Spilling: data mined messaging for me, to you

This Labour day I've returned to some past databases. One self-imposed task is continuing to add to the data of hourly Ontario electricity generation that begins September 1st, 2010. I've queried the data and created some graphics, many of which simply reinforced old messaging I've written on, repeatedly. However, the messages could use reinforcement and one new graphic view gobsmacked me, demanding a quick post.

Years ago it occurred to me to try to reproduce work done at Oxford with Ontario data - which provided the basis for a series of posts on the cost of of industrial wind in my province. I continued capturing the generation data and added estimates of more obscure statistics, including hourly solar generation and curtailed supply. Today I looked at hourly average figures comparing my first 12-months of data (September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011) and the corresponding dates for the recently completed 12-months.

Here's the graph, of changes over the past 4 years, that grabbed my attention:

For those slower to get their angry geek going, Ontario's hydro looks like it's being sacrificed due to extraordinarily expensive solar power.

IESO Reporting Challenge: concerning Fig 23

Everything is political.

Working with data, the political introduces itself largely in reporting. The planning, structuring and collection of data all involve organizational power structures, but in an intelligent system all are dependent on operations and/or the current, or envisioned, demand for reporting.

I usually find reporting to be the least enjoyable aspect of working with data. Querying data can be very informative, and much of my writing takes one aspect of a data set and explores it with words. Reports are often designed for other people, to their design - particularly executive reporting, which is designed for a quick hit on the status presented in a format the executive are comfortable with.

The IESO eventually posted a report for June, weeks later than usual. That is interesting in itself, as it implies the report is designed for an audience the doesn't need it any particular time. I can't think of a benefit of variable intermittent reporting (VIR) in Ontario's electricity sector - must be part of a bigger trend to variable intermittent stuff.
Whoever the important audience is for VIR, the June report had at least one new graphic which must be for them:

This is not the format of reporting on generation I would expect the people reading through a summary report to find relevant. The IESO's long-standing Figure 18, "Monthly Energy by Fuel Type," is a graph of monthly production in the same stacked chart format, but for coherent categories; nuclear, hydro, gas/oil, solar, wind, biofuel and imports. I would think normal people looking at a monthly report might like cost information for the same categories they receive production information.
Like this:

A heat wave exposes Ontario's electricity data and policy failings

The last week of July saw the hottest days of 2015 driving electricity demand to it's highest levels in 18 months. Market data for the month, coupled with the newest estimate of the month's global adjustment costs, indicate a fourth consecutive month of  20+% increases over 2014's electricity commodity pricing. A mainstream media site, the Toronto Sun, posted an editorial titled Wynne's hydro policy is insane. The editorial picked up on some of the poor decisions causing rising pricing but contains some data errors. These errors are understandable given the inability of Ontario's system operator, the IESO, to update its methods of accounting for electricity generation, and costs, since absorbing the Ontario Power Authority at the start of 2015. Not only has reporting not advanced, the IESO displays declining competence in producing the reports it historically has.

July's steep price increases, and The Toronto Sun editorial, follow a report by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) indicating 1 out of 20 businesses in the province anticipate closing in the next 5 years. Facts the Sun's editorial gets some serve as a nice illustration of the OCC report's first recommendation:

Increase transparency of electricity pricing and system cost drivers

I'll use the highlighted elements of the Sun's editorial to demonstrate the IESO's growing inability to report on supply and demand in Ontario's electricity sector.

Data-driven thoughts on mitigating electricity rate increases

I started writing what became this post as a quick tumblr hit on a single graph  - as I started writing I  brought in comments on the OCC piece more suited to my coldaircurrents site, and as I felt it necessary to point out the data problems are actually people/organization problems, the work ended up on my more flippant Wordpress site.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) released a report last week:

“ Empowering Ontario: Constraining Costs and Staying Competitive in the Electricity Market, takes a look at the driving factors behind rising electricity costs in Ontario.

It’s about time - at best; it may be too late. Near the end of 2015's first quarter I wrote  Ontario's new electricity pricing program essentially taxes businesses to fund social program, which concluded many of the OCC’s members would be walloped by coming pricing changes:

Businesses below 3 MW average monthly peak:

• get stiffed with the continuance of the debt retirement charge
• get stiffed with the OESP [Ontario Electricity Support Program]
• get stiffed with the expansion of the class A program

I’m sure that’s confusing to many, but that "Businesses below 3 MW average monthly peak" class of customer did see the commodity rate it pays for electricity rise 25% from 2014′s second quarter to 2015′s, so I’m not surprised there’s some motivation to address the issues. However, the Chamber has more work to do in getting through the confusion.

Commodity cost of Ontario electricty up 25% in 2015's second quarter

While I haven't been writing much this summer, I have been following Ontario's electricity exploits in reading reports and running the numbers. Recent reports included coverage of remarks from the province's Energy Minister which, along with the most recent figures and the end of June, inspired me to put out a quick post.

Inflation was enormous this past quarter.

• April, $112.10/MWh (weighted average class B) up from 85.28 one year earlier (up 31.4%)
• May, $112.04/MWh (weighted average class B) up from 89.88 one year earlier (up 24.7%)
• Adding the $97.68 second estimate of June's global adjustment posted yesterday to a calculated weighted HOEP average of $15.31 an estimated rate of $112.99 is up 25.5% from June 2014's $90.02/MWh.

I expect the final global adjustment rate for June will be slightly lower than the estimate, but the quarter will still be up almost 25% over last year.

25%.

A lot.

I suspect an official explanation of the surge is not pending, This from a report that Ontario's leaders look to build on ol' Premier Peckford's awesome agricultural acumen:

While hydro rates will continue to rise, Chiarelli said consumers have seen the last of sharp increases that averaged about six per cent annually over the last eight years.

Perhaps he meant the increases are going to get so much higher "sharp" will fail to be an inadequate adjective?
The article with that quote was about a push to transfer costs from "Class B" consumers to an expanded "Class A" class that might include greenhouses, and a good chunk of the 25% increase is not from the cost of all electricity rising, but the share of costs transferred to lowly "Class B" consumers rising.

"Stakeholders" destroying the viability of Ontario's electricity market

Ontario's electricity rates are rising for most, and that's not due to external factors nearly as much as the deliberate policies of the Ontario government couple with the performance of the system operator (IESO). I've written recently on traders in the Ontario market benefiting from low Ontario electricity prices, and on suppliers manipulating government policy and practices making larger entities more influential. This post will focus on the "Class A" global adjustment which, because it works to eliminate any possibility of a market in Ontario functioning as a tool to indicate the adequacy of supply levels, is the worst "stakeholder" driven policy of all.

On August 17, 2010, the Ministry of Energy news release on the planned 'Class A' scheme to reduce electricity costs for the province's largest consumers of electricity stated:

Ontario is proposing to help the province's largest industrial companies and manufacturers conserve energy in a way that will have little to no impact on electricity bills for Ontario families.

I've checked.
They were wrong.

Since the process was introduced for 2011 I estimate the direct "little to no impact" has been over $2 billion and has grown to a cost of over $750 million a year. [1] This direct cost shift has an impact of about 0.66 cents/kWh ($6.64/MWh), which makes it essentially a new charge equivalent to the retiring, for 2016, debt retirement charge.

Despite the high cost of the class shift, which will be explained further, I'll argue there are secondary impacts from the behaviour encouraged by the mechanism.

Better Reporting of Ontario's electricity consumption

How much electricity is consumed in Ontario?

It's a question related to how much electricity is generated in the province, but there are important differences that should be displayed. This post will provide better figures for consumption, at consumers' meters, than those popularly given.

The most widely cited figures for demand in Ontario come from the IESO, which ubiquitously displays "Ontario Demand" but is more discrete in defining the term. From their latest monthly reporting:

Ontario Demand represents the total energy that was supplied from the IESO Administered Market for the sake of supplying load within Ontario.

So it's supply, and not metered demand. "Ontario Demand" is something the IESO reports on in 5-minute intervals, hourly, weekly, monthly, etc. The monthly totals of "Ontario Demand" match the "Energy Demand" totals in documentation created with the IESO's 18-month outlooks.
Table 3.3.3 of the latest spreadsheet breaks down "energy demand" into:

• LDC [local distribution companies] Consumption
• Wholesale Consumption
• Generator Consumption
• Losses

Only 2 of these categories should be considered consumption: wholesale consumption presumably being the metered consumption of large wholesale consumers, and LDC consumption measuring power delivered to the LDCs, but still not at the end consumers' metered consumption.

Better Reporting of Ontario's Electricity Generation

How much electricity is generated in Ontario from different sources?

It’s a question that’s difficult to answer, but using both the IESO’s summary of 2014 electricity production (IESO data), and the Ontario Energy Board’s Ontario’s System-Wide Electricity Supply Mix: 2014 Data (OEB data) provides a far better estimate of actual production than is generally circulated.

The IESO data is often cited for supply and demand figures in Ontario, but it provides neither: the IESO reports on generators attached directly to the transmission grid. Generators contained within the domain of Ontario’s multiple distribution grids are called embedded generation, and escape most IESO reporting.

These are the IESO’s figures for “Grid-Connected Electricity Production” the past 2 years:

Add the numbers for each of 2013 and 2014 up and generation is essentially unchanged at 154 TWh.

To estimate “embedded” generation a look at the OEB data is necessary because it “Includes both Tx (direct) and Dx (embedded) connected generation”: