http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/books/2010/09/24/15467821.html
In this final excerpt from Ethical Oil, a new book debunking the myths and bogus claims of Alberta’s oilsands critics, Sun Media columnist Ezra Levant takes a closer look at the price tag of the “green job” revolution. Read all three excerpts at lfpress.com/ethicaloil
By Special to QMI Agency
Last Updated: September 25, 2010 12:00am
In the great public debate about the future of energy, the oilsands aren't just compared against other oil producers; they're compared against potential future energy sources too (even if they're still in their infancy and largely untested on the scale required to displace oil).
This is why when environmentalists promote their vision for a new economy based on renewable fuels, like wind and solar, they put tremendous emphasis on their promise that building more turbines and solar cells will only increase our prosperity, creating millions of "green jobs" in those industries, while improving the environment, with no additional costs to any of us.
"Millions of new jobs are among the many silver-, if not indeed gold-plated, linings on the cloud of climate change," Achim Steiner, head of the UN's environmental program, announced at a world climate-change conference in 2007.
"These jobs are not for just the middle classes - the so-called 'green collar' jobs - but also for workers in construction, sustainable forestry and agriculture, engineering and transportation."
Spain and Germany, where governments have led the rush into subsidizