:00.003-05:002024-02-12T11:26:27.776-05:00Anti-Nuclear by necessityOn January 30th the government of Ontario, currently headed by Doug Ford, announced it was <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1004128/ontario-supporting-plan-to-refurbish-pickering-nuclear-generating-station">advancing the refurbishment of the four “B” reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station</a> (PNGS), Initial media response has been largely positive, with Ontario’s public broadcaster (TVO) noting, “<a href="https://www.tvo.org/article/the-pickering-nuclear-refurbishment-is-the-path-of-least-resistance-for-clean-energy"> it’s hard to see a future government changing course</a>”. Apparently TVO, and other news outlets, felt compelled to offer their readers articles opposed to the refurbishment for balance. At TVO the negative response came shortly after the news broke in an article by Taylor C. Noakes. Rebutting that work is one goal of this one, but it may be more important to explore the emerging tools for producing an article to counter a narrative in another.<br><br>There is a commendable aspect of TVO attaining the work by Noakes, who I believe to be ‘stringer’ - which is an independent producer of content: Noakes has produced multiple articles for, at least, TVO and Desmog, on a wide variety of topics. If you wanted an article with a perspective, Noakes is exactly the type of person you’d go to - particularly, if you’re familiar with Desmog and want an anti-nuclear position. The most obvious alternative approach, and the one taken by The Globe and Mail, is to publish an op-ed from a career antinuclear personality. Mark Winfield’s The folly of Ontario’s nuclear power play (<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-ontario-pickering-nuclear-power-plant-refurbishment/">subscription</a>) is exactly what you’d expect from a person with a career based on opposing nuclear - I’ve <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/10/ignore-those-promoting-death-date-for.html">previously highlighted</a> his mid-2000’s publication at Pembina that planned for a nuclear-free Ontario by 2020 that would have had electricity-sector emissions 400% higher, and will simply emphasize that his status as an expert relies not on the the wisdom in his past work, but simply in his opposition to nuclear power.<br><br>Noakes’ stringer work may be enhanced with the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. Given a topic a writer can simply use an AI tool such as that embedded with the Bing browser, or OpenAI’s tools (I tested only the free version), and get the skeleton of an article. Bing’s Co-pilot, responding to my prompting, “argument to oppose refurbishment of Pickering nuclear generating station”, produced bullet points supporting 5 themes: Environmental Concerns, Cost and Overruns, Safety and Aging Infrastructure, Changing Energy Landscape, and Public Consultation and Transparency. ChatGPT gave paragraphs supporting 7 possibilities for opposing: Cost, Safety Concerns, Environmental Impact, Technological Obsolescence, Public health, Opportunity cost and Community opposition. These themes do emerge with every announcement of continued nuclear operations. <br><br>To acquire an article opposing nuclear power in 2024 a polymath isn’t required, but mostly somebody who can wrap readily attainable content in a story. Noakes’ TVO story is titled:<span id="docs-internal-guid-dbafa2f1-7fff-e521-4452-0811415bd680"><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><b>T</b></span><b>he Ford government’s decision on nuclear will set Ontario back 30 years</b><br>OPINION: Our politicians keep subsidizing old technologies and industries — and putting opportunity and ideology ahead of basic economics</blockquote><p></p>That sets the stage: a villain is presented (Ford, who heads what is actually Ontario’s government - but Ontario can’t be the villain), driven by ideology instead of rationality (a.k.a. ‘Basic economics’). You can almost hear a pantomime’s audience booing the modern “not following the science” villain..<br></span><span><br></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2024/02/anti-nuclear-by-necessity.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-70389187651101278002023-08-09T12:31:00.001-04:002023-08-09T12:31:13.060-04:00Opportunities and Obstacles for nuclear in AlbertaThe prospects for new nuclear reactors has been a hot topic this summer, particularly following Ontario’s announcements exploring new builds of large reactors and additional consideration of smaller (modular) reactors (SMRs). Ontario had been exploring SMR’s with other provinces, initially with New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, and more recently Alberta joined the group. Alberta’s electricity mix last week became a second hot topic. The current Canadian government is also a topic as<a href="https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/electricity-infrastructure/powering-canada-forward-building-clean-affordable-and-reliable-electricity-system-for/25259" target="_blank"> it threatens to force</a>, "a net-zero electricity system by 2035."<br><br>This seems an appropriate time for me to revisit Alberta’s electricity system in search of a route to nuclear power in that province.<br><br>Alberta’s electricity system underwent radical changes since I wrote on a former government’s activities in 2017’s <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2017/11/alberta-bound.html">Alberta.Bound</a>. In this post I’ll concentrate on data from the Alberta Electricity System Operator (AESO) in this post, mostly from their <a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/market.analytics/viz/AnnualStatistics_16161854228350/Introduction">Annual Market Statistics data visualization</a> which currently contains data from 2015 thru to June 2023. The AESO's data indicates rapidly declining potential for nuclear in the AESO’s market in recent years.<br><br>Alberta’s coal generators saw the wish for them to disappear grow for over a decade. <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2012/09/canadas-engos-offensive-response-to-new.html">In 2012 I wrote on the rapid opposition to federal regulations</a> that would see emissions from new coal-power plants limited to something impossible with any operational technology, and a maximum lifespan of 50-years mandated, then, through emissions regulation, the goalpost essentially moved to 40 years within Alberta, and then a 2030 death data was mandated, and other generation sources incented. <a href="https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/da6433da-69b7-4d15-9123-01f76004f574/resource/b42b1f43-7b9d-483d-aa2a-6f9b4290d81e/download/clp_implementation_plan-jun07.pdf" target="_blank">Alberta's Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) of 2017 </a>noted the, <i>"drive toward the development of 30 per cent of electricity generation <b>capacity</b> from renewable sources connected to the grid by 2030."<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> </span></i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[emphasis added] </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">While the CLP itself spoke of efforts to remove, "<i>policy barriers of the conversion of coal units to natural gas," </i>many of the people that set policy had already created<a href="https://www.mondaq.com/canada/Energy-and-Natural-Resources/447672/Alberta39s-New-Climate-Change-Strategy-What-Does-It-Mean-For-Renewable-Power-Project-Development-In-The-Province" target="_blank"> an understanding that</a> ,</span><i>"Two-thirds of the coal-generating capacity (4200 MW) will be replaced by renewable energy, and one-third (2100 MW) by natural gas."</i><br><br>Summarizing the changes in generation capacity since 2016 by grouping fossil fueled generators together (gas, coal, dual fuel), “green” together (wind, solar and storage), displaying co-generation alone and lumping everything else in under “other” (including hydro), the decline in generating capacity of firm generators fueled by coal and/or gas is apparent, as is the, related, meteoric rise of “green” ones.<div><br><span id="docs-internal-guid-8d93f548-7fff-a48f-0090-3dfc37d3ba08"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 445px; overflow: hidden; width: 624px;"><img height="445" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/XI8XQh-ZVJDTfpNpDg07VdWIZu5D8IV3rri-yMUkX-yv-TBM2RmRXdTc-BwgMLfq83aLNY_2AXZjXFmoYZDj4RwtlQgVQAbv3leZwly6kEOLASFeOFnHqKnhAmW8NW9gObViTl4cslwXkPqCMnddhFU" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="624"></span></span></p><br><br></span><span></span></div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2023/08/opportunities-and-obstacles-for-nuclear.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-65222858130868106472023-06-06T17:11:00.003-04:002023-06-06T17:11:43.449-04:00on the risk of power shortages in Ontario this summerA regulatory body with a mission “to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and security of the grid,” delivered its “<a href="https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_SRA_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Summer Reliability Assessment</a>” for North American jurisdictions last month. The brief news release for the document:<br><blockquote>warns that two-thirds of North America is at risk of energy shortfalls this summer during periods of extreme demand. While there are no high-risk areas in this year’s assessment, the number of areas identified as being at elevated risk has increased. The assessment finds that, while resources are adequate for normal summer peak demand, if summer temperatures spike, seven areas — the U.S. West, SPP and MISO, ERCOT, SERC Central, New England and Ontario — may face supply shortages during higher demand levels.</blockquote>Toronto Centre MPP, the NDP’s Peter Tabuns, used that document to launch an attack on the government’s management of the electricity system<a href="https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-43/session-1/2023-06-01/hansard" target="_blank"> in the Ontario legislature on June 1st:</a><br><blockquote>“…the body that oversees electricity grids in North America reported that Ontario risks power outages this summer. In fact, Ontario is the only province in Canada that is rated with elevated risk that it can’t meet peak demand. After five years, this government’s policies of cutting funding for efficiency and conservation, of demolishing wind farms and cancelling other renewable projects have led to this.”</blockquote>This has gotten the rabble roused - if the media is any indication. <a href="https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2023/06/05/if-the-hot-weather-keeps-up-ontario-is-at-risk-of-power-shortages-this-summer-report-finds.html" target="_blank">The Toronto Star </a>and<a href="https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-could-be-at-risk-of-energy-shortfall-this-summer-report-finds-1.6428340" target="_blank"> CTV news</a> both reported on topic. CTV’s reporting included comments from an expert, who advised, “There really is not any cause to be alarmed”, but also commentary from the opposite sort - politicians Tabuns and the leader of Ontario’s Green party.<br><br>Since this topic doesn’t seem to be going away I’ll explain some of the structure and content of reporting on reliability, and address the substance, or lack thereof, in the criticism of the government as reducing reliability through canceling plans for additional ‘green’ energy.<div><br></div><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2023/06/on-risk-of-power-shortages-in-ontario.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com05687 Upper Big Chute Rd, Coldwater, ON L0K 1E0, Canada44.8755173 -79.603133744.875137155355027 -79.603670141802979 44.87589744464497 -79.602597258197022tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-71856553021993881252023-04-30T08:35:00.009-04:002023-05-01T16:12:31.157-04:0087 years of electricity demand history ought to be relevant for planning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaSiNvxx51spEUcqmxudwk-Gqnye4QiojN0tSonQmIrPGKGqspRQlqf10j35wrH6Kv4xwaFNoc4ZxElC_QKkNYzsKYau66v-2Iyk8JZXj8mf0C9xirNTzpteDyOITkR8hGrREB58v5oyhILfMHzKSmWTnA3p7uWM43T6Nq1_NiWyw2-BVWa4qZ29j8Aw/s1423/long%20graph.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1033" data-original-width="1423" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaSiNvxx51spEUcqmxudwk-Gqnye4QiojN0tSonQmIrPGKGqspRQlqf10j35wrH6Kv4xwaFNoc4ZxElC_QKkNYzsKYau66v-2Iyk8JZXj8mf0C9xirNTzpteDyOITkR8hGrREB58v5oyhILfMHzKSmWTnA3p7uWM43T6Nq1_NiWyw2-BVWa4qZ29j8Aw/w640-h464/long%20graph.png" width="640"></a></div><br><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br></div><p>I’ve assembled a long view of annual Ontario Electricity production and/or consumption, from 1935 to 2022. There should be policy implications to take from the data.</p><span id="docs-internal-guid-386f9c27-7fff-69e3-9ef2-78aa9ad6107e">Over 12 years ago I published the first article on my first blog: “The Current and Future State of Electricity, as the [Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB)] comes to Ontario.” I noted in that work that 2010, “[Seemed] like a good time for a big picture overview…” The OCEB was a 10% reduction of bills to, “<a href="https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/15158/ontario-introduces-electricity-cost-relief" target="_blank">help consumers manage rising electricity prices for the next five years</a>.” Twelve and half years later<a href="https://www.oeb.ca/newsroom/2022/ontario-energy-board-announces-changes-electricity-prices-households-and-small" target="_blank"> the discount has a different name</a> (Ontario Energy Rebate), and is 11.7%. 2023 strikes me a lot like the period running up to the Green Energy Act, so here’s the long view of Ontario’s demand history as information to protect for a repeat of that heist as we renew interest in procuring new sources to meet future provincial demand..<br><br>The graph of demand for the last 88 years contains 4 data sources, none of which are matched precisely to another:<br><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-386f9c27-7fff-69e3-9ef2-78aa9ad6107e">“Porter” refers to the chair of 1980’s “The Report of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning”, and specifically data contained in<a href="https://archive.org/details/reportofroyelecpow02onta/page/108/mode/1up" target="_blank"> appendix A of Volume 2</a>. The figures shown are cited as originating in “Ontario Hydro’s Power Resources Report No. 790201.” In terms of comparison to other data sources in the graph the notable thing about this is that the figures represent production (not demand), and they’re a partial representation of production as there was electricity generated by entities other than Ontario Hydro.</span></li><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-386f9c27-7fff-69e3-9ef2-78aa9ad6107e"><a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510000101" target="_blank">CANSIM 127-001</a> is a Statistics Canada monthly dataset built from survey data that existed, at a couple of levels of complexity, from 1957-2007. For purposes of attempting alignment with other data sets, I’ve subtracted from the report’s “Total Available” value the figure shown for “Total Industrial Generation.” Without diving into the exact meaning of the latter field I assume it is self-generated (or behind-the-fence) generation which, while nice to know, is not a component of the other data sets in the chart. It must also be noted “Total Available” includes imports and excludes exports, unlike the “Porter” data</span></li><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-386f9c27-7fff-69e3-9ef2-78aa9ad6107e">“IESO Demand” is the figure reported by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) as “Ontario Demand” - by which I understand they mean demand for supply from the IESO-controlled Grid (ICG). This differs from CANSIM 127-001 in a couple of ways: it will not capture generation from generators embedded within local distribution companies’ grids but it is data based on data far more reliable that that collected through surveying</span></li><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-386f9c27-7fff-69e3-9ef2-78aa9ad6107e">“IESO Consumption”is a figure from the calculation of global adjustment charges as that proportional chargeback tool (for costs of supply not recovered through market revenue) requires calculating a consumers usage as a share of all consumers’ usage. As confusing as that sounds, this measure essentially differs from Ontario Demand in that it does capture the impact of distributed generators in supplying demand, although it omits the share of generation that is lost in transmission lines (as does the CANSIM 127-001).</span></li></ul>The initial graphic is minorly distorted as Porter misses some generation, the survey data is inherently more prone to error, and at the latter years show the growth of distributed generation as the IESO’s “Demand” diverges from its “Consumption”.</span><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2023/04/87-years-of-electricity-demand-history.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-82912967319523705482023-04-05T05:45:00.001-04:002023-04-05T05:45:38.109-04:00Nuclear bros and environmentalists<p> I'm Scott. </p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">You may know me as a nuclear bro' as I'm male and staunchly support nuclear energy. I need to preface the following as I'm only now publishing work I wrote mostly last summer only now, slightly edited with some extra paragraphs to compensate for me not having not completed the work. The motivation to put it out in the wild comes from things that impacted me in the past couple of days. On a positive note the federal government has shifted to include nuclear in programs aimed at eliminating emissions - perhaps it needs a push to reconstruct the Ministry of the Environment to align it with the new government position and this will provide it. Ignobly the greater motivation really comes from reading this interesting <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/status/1642947937075339273">Twitter thread from the Patrick Brown associated with the Breakthrough Institute</a>, and the invasion of my Twitter thread with formerly curious and interesting climate commentators/academics who stagnated intellectually a decade ago and now come out mainly to bless the words of other old stale 'environmentalist'.</p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">__________</p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;"><br></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">One benefit I’ve gotten from social media is learning I am hated by some people I’ve never met - or even heard of. It comes when I enter arcane discussions on obscure topics and some viciousness enters from the periphery. I recognize the emotion in the irrational histrionics as I’m not immune to behaving similarly when losing my composure. I empathize with my haters. After viewing profiles to learn something about them I realize they have reason for animosity as they draw income from some pursuit I’ve attacked, repeatedly, in the past. This has worried me - I do know and like some people in fields I am not keen on (such as solar and efficiency), and I think in recent years I’ve worked at remaining civil. Unfortunately, this is now problematic. The same institutions, and people, I railed against over a decade ago in fighting the assault on the Ontario electricity consumers launched by the Green Energy Act, and related feed-in tariffs, are being manipulated in the same way by many of the same people with the same playbook as they perceive a political environment receptive to their same manipulation. If there’s hating to be done, I’m damn well going to be doing it!<br><br>What is an environmentalist?<br><br>I suggest an environmentalist is somebody considered an environmentalist by others marketed as environmentalists. There’s some requirements for that group to emerge: money, influence/access to media, communication and social skills… cinematographers.<br><br>What there hasn’t been is any requirement for accomplishment.</p><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2023/04/nuclear-bros-and-environmentalists.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-15348178470827621972022-10-22T12:00:00.003-04:002022-10-22T15:21:34.411-04:00Ontario Residential Electricity Rates are dropping. Bills aren't.<p>The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) released Regulated Price Plan (RPP) rates for the next 12 months, and they're down 10% from the current period. Other changes were not as clear from the material published along with the new rates, which I've come to realize is necessary for residential consumers to understand that their bills will change very little. I was waiting to see what the mainstream media would publish regarding the steep, and internationally rather unique, decline in rates, but I've seen nothing - which is somewhat of a blessing given the poverty of understanding demonstrated in recent reporting on Ontario electricity. I'll explain what is happening to rates, why they're dropping for one category of consumer, why it won't change individuals' bills, and the impact on other categories of consumers from recent changes in the so-called market's pricing.</p><p>I've added summary columns to the<a href="https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/RPP-Backgrounder-20221021.pdf"> OEB's presentation of rate change</a>s in the following tables, to demonstrate the reduction is rates. For those hoping to find information of which rate plan is best for them I'll point to<a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/10/changes-choosing-time-of-use-or-tiered.html"> my work 2 years ago</a> as there's no real change in the mechanics: if your usage is primarily in the lower threshold of the tiered pricing plan, use that plan - if it's mostly in the upper tier, stay with the default time-of-use (TOU) rate plan.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWQBGES9wulFxUWZlaNsr7qlYdbwbdgmnaT7XdVxN9StDB4DiH_ZUmQ6Y_poy0S6CD_Qo4Om-0Hs0fQIzlFfiu5XQyn0jmKcGanx0jGFsFfFTQqMLBOk7YyNsM-Mj8vdT5Uuk20F7wjZ3SejsCgV6KXQ_jm6P5HY9OrsOal17yPnfQ4sH8lkZROjvoiw/s717/OEB%20rate%20changes.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="483" data-original-width="717" height="432" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWQBGES9wulFxUWZlaNsr7qlYdbwbdgmnaT7XdVxN9StDB4DiH_ZUmQ6Y_poy0S6CD_Qo4Om-0Hs0fQIzlFfiu5XQyn0jmKcGanx0jGFsFfFTQqMLBOk7YyNsM-Mj8vdT5Uuk20F7wjZ3SejsCgV6KXQ_jm6P5HY9OrsOal17yPnfQ4sH8lkZROjvoiw/w640-h432/OEB%20rate%20changes.jpg" width="640"></a></div><p><span></span></p><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2022/10/ontario-residential-electricity-rates.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-65226670184598958362022-05-25T14:53:00.001-04:002022-05-25T14:56:49.240-04:00Refurbish Pickering Nuclear Generating StationI was approached some time ago about supporting the refurbishment of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS). While I tried to be positive in offering to support proponents with data work, I didn’t add my name to the campaign primarily because, in addition to supporting nuclear, I try to support consumers. Things change, and the argument for a full refurbishment of reactors at PNGS has recently grown much stronger.<br><br>When I began this blog back in 2010 I pushed back against increasing electricity supply and the enormous costs unnecessary expansion was having on consumers, despite over half a century of declining growth rates in demand that had become no growth at all. In hindsight this was correct, and consumers benefited from the analysis. While Ontario has been awash in surplus supply for most of the ensuing 12 years, 2010’s <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2016/04/10700-ontarios-beastly-number.html">desire to contract 10,700 MW</a> of “clean, renewable energy from wind, solar and bioenergy” was never realized and today we have about 3,000 MW less than that under contract. For perspective, 3000 MW of wind at the prices the government in 2010 was contracting would have added about $25 billion in cost to Ontario’s consumers (over 20 years).<br><br>‘Renewables’ were not the only supply options being rolled back after 2010-2011. The <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2013/12/premier-deception-on-oakville-gas-plant.html">“Oakville Generating Station”</a> was contracted in 2009 (eventually built as the Napanee Generating Station), and that remains the last procurement initiating a major gas-fired generation station. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) not only abandoned plans for new nuclear builds but also for the refurbishment of the Pickering B, opting instead for life extension options on a far smaller scale.<br><br>I’ve long been unenthusiastic about all potential new generation which, in hindsight, was marked by high pricing due to unnecessary contracting, stagnant demand and excess generation. Including nuclear.<br><br><span id="docs-internal-guid-5a857994-7fff-36fc-c53a-48eb8cc9359b">I shared<a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2011/01/scotts-submitted-comments-on-draft.html"> my opinion on a supply mix for the province over 11 years ago</a>:<br><blockquote>The [Ontario Power Authority] is likely to determine that 8 Bruce units, and 4 Darlington units, will be able to supply 50%, of total electricity generation necessary to meet demand within Ontario… I would suggest the minister revise the wording of the directive to nuclear generation should be targeted to account to meet 50% of Ontario Demand. Looking back on statistics back to 1990, that is the level above which we become major exporters of electricity</blockquote>During the next Ontario electricity planning cycle, in 2013, I developed <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2013/08/ltep-tools-calculating-deception.html">planning tools </a>to test different mixes under different assumptions on productivity and pricing. Again I found the most economic lower-emission scenario was the 10,000 megawatts (MW) of refurbished nuclear capacity (comprised of 8 Bruce units and 4 Darlington ones). In one scenario I’d run based on stagnant supply, adding another 2,000 MW of nuclear (roughly the combined capacity of the 4 Pickering B units) reduced gas use, and emissions, but about half the added nuclear would have been wasted, dumped or displacing other trivial emission supply. <br><br>A lot has changed for modeling since 2013: I would use much different pricing, I’d have to adjust my expectations of output from industrial wind turbines (they’re bigger and have higher capacity factors), sharply reduce solar pricing, review storage aspects, etc. But the biggest issue would be forecasting demand, and it is there that I’ve been convinced the tide is turning and the long period of stagnant electricity consumption in the province is ending.<br><br></span><div><span></span></div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2022/05/refurbish-pickering-nuclear-generating.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-22911904721440577472022-05-11T15:25:00.002-04:002022-05-12T07:48:04.811-04:00Fake news and professional planning<div><br></div>As somebody who has observed, measured, critiqued and discussed Ontario’s electricity sector for a dozen years I feel compelled to discuss a couple of harmfully poor articles that have recently appeared in Toronto’s sleaziest newspapers.<div><span id="docs-internal-guid-12bba306-7fff-6c13-10c5-4e48e18a52c8"><blockquote><i>Retiring Ontario’s natural gas-fired power plants would be cheaper than official estimates released last fall, critics say, adding that they believe the government suppressed the publication of modelled scenarios that would have supported closing the carbon-intensive facilities.</i></blockquote>That begins an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail last month, ascribed to a Matthew McClearn who the paper’s website comically describes as, “an investigative reporter and data journalist with The Globe and Mail's Energy, Natural Resources and Environment Team.” McClean’s article, “<i>Documents raise questions about costs to retire Ontario’s natural gas power plants</i>”, quotes a single critic from his “<i>investigation</i>”. That critic is Jack Gibbons.<br><br>I’ll admit that Jack Gibbons is a critic. As am I. I’ve also thought of him as a self-promoting snake, but realize now he’s more of a chameleon. In 1998 Gibbons’ “Ontario Clean Air Alliance” (OCAA) was<a href="https://www.cleanairalliance.org/emissions-reduction-study/"> promoting gas as a replacement for coal</a>, as it continued to do even beyond 2009 when Gibbons was advocating for the Oakville (gas-fired) Generating Station - which turned out to be the last major gas-fueled new-build generator contracted in the province. Emissions today are far lower than under any of the scenarios the OCAA lobbied for during it’s first decade-and-a-half of existence and, simply put, when the OCAA called for a gas phase-out it called for something that began while they were advocating for new gas plants. In the past couple of years the aging OCAA members seem to have yearned for the years they received attention and collected ignorant municipal councillors to sign on to a campaign putting an end date on gas-fired generation.</span></div><div><blockquote><i>... we recommend that the Government of Ontario take the following actions to achieve: i) a <b>complete</b> gas plant phaseout by 2030; and ii) an interim 2.5 million tonne per year cap on the gas plants’ GHG pollution as soon as possible. - <a href="https://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/GAS_REPORT_2021_WEB.pdf">OCAA Feb. 2021</a></i></blockquote><a href="https://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/GAS_REPORT_2021_WEB.pdf"></a>The OCAA gas phase-out campaign steals from the strategies of the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario, who seized the coal phase-out issue as their own in the election of 2003 by promising to end coal 7 years earlier than the other parties planned - which they subsequently didn’t, but still credited for the policy. No new-build gas generator has been initiated with a contract since 2009 in Ontario. The long-term energy plan of 2013 invented a "planned flexibility" category, which had exactly the same attributes as simple cycle gas turbines specifically because it was non palpable by that time. In response to the OCAA campaign to be seen as against what they promoted for well over a decade the Minister of Energy issued a moratorium on procuring what hadn't been procured for the past dozen years.<br><br></div><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2022/05/fake-news-and-professional-planning.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-2845574068319568482022-02-19T15:31:00.004-05:002022-02-19T15:31:47.391-05:00Ontario Electricity Exports: losses, benefits, and transmission chargesIn 2021 Ontario’s electricity market sold exported electricity for $1.25 billion dollars less than Ontarians paid to have it supplied. That amount is calculated with a <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/01/ontario-lost-record-18-billion-dumping.html">methodology I described one year ago</a>. 2021’s $1.25 billion loss is an improvement on 5 of the past 6 years, and $563 million better than we fared in 2020. <br><br>Others look at exports differently. Today we visit the murky world of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) as it deals with a transmission charge for exports - which is where we find the IESO providing expert opinion.<br><br>A quick review of my work estimating losses on exports for those who haven’t memorized last year’s article: I copied (or attempted to) the methodology of the Office of the Auditor General in its 2015 annual report, which tallied up total system cost and usage to find an average cost of supply, takes revenues and volumes of exports, and does the math on how much lower the overall cost of exports was at the rate exporters paid than if they’d paid the average rate.<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwjP2I_2h8NZP-8cATx6DLfO7fyH7iXTNVzBKiZB9oJixvg5D1vy7uk17r9kAyR6POLe9CdnTNwtzxSRgFmoTjap3QoUlBSw2Z7aMTziJjYFWmg61HwxQUNiBh3IdvxmoDvAozpmxJbe_ufewIu6VJmAcLfiTw64orvwp7ZOPdA_slXQ6N6BDmR4bTrg=s1296" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="805" data-original-width="1296" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwjP2I_2h8NZP-8cATx6DLfO7fyH7iXTNVzBKiZB9oJixvg5D1vy7uk17r9kAyR6POLe9CdnTNwtzxSRgFmoTjap3QoUlBSw2Z7aMTziJjYFWmg61HwxQUNiBh3IdvxmoDvAozpmxJbe_ufewIu6VJmAcLfiTw64orvwp7ZOPdA_slXQ6N6BDmR4bTrg=w640-h398" width="640"></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7deea0ad-7fff-d14a-dddf-41716e445cb0"><br>If I had to present a one-sentence hit on that I’d borrow from professionals on the wording and put in my calculated figures: <br><br></span></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span>exports of electricity from Ontario have contributed between $1.2 and $1.8 billion of costs annually to Ontario’s Global Adjustment Charges between 2017 and 2020</span></div></div></blockquote><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2022/02/ontario-electricity-exports-losses.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-48941357090715817422022-02-13T13:17:00.009-05:002022-02-15T07:25:46.869-05:002021 Ontario Electricity Data Summary and discussion Ontario’s system operator (IESO) was tardy in publishing its “<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">year in review</a>” summary - and I was content to delay mine until their’s appeared. Before diving into the analysis I want to note the some challenges facing the sector as they’ve emerged in my media world:<br><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>the role of electricity in the broader energy sector;</li><li>the role of natural gas in the electricity sector;</li><li>decarbonization;</li><li>the role of Quebec supply in Ontario’s electricity mix;</li><li>the role of pricing to encourage electrification of transportation;</li><li>the role of nuclear and desirability of refurbishing Pickering B,</li><li>the role of storage,</li><li>the future supply mix,</li><li>pricing policies to shift consumption to periods of excess supply.</li></ul>An annual analysis provides metrics that have utility, but it should be kept in mind this summary level of analysis has limitations. I’ll summarize annual statistics for not only 2021 but also for the years from 2014-2020 to give a perspective on where we were as well as where we are.<br><br>If you follow <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">me on Twitter</a> you may have seen the first numbers in the IESO’s summary, albeit in different units,<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#"> days before</a> the IESO posted them. Whereas the IESO posts these separately I’ll show the past 8 years here:<br><br><img height="246" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6QxayhM8Rpj2gxMWKHIprA3_Ua3OYKZZyRpxuFpSVA2tGQVdwsPMLoVODMrEJ60rCR2-gxphsuN9HRn5gaS1XaHxMsLPkmaWNkOWeLKLHN7cCX_9Hb10ub-H1H_WKk5_EeO2huYL=w640-h246" width="640"><br><br><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2022/02/2021-ontario-electricity-data-summary.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-91898325110423945322021-10-28T17:26:00.006-04:002021-10-28T17:33:24.226-04:00ignore those promoting a death date for natural gas in Ontario's Electricity System<div class="separator">The last contracting of a new and significant natural gas-fired generating station in Ontario happened 12 years ago.</div><div class="separator"><br></div>It's been 7 months since my previous post. Among the reasons for my blogging hiatus is the prominence of the future of natural gas as discussed in the mainstream media, at municipal councils, and at the province’s electricity system operator (IESO). This has put me in the uncomfortable position of advocating for Ontario’s natural gas generating capacity, which I do unenthusiastically, but responsibly must in advocating for consumers. My previous post was titled <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/03/ontarios-electricity-system-has-not-yet.html">‘Ontario’s electricity system has not yet passed gas.’</a> This post will provide background on the building of natural gas-fueled generating in Ontario with the intent of altering the popular perception of expertise on environmentalism and electricity.<div><br><div class="separator">11 years ago I began communicating that the extremely generous feed-in tariff contracts (FITs) being awarded had to result in steep increases in electricity rates. I demonstrated what must, and consequently did, happen in writing driven by my research and data work. Today most ‘experts’ say there were obvious flaws in the procurement of electricity supply in Ontario a decade ago that any idiot could see, but I assure you few idiots, and only a tiny minority of allegedly ‘expert’ ones, did at the time. My target market in writing was primarily the people working in government who had to sit around a table listening to spectacularly poor direction from a Minister or Premier to arm them with better information than the politicians and lobbyists in the hopes of allowing public servants the weaponry to resist those people and actually serve the public. Today the situation is considerably different: the IESO has produced <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">a solid report </a>in response to calls, from lobbyists and politicians, for natural gas to be phased out by 2030.<br><br>It’s been several years since direction from the provincial government was obnoxiously poor.<br><br>The problems today are elsewhere.<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br></div><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">The Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA), led by Jack Gibbons, has seized the opportunity to return to the limelight in Ontario’s energy discourse in calling for “a complete gas plant phase-out by 2030,” an idea it’s actively <a href="https://www.cleanairalliance.org/gas-phasehout/">working to get municipal councils to endorse and commit to desiring</a>. The campaign has had some success as municipalities join on, but phasing out gas has long been a desire of the provincial legislature. Want is not the issue.<br><br>Here’s how the OCAA began <a href="https://www.cleanairalliance.org/ieso-gas-plant-phase-out-report-an-october-scare-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/">its response to the system operator’s report</a>:<br><blockquote>Yesterday the so-called “Independent” Electricity System Operator (IESO), under the helm of <a href="https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-i-okyuto-l-r/">climate denier Joe Oliver</a>, released a <a href="https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-i-okyuto-l-y/">report</a> that seems more like a pre-Halloween prank than a serious analysis of how Ontario can lower its climate pollution by phasing out gas-fired electricity generation.</blockquote>Jack Gibbons is not one who should be talking about emissions in anything but an apologetic manner - as is true of many people the press considers both environmentalists and experts in Ontario electricity policy.</div><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br></div><span></span></div></div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/10/ignore-those-promoting-death-date-for.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-73010712851048438902021-03-15T17:49:00.000-04:002021-03-15T17:49:11.770-04:00Ontario's electricity system has not yet passed gas
Ontario's electricity system has not yet passed gas
1
Ontario’s electricity system includes generators fueled by natural gas. This is suddenly a hot topic as a campaign lobbying councils to say no to this type of generation moves through municipalities. The “no gas” lobbying appeals to a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, exploiting predictions of increased use of natural gas in generating electricity in the province. This article will explore what entities have been the key drivers of emissions in Ontario’s electricity system, the credibility of the body being cited predicting increased generation fueled by natural gas and, if all goes well, convince the reader they are not willing to decrease global carbon emissions at any cost.<div><br><h3 style="text-align: left;">Background on the IESO’s pretend market</h3>My <a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/01/ontario-lost-record-18-billion-dumping.html">previous post</a> reconstructed a method to estimate losses on electricity exports out of Ontario. The measure does not indicate Ontario would be better off if it didn’t export its excess, but that Ontario would be better off with data discipline and consistent metrics capable of informing, and influencing, the managers of the system. Most years we pay more, per unit of electricity, and receive less from exporters of that electricity. It’s a bad trend, but not one Ontario’s electricity system has been structured to notice.<br><br>In Ontario the system is operated by the IESO. The IESO’s system includes what should be called a pretend market - it was called a hybrid market when introduced in 2005 after a collapsed attempt at a real market, but it’s deteriorated significantly since then. From <a href="https://strapolec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Electricity-Markets-in-Ontario-Final-Report-December-2020.pdf">a recent report</a>:<div><br><blockquote>...Over 98% of Ontario’s generation costs are controlled through either regulation or contracts, and even the fixed costs of most of the assets that trade on the market are contracted. As a result, less than 2% of the total system costs are actually price-exposed and influenced by the market (the dark blue area)</blockquote>The creation of a market for electricity in Ontario revealed itself as a fantasy in four acts:<br><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>the freezing of the market price shortly after its birth in 2002 killed any chance of merchant generation getting built;</li><li>the introduction of the global adjustment mechanism (2005) separated the contracting of new generation from a need for revenue from sales into the market, and was accompanied by regulating rates for public Ontario Power Generation (OPG) nuclear and very large hydroelectric generators;</li><li>the introduction of contingency payments to keep coal generators operating after the market collapse of 2008, and,</li><li>Regulating the rates for the remainder of OPG’s hydro-electric facilities for 2015.</li></ol><span></span></div></div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/03/ontarios-electricity-system-has-not-yet.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-52476962437001713252021-01-08T10:11:00.002-05:002021-01-08T10:13:22.805-05:00Ontario lost a record $1.8 billion dumping excess electricity in 2020$1.8 billion dollars: that’s how much Ontarians lost selling electricity to neighbours in 2020 once the revenues earned from the sale are subtracted from the cost of producing the power.<br><br>By one accounting, which I’ll show is an Auditor General’s.<br><br>It’s been a while since my last post, during which period this blog turned 10. A decade ago, this month, a<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG9zik2XorI&feature=emb_logo"> Premier noted some people think discussing losses on exports is fun</a>, and at the same time lectured, <i>“what you want to do of course is try to manage your system as best as you can so that there's as little extra electricity as possible.” </i>Looking at the longer trend with the benefit of hindsight will be fun (of course), and as an added benefit it will provide a measure of the quality of the system’s managers.<br><br>Last month I was contacted by a friend looking to update claims from the <a href="https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en15/3.05en15.pdf">2015 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario</a> (the Auditor), including:<br><blockquote>From 2009 to 2014...Ontario exported 95.1 million MWh of power to other jurisdictions, but the amount it was paid was $3.1 billion less than what it cost to produce that power</blockquote><p>From a statistics viewpoint the biggest part of this challenge is figuring out what that $3.1 billion claim was based on. It turns out it’s demonstrated by Figure 10 in that 2015 report - and now we descend into the sordid world of Ontario’s electricity data to determine the origins of the numbers visualized in that graphic. <br><br>I’ve added a tabular table which shows the figures I transcribed from the Auditor’s Figure 10 - not a precise process but one that provides valuable estimates for what is visualized. The difference between the cost of production and revenues in the graphic equal $3.1 billion. Before discussing the “cost of producing Exported Power...as estimated by [Office of the Auditor General of Ontario]” I will note both figure 5 and figure 10 in the 2015 Auditor’s report cite the IESO (Ontario’s hybrid electricity system operator) as the source of revenue from exports: figure 5 prints the figure for 2014 as $636 million while my transposition of the graphics - -done as it’s clearly not that - puts the figure a little below $750 million.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuKH6LG5xH1KSufg1koT4_b3TEb7_SjJoUSQIWvdhZm1rR48RD4LuBgMbpqFmUtkB75v6lVxbCM_nMMpLXTv3sQikdL-KmadNwy0MIfzGY1mkYWfSX7e1yG3fAPrdyYQfsKOsRqDSL3p39/s831/AG+2015+graphics.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="831" height="402" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuKH6LG5xH1KSufg1koT4_b3TEb7_SjJoUSQIWvdhZm1rR48RD4LuBgMbpqFmUtkB75v6lVxbCM_nMMpLXTv3sQikdL-KmadNwy0MIfzGY1mkYWfSX7e1yG3fAPrdyYQfsKOsRqDSL3p39/w622-h402/AG+2015+graphics.png" width="622"></a></div><p>Same source, same measure, same year: two numbers. I’ll revisit this after I discuss a methodology behind the cost of producing exported power that reproduces the results graphed in the Auditor’s Report.<br></p><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2021/01/ontario-lost-record-18-billion-dumping.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-53932785898329553802020-10-18T12:13:00.000-04:002020-10-18T12:13:12.991-04:00Changes: choosing Time-of-Use or Tiered billing<p>The Ontario Energy Board recently announced Regulated Price Plan<b>S </b>(RPP) for the winter (November-April). New for this year is<a href="https://www.oeb.ca/rates-and-your-bill/electricity-rates/choosing-your-electricity-price-plan" target="_blank"> consumer choice</a>: Time-Of-Use (TOU) pricing will remain the default option, but individuals can opt to switch to the tiered pricing structure that many will be familiar with from before they were forced onto TOU pricing. Some have asked my opinion on switching - which I'd given without thinking it worthy of blog post. Now that I've heard others opine I offer a blog post to defend my very simple advice - and comment on the choices in the context of cleaner energy policy.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>If you use less than the level of usage set for the lower-price tier (1,000 kWh) you should switch to tiered rates.</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">That's it: no gathering up all your bills, getting your hourly usage by registering on the web with your local distribution company (LDC), and crunching the numbers.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Just switch.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Now for me rambling on to justify that one line if only to justify my simply statement while everybody else I hear is advising researching ...</p><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/10/changes-choosing-time-of-use-or-tiered.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-86712404445749435272020-08-18T10:47:00.000-04:002020-08-18T10:47:07.137-04:00Messages from July's Global Adjustment figures<p>Ontario's electricity system operator (IESO) released the final July global adjustment figures yesterday. July is the first month of new global adjustment "Peak Demand Factors" for participants in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI), and therefore it's the month that gives an idea how severe the cost shifting from the Class A consumers participating in the ICI to the other consumers in Ontario (Class B).</p><blockquote>"To B." - Ontario electricity rate designer.</blockquote><p>Collectively class A consumers share of the global adjustment costs shrunk to 16.7% from 17.7%, which had shrunk from 19.2% the previous adjustment period. From July 2019 thru June 2020 the shrunk share for Class A meant $215 million more transferred to Class B consumers - or the taxpayer that subsidize them - and that will increase by about $150 million a year for the next 2 years due to the Ford <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2020/06/ontario-provides-stable-electricity-pricing-for-industrial-and-commercial-companies.html">government's decision to suspend the requirement to reduce consumption during peak periods</a> during the current adjustment period.</p><p>Some good news from the global adjustment reporting is Class A consumption is continuing to recover since sharply dropping towards the end of March</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoW0UfoLhrwUvZgetlG9EkBcK_93QvU3cEFPfKDZFgDmq7FmDCAVYtkyG3qm_gzEZSKpExasURJODqS1X6CK8sothpz5r_JLox4q8isu0VT_xXmuZj1nAOTOSYAmF5bWakRgqREzN-c3hb/s745/Ontario+Class+A+Monthly+Consumption+%2528TWh%2529.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="514" data-original-width="745" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoW0UfoLhrwUvZgetlG9EkBcK_93QvU3cEFPfKDZFgDmq7FmDCAVYtkyG3qm_gzEZSKpExasURJODqS1X6CK8sothpz5r_JLox4q8isu0VT_xXmuZj1nAOTOSYAmF5bWakRgqREzN-c3hb/s640/Ontario+Class+A+Monthly+Consumption+%2528TWh%2529.png" width="640"></a></p><span></span><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/08/messages-from-julys-global-adjustment.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-90373947032699730602020-07-20T15:29:00.001-04:002020-07-21T07:27:30.799-04:00Government manufactured high electricity demand should end the ICIEach day from July 7th to 10th saw an IESO "Ontario Demand" peak higher than any day since July 2013, and July 6th saw the 7th highest peak since 2013's summer. The government had made some announcements that encouraged this month's higher peaks:<br>
<ul>
<li>On Saturday, <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2020/05/ontario-provides-consumers-with-greater-stability-and-predictability-with-their-electricity-bills.html" target="_blank">May 30th, the government announced</a> the suspension of time-of-use (TOU) electricity pricing, replacing it with a flat rate until the end of October, and,</li>
<li>On the afternoon of Friday June 26th the government announced, <i>"companies that participate in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) will not be required to reduce their electricity usage during peak hours"</i></li>
</ul>
The second of these announcements was the most impactful in spurring higher peak consumption, but a review of multiply pricing impacts, and our ability to measure them, will provide a perspective for controlling systemic costs.<br>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br></div>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/07/government-manufactured-high.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-91654341647336391422020-05-03T14:55:00.001-04:002020-06-09T07:49:22.907-04:00Consequences of Ontario's Green Energy Act warn against creating green new deals as stimulusAs economic activity takes a seat way back from the driving priority of halting the spread of COVID-19, recession is looming, and proposals popping up for spending to spur recovery. People, particularly those in Ontario, should be informed on the actions to spur stimulus during the last big recession, for two big reasons. This post will concentrate on the first - which is the cost, and benefits, of the actions initiated by the Green Energy and Economy Act of 2009. I'll tally up costs incurred due to the electricity procurement than followed, and note the impact on post recession Ontario in quickly noting how those costs have been getting paid - and then I'll conclude with the second reason people need to know this history and its current impacts.<br>
<br>
The <a href="https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-39/session-1/bill-150/debates" target="_blank">Green Energy and Green Economy Act </a>(GEA) was introduced to the legislature early in 2009, and received Royal Assent 3 months later. It provided the basis for a contracting orgy that persisted until the fall of 2011 before slowing to occasional carnal encounters. The impetus of the "green energy" push was a waning economy, as described by <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-samsung-became-an-ontario-election-flashpoint/article596188/" target="_blank">Karen Howlett and Renata D'Aliesio in 2011</a>:<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Ontario Premier Dalton] McGuinty began looking at where to place his strategic bets during the global economic recession in 2008, when manufacturing jobs were quickly vanishing in Ontario. He solicited many opinions, said a source close to the talks, and the jurisdiction that kept coming up was Germany.<br>
Mr. McGuinty turned to David Suzuki, Canada's best-known environmentalist, to set up a meeting with the father of Germany's green energy revolution, Hermann Scheer, in June of that year. The German parliamentarian arrived in Mr. McGuinty's office in the Ontario Legislature with a blueprint for building a new economy from scratch.<br>
The McGuinty government heeded the now-late Dr. Scheer's advice. George Smitherman, then the new energy minister, adopted the "feed-in tariff" model that Germany used to become the world's first major renewable energy economy, committing to pay above-market prices for green power.<br>
Liberal MPPs learned about their government's push into green energy in the fall of 2008 during a caucus retreat at the Benmiller Inn in Goderich, where Mr. Smitherman talked about the potential to create 50,000 jobs...</blockquote>
Ontario's green energy procurement were far from Keynesian economics. Instead of government borrowing to invest in the infrastructure that would aid productivity and grow wealth in the future, the government avoided borrowing by attracting private capital by offering generous contract terms trusting its existing global adjustment mechanism would allow the costs to be paid by electricity ratepayers. My understanding of economic theory is deficit spending on infrastructure during bad times allows for productivity to jump when better times return - but the GEA's contracting avoided growing government debt in return for making electricity more expensive in better times.<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Government of Ontario is committed to fostering the growth of renewable energy projects, which use cleaner sources of energy, and to removing barriers to and promoting opportunities for renewable energy projects and to promoting a green economy.<br>
...<br>
The Government of Ontario is committed to promoting and expanding energy conservation by all Ontarians and to encouraging all Ontarians to use energy efficiently. <span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>-Preamble to Bill 150 2009</i></span></blockquote>
The obvious costs from the GEA period are due to contracts awarded under the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program and related Green Energy Investment Agreement (GEIA) - better known as the "Sumsung deal". Less well known are the Hydroelectric Contract initiative (HCI) and Hydroelectric Energy Supply Agreements (HESA). Another stated goal of the Green Energy was the promotion of a 'culture of conservation' - with 'energy efficiency' and 'demand management' prominent phrases being joyously bandied about in and about the legislation. I've pulled the figures for those contracts, and conservation spending, from my database of estimates:<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglB0htCK6_JltYKAMl8vdDZ39SOyjWy7_wdOc3Qs2Qt-5UE2yIRXKClfXHkHWzYpLwc0XXK4Fuqe9JmcuckTlXtZ4qKWNL_gSj1aOhfyidl9jSkECnoBZogK5gwxuNQkGh0k8oYUC-JwMy/s1600/GEA+addition+to+hydro+costs.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="622" data-original-width="664" height="598" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglB0htCK6_JltYKAMl8vdDZ39SOyjWy7_wdOc3Qs2Qt-5UE2yIRXKClfXHkHWzYpLwc0XXK4Fuqe9JmcuckTlXtZ4qKWNL_gSj1aOhfyidl9jSkECnoBZogK5gwxuNQkGh0k8oYUC-JwMy/s640/GEA+addition+to+hydro+costs.png" width="640"></a></div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
</div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/05/consequences-of-ontarios-green-energy.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-77507210211762819252020-04-28T12:16:00.002-04:002020-04-29T09:29:21.215-04:00Influence Peddling: lobbying in Ontario's electricity system<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="color: #444444;">Prior to COVID-19 arriving here in Ontario, and paralyzing society, I'd read some papers dealing with the electricity system. These papers may seem a trivial topic today, but the last major economic shock saw the Green Energy Act successfully lobbied and implemented by people who'd been laying in wait for a crisis to manipulate.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br></div>
<br>
In<a href="http://www.ontarioenergynetwork.org/2019/12/09/oen-networking-luncheon-peter-gregg-ieso-january-24-2020/"> a conversation on January 24, 2020,</a> at an Ontario Energy Network Event, Terry Young, (IESO Vice President Policy, Engagement and Innovation) interviewed IESO President and CEO Peter Gregg.<span style="color: red; font-size: xx-small;"><b>[1] </b></span>The VP lobbed a question he figured the head of a storage company would ask if she could use the app for questioning, and the President and CEO responded with what a big area of focus the niche was for the IESO.<br>
<br>
40 Days after the IESO’s leadership channeled questions for the head of <a href="http://nrstor.com/">NRStor Inc</a>., with the President acknowledging even if storage wasn’t economic they’d figure out some tricks to make it so, <a href="https://www.blackstone.com/the-firm/press-releases/article/blackstone-acquires-battery-energy-storage-pioneer-nrstor-c-i">Blackstone, “one of the world’s leading investment firms”, completed the acquisition of NRStor C&I L.P. </a>The head of <a href="http://nrstor.com/2020/03/04/fengate-and-lake-bridge-announce-sale-of-nrstor-ci-a-leading-distributed-energy-resources-platform/">NRStor congratulated some financial firms</a> on the sale, indicating it was likely the company was being shopped as the heads of the sole contractor of their products were having a conversation pumping their products.<br>
<br>
Storage may be important.<br>
<br>
Influence definitely is.<br>
<br>
Blackstone would not be the first company deciding the way to get into the Ontario market/bonanza is through purchasing existing “stakeholders” - the industry’s preferred euphemism for insiders.<br>
<div>
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____</div>
<br>
<br>
Three documents I read this year (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic hitting the province) either target the IESO to form policies for the lobby’s technology, or suggest actions that fit into the IESO’s preferences (which are, unfortunately,<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/02/ontarios-legislated-terribly-energy.html"> often dictated by the Electricity Act</a>):<br>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.pollutionprobe.org/replacing-pickering/">Replacing Pickering: March 2020 The Next Step in the GTA’s Clean Energy Transition </a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.tcenergy.com/siteassets/pdfs/power/pumped-storage-project/tc-energy-value-of-pumped-storage-project-report.pdf">Economic Analysis of a Proposed Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Project in Ontario</a></li>
<li><a href="https://canwea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Whitepaper-on-Wind-Energy-and-the-Ontario-Market_January-2020.pdf">Whitepaper on Wind Energy and the Ontario Market</a></li>
</ul>
With the likelihood governments will be looking to stimulate economies should we ever exit lock-down mode, and assuming they’ll forget the long-term damage done by the very stupid procurements done in Ontario following the financial crisis, it might be worthwhile to quickly review what’s being pitched.<br>
<div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-27049b40-7fff-55bd-1933-37c02ca3d33b"></span><br>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-27049b40-7fff-55bd-1933-37c02ca3d33b">_____</span><br>
</div></div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/04/influence-peddling-lobbying-in-ontarios.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-53313835349593298402020-04-10T16:43:00.002-04:002020-04-11T06:38:39.172-04:00the IESO's continuing assault on consumersThe COVID-19 pandemic is affecting most aspects of life, and Ontario's electricity sector is not, and cannot be, exempt. It appears unseemly to discuss electricity hucksterism during a time of crisis, but hucksters came to the fore during the last big crisis (the financial one of 2008/09), so it would also be unwise to passively allow more heists.<br>
<br>
A week ago I posted an article on Linkedin: <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/massive-excess-electricity-scott-luft/" target="_blank">A massive excess of electricity</a>. I really can't say why I didn't post it here on the blog, but I will briefly discuss its origin. There were two announcements that I'd commented on in social media channels (<a href="https://twitter.com/ScottLuft" target="_blank">Twitter </a>and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ColdAirOnline" target="_blank">Facebook</a>): the I<a href="https://twitter.com/IESO_Tweets/status/1245790341896310793" target="_blank">ESO noting a steep drop in demand</a> and Ontario Power Generation (OPG)<a href="https://www.opg.com/news-and-media/darlington-refurbishment-project-news/news/opg-targets-fall-date-for-unit-3-refurbishment-due-to-covid-19/" target="_blank"> deferring the start of a refurbishment outage </a>at a nuclear reactor. Upon double checking through version of the IESO's daily<a href="http://reports.ieso.ca/docrefs/helpfile/Adequacy2_h1.pdf" target="_blank"> adequacy reports</a> to confirm Darlington 3 was no longer being removed from service I discovered another nuclear outage has also been cancelled. Each of those things was unfortunate for consumers exposed to Class B electricity pricing in Ontario - and the taxpayers subsidizing the Regulated Price Plan consumers who once were - but combined I wrote the suddenly additional 3,350 MW of excess supply will lead to spectacularly high, record, commodity pricing.<br>
<br>
Those things were, in my opinion, unfortunate. With social distancing the increase in personnel on sites required for outage work might not be feasible, and demand is low for reasons that can't be responsibly countered.<br>
<br>
Yesterday the head of the I____ Electricity System Operator, (IESO),Peter Gregg wrote <a href="http://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/IESO-News/2020/04/A-message-for-our-market-participants" target="_blank">a message to, "our market participants," </a>in which he explained the massive excess supply is deliberate:<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One of the most important steps we’ve taken in recent weeks has been to work with market participants to minimize the number of generation facilities and transmission elements that are out of service. Although a certain amount of redundancy is essential at all times, this redundancy is especially valuable to provide the flexibility the system needs right now</blockquote>
I read something yesterday that reminded me of that old song: "Hey ho, hey ho, Peter Gregg has got to go."<br>
<br>
Don't know it?<br>
You haven't been paying attention.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/04/halting-iesos-continuing-assault-on.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-81524552856781666502020-03-21T07:14:00.002-04:002021-01-10T13:03:29.919-05:00COVID-19: data, information and opinionI've been following reporting on the coronavirus COVID-19 both for specific personal reasons and out of the general interest in data-driven communication I've tried to practice on this site. Realizing the shelf life of this post is likely to be incredibly short, I thought I'd take some time to write down which media is proving useful to me in explaining the situation, some sources of data on the spread of the virus, and what actions I'd hope to see taken.<br>
<br>
I am the spouse of a paramedic - which is <a href="https://twitter.com/OPSEUAmbDiv/status/1239330640551608323/photo/1" target="_blank">among the professions most likely to contact the coronavirus</a>. We are both past our half-century mark, and we're fortunate that all of our parents are alive. We can't visit them without being confident we don't have the virus. I've felt unwell, with mild systems that could fit this virus, or a number of other things: my wife's symtoms were bad enough that we were directed to drive over an hour (each way) for testing this weekend, not so bad they performed the testing, but bad enough she was to quarantine for 2 weeks.<br>
<br>
I won't attempt to communicate how the virus operates (there is <a href="https://youtu.be/BtN-goy9VOY" target="_blank">a video</a> for that) - but the specifics aren't necessarily what is driving the actions of, in Ontario anyway, the past 8 days. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/" target="_blank">One of the most-viewed pages </a>ever on the Washington Post site explains exponential growth with a model of a fictitious virus spreading. The paper, using four scenarios to address the speed at which the virus spreads, is <a href="https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/how-a-blockbuster-washington-post-story-made-social-distancing-easy-to-understand/" target="_blank">credited with making "'social distancing' easy to understand</a>." From that post: <i>"If the number of cases were to continue to double every three days, there would be about a hundred million cases in the United States by May." </i>It doesn't mention that the number would grow to include the entire US population within 5 more days, but ...<br>
<br>
Maybe the most impactful graphic of the growth in the impacts to Canadians is <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-sources-comparison" target="_blank">the graphic on number of confirmed cases from Our World in Data reporting</a>, filtered to show only Canada:<br>
<br>
<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-cases-by-source?time=40..58&country=CAN" style="border: 0px none; height: 600px; width: 100%;"></iframe>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/03/covid-19-data-information-and-opinion.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-12211395769713012262020-03-05T11:12:00.002-05:002020-03-05T11:12:28.330-05:00Ontario Electricity Distributor data can be informative, but lacks consistencyI recently updated a database I'd created with annual data from the <a href="https://www.oeb.ca/utility-performance-and-monitoring/natural-gas-and-electricity-utility-yearbooks" target="_blank">Ontario Energy Board (OEB) yearbooks of electricity distributors</a>. Viewing my <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/cold-air-data/ldc-yearbooks" target="_blank">reporting driven by the updated data now with records from 2005 to 2018 data</a> I was struck by a couple of things I felt worthy of comment, but in researching as I wrote this post I discovered the trends that looked particularly striking were exaggerated by data reporting changes. The discussion on trends may still be useful both in itself, and in setting up some closing comments on data reporting discipline.<br>
<br>
The OEB yearbook data isn't strictly comparable to data developed by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). But looking at trends the growing discrepancies in summer peak demand appears to be quite extraordinary. In this first graphic the total of the summer peak demands at all local distribution companies (LDC's) are shown against the peaks of the IESO's "Ontario Demand" (which is actually demand for supply generators on the IESO-connected grid). I've added a, "Revised LDC peak" which I calculated to attempt to make the data from the yearbooks from 2016-2018 comparable to previous yearbooks' data.<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwNwceB3sKY9iujx-6Kr8jXGbB3yWBKMWT2wyR3dqhqhHmhZdhCqajcApHNP3ZcuxNlJX_kRu_MGHIUTxYVmjJ_kVSbGK1YBmK6kpjmaR1m5-_6OD6jCY103xCuAdfm2DAfeDUKPrSKN6K/s1600/Comparison+of+Reported+Summer+peaks+%2528MWh%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="697" data-original-width="1001" height="444" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwNwceB3sKY9iujx-6Kr8jXGbB3yWBKMWT2wyR3dqhqhHmhZdhCqajcApHNP3ZcuxNlJX_kRu_MGHIUTxYVmjJ_kVSbGK1YBmK6kpjmaR1m5-_6OD6jCY103xCuAdfm2DAfeDUKPrSKN6K/s640/Comparison+of+Reported+Summer+peaks+%2528MWh%2529.png" width="640"></a></div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
While all LDC's need not have peaks at the same time, the relationship between LDC peaks and IESO peaks has changed since 2005. Although the total of all distribution companies' summer peaks has reportedly been higher than the IESO's summer peak in each of the past 3 years, this is only due to Hydro One Inc. boosting its peak by including IESO wholesale consumers that receive their electricity through Hydro One's distribution network. I suppose there's a judgement call as to whether the report is on distribution networks or distribution consumers, but I don't suppose the judgement should change from one year to the next.<br>
<br>
Changes in procurement and consumer demand management explain why the gap is narrowing (if not eliminated) in the reporting of peaks in the IESO's "Ontario Demand" data, and the distribution reporting.<br>
<br>
Supply to local distribution companies is only one element of the system operator's "Ontario Demand," which also includes consumption at generators, transmission losses, and supplying large wholesale consumers. About 85% of the IESO's "Ontario Demand" is due to supplying LDC's.<br>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/03/ontario-electricity-distributor-data.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-39603834575695590592020-02-23T08:47:00.002-05:002020-02-23T08:49:20.182-05:00Ontario's Legislated Terribly Energy Plans"The law is an ass," Dickens wrote - anticipating the Electricity Act in Ontario.<br>
<br>
In writing on <a href="https://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/02/an-outlook-against-lower-electricity.html" target="_blank">how the IESO's stakeholder-infested processes are working to prevent costs from being controlled</a> I stated:<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>There are external, legislated, and political reasons for the IESO’s focus on efficiency, which seem to corrupt all analysis coming from it.</i></blockquote>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2011/08/duncans-grow-op-is-stealing-hydro.html" target="_blank">As with the global adjustment debacle</a>, the architect of the dysfunctional law is Dwight Duncan - although neither vehicle would likely exist in their current form if he had remained as minister of energy long enough to see the abuse of ratepayers his policies have facilitated.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15/v5" target="_blank">Prior to 2005, the purposes of The Electricity Act</a> were:<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>(a) to facilitate competition in the generation and sale of electricity and to facilitate a smooth transition to competition;</b><br>
<span style="color: blue;">(b) to provide generators, retailers and consumers with non-discriminatory access to transmission and distribution systems in Ontario;</span><br>
<span style="color: #674ea7;">(c) to protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the reliability and quality of electricity service;</span><br>
<span style="color: #274e13;">(d) to promote economic efficiency in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity...</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #274e13;">I've added some emphasis </span>to illustrate changes in the stated purposes of the law that <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15/v9" target="_blank">took effect in 2005</a> - changes which removed "facilitating competition" as the main purpose of the act and demoted other priorities behind requiring central planning, conservation, demand response, and the promotion of "cleaner energy":<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>a)</b> <b>to ensure the adequacy, safety, sustainability and reliability of electricity supply in Ontario through responsible planning and management of electricity resources, supply and demand;</b><br>
<b>(b) to encourage electricity conservation</b><i><u> and the efficient use of electricity in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario;</u></i><br>
(c) to facilitate load management<i> in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario;</i><br>
(d) to promote the use of cleaner energy sources and technologies, including alternative energy sources and renewable energy sources,<i> in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario;</i><br>
<span style="color: blue;">(e) to provide generators, retailers and consumers with non-discriminatory access to transmission and distribution systems in Ontario;</span><br>
<span style="color: #674ea7;">(f) to protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service;</span><br>
<span style="color: #274e13;">(g) to promote economic efficiency</span><b><i> and sustainability</i></b><span style="color: #274e13;"> in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity...</span></blockquote>
The stated purposes in the current version of the law are similar, although an "a.1" is added <b>"to establish a mechanism for energy planning."</b> This mechanism connects the IESO's planning outlook to long-term energy plans from a Ministry including energy.<br>
<br>
The changes to the act made back in 2005 explain the IESO's lack of competency in operating a competitive market and related abandonment of the main cost savings promise from Ontario's last long-Term Energy Plan. Which brings me to putting the IESO's newest publication, the first Annual Planning Outlook, in the context of the current Electricity Act's "mechanism for energy planning."<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/02/ontarios-legislated-terribly-energy.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-1858555317836682512020-02-22T12:13:00.003-05:002020-02-22T12:19:51.414-05:00Records for wind and solar output on same day fail to reduce Ontario emissions.Friday February 21, 2020 saw 2 record hourly production records on the IESO-controlled grid (ICG):<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>426 megawatt-hours (MWh) from solar in hour 14 (1-2 pm) and,</li>
<li>4,393 MWh in hour from industrial wind in hour 19.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Including hydro, and embedded generation (not on the ICG), production from renewables could have climbed above 10,000 MW in hour 11 and stayed above that level until hour 23.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
That's the good news.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The bad news is the system operator didn't reduce natural gas-fueled generation from noon to 9 pm despite its Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) remaining below the cost to fuel generation from gas.</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBd9oGg-6B0AabMjX96knL59pWYimJBajLyxdOwfKMGQIxaXkM6SkphnZcx-hBEZWLq6be0MwTYWbcyiSDYVXMjAEjLPi2rXwoKICKTWYglB5l_OnRoOBlXX64x09Y_s7p-q4z_e4dZhuU/s1600/February+21%252C+2020%252C+Ontario+Electricity+Metrics+%2528MWh+and+%2524_MWh%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="764" data-original-width="942" height="518" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBd9oGg-6B0AabMjX96knL59pWYimJBajLyxdOwfKMGQIxaXkM6SkphnZcx-hBEZWLq6be0MwTYWbcyiSDYVXMjAEjLPi2rXwoKICKTWYglB5l_OnRoOBlXX64x09Y_s7p-q4z_e4dZhuU/s640/February+21%252C+2020%252C+Ontario+Electricity+Metrics+%2528MWh+and+%2524_MWh%2529.png" width="640"></a></div>
For the 10 hours following the HOEP dropping to $0, gas generators produced an average of 1,655 MW. According to the IESO gas generation totaled 9.6 million MWh in 2019, or approximately 1,100 megawatts per hour. Yesterday, as records were being set for renewables, contracted supply being curtailed, electricity being exported below the cost of even the fuel for gas turbines, generation with natural gas was 50% higher than the average from 2019.<br>
<br>
Which begs this question of the IESO: "What were you doing?"<br>
<br>
<a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/02/records-for-wind-and-solar-output-on.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-14115654823689542662020-02-11T15:16:00.002-05:002020-02-11T15:16:16.707-05:00The threat/promise of more electricity from natural gas in OntarioA <a href="http://www.ieso.ca/-/media/Files/IESO/Document-Library/engage/20-year-planning-outlook/opo-20190412-presentation.pdf?la=en">presentation </a>during the planning period of the IESO’s recently released Annual Planning Outlook (APO) included this line:<br><blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Over time, production from [Ontario’s gas-fueled generator fleet] could exceed the utilization levels expected from those facilities (generally 40-60% capacity factor for [combined-cycle gas turbines]).“</blockquote>
The low utilization of generators contracted on capacity terms is something I tried to report on when writing of <a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2019/03/available-low-cost-electricity-not.html">Available low-cost electricity not utilized in Ontario</a>. We have been very far from 40-60% <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor" target="_blank">capacity factors</a> over the past decade, and a breakdown of cost should demonstrate why that’s relevant to controlling expenses.<div>
<br></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9mPYAbsUftM4qBVSGoMaTNIJe8ThPMwKLtnik0eGZxIjCtvsrb9QAGp2koptIFVLzITRQiCpb0LtbTzApTIj2An1lU1YEhxShj1cZdnDks3kst-T1uDtKwg0zIui8M5RD1OgqJNv0CT0c/s1600/Estimated+annual+generation%252C+and+capacity+factor%252C+for+Ontario+natural+gas+fueled+generators+_CES_+Contracts.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="1070" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9mPYAbsUftM4qBVSGoMaTNIJe8ThPMwKLtnik0eGZxIjCtvsrb9QAGp2koptIFVLzITRQiCpb0LtbTzApTIj2An1lU1YEhxShj1cZdnDks3kst-T1uDtKwg0zIui8M5RD1OgqJNv0CT0c/s640/Estimated+annual+generation%252C+and+capacity+factor%252C+for+Ontario+natural+gas+fueled+generators+_CES_+Contracts.png" width="640"></a></div>
<div>
</div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/02/the-threatpromise-of-more-electricity.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082786308862898980.post-12203516227862542742020-02-09T15:56:00.000-05:002020-02-09T15:56:00.958-05:00An outlook against lower electricity costsCan anything be done to reduce the costs of electricity in Ontario?<br><br><div>
I get the question more frequently lately.The answer is “yes". Something, theoretically, could be done. </div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
In reviewing <a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/01/review-of-annual-ontario-electricity.html">2019’s electricity figures</a> I estimated the average cost of procuring one megawatt-hour (MWh) of supply was $94, and showed how that became $126/MWh for most Ontario consumers. That is an indication there’s plenty of room to find savings, so much room that there’s a more important question than how to reduce costs.<br><br>It's also possible to prevent costs from falling. Having written on excess supply, cost shifting away from unimportant consumers to influential "stakeholders", high contract costs, and may other issues for nearly a decade, I'm not inspired to address the question of what could be done - the more interesting question I will address is, "What is being done to prevent costs from falling? </div>
<div>
<br>The current government was elected on a <a href="https://www.ontariopc.ca/plan_for_the_people">platform</a> that included the claim they’d, “Cut hydro rates by 12% for families, farmers, and small businesses.” Over their first year and a half in office there’s been little to inspire confidence they’re capable of delivering on that promise. A recently released provincial finance report noted the cost of electricity programs ballooning another $1.5 billion as they <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottLuft/status/1223012380281622529">head towards $5.6 billion for 2019-20 </a>(ending March 31). The hit on the provincial treasury is largely due to subsidies preventing consumers on regulated price plans (RPP) from seeing rates increase on their electricity bills.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The 12% cut in the Progressive Conservative’s platform was in addition to the [un]Fair Hydro Plan (FHP) of the previous Liberal government - which promised (and did) reduce bills 25% in the present by deferring costs to the future. I developed a great <a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2017/05/fairly-perverted-ontarios-fair-hydro.html">contempt for that plan</a>, but I could also view it as an unpleasant distraction. The Liberal government did deliver a long term energy plan (LTEP) that promised cost controls through improving what is whimsically referred to as Ontario’s electricity market.<br><blockquote class="tr_bq">
Market Renewal will ensure the province has appropriate sources of electricity at the lowest possible price. This initiative could save Ontarians up to $5.2 billion over a 10-year period. <i>-Glenn Thibeault, <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/document/2017-long-term-energy-plan">Minister’s message introducing 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan</a>, October 201</i>7</blockquote>
The plan - the long-term energy plan - was to improve the market for consumers. <br><br>Then, the nominally Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) consulted stakeholders/insiders. In 2 short years they’ve reduced potential savings to consumers - which might be considered costs to the IESO’s stakeholders/insiders- by over 80%.<br><blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Market Renewal Program is an important piece of the equation for us. With the approval of the high-level designs of the energy work stream, and a business case that estimates we can achieve $800 million in net benefits over the first 10 years alone, we’ve built a very strong foundation for change. -<a href="http://ieso.ca/-/media/Files/IESO/Document-Library/media/PGregg-APPrO-20191121.pdf?la=en"> Peter Gregg, IESO President and CEO, November 2019</a></blockquote>
A $4.4 billion drop in the promised decadal value of market renewal, in under 2 years, is only one way the IESO is maneuvering to prevent a reduction in spending on electricity supply in Ontario. Others include inflating demand forecasts, lowering performance expectations from existing generators, raising capacity reserve desires, and exaggerating the threat of rising emissions.<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTemAR9S9d3E0Zbtz0TB_fRKXC1GSimZ62VDItwdofZx18PczyoIHoTk4V7U4dKa2tvwVzXArJYTlU9QWpnYbneuW3iIlGPM4L-nqakst9Fddli88bAfHCVFJnS3CzG-1VdFkqC8VuwEKG/s1600/APO+wordcloud.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="742" data-original-width="1101" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTemAR9S9d3E0Zbtz0TB_fRKXC1GSimZ62VDItwdofZx18PczyoIHoTk4V7U4dKa2tvwVzXArJYTlU9QWpnYbneuW3iIlGPM4L-nqakst9Fddli88bAfHCVFJnS3CzG-1VdFkqC8VuwEKG/s640/APO+wordcloud.png" width="640"></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br></div>
</div><a href="http://coldair.luftonline.net/2020/02/an-outlook-against-lower-electricity.html#more">Read more »</a>Scott Lufthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.com0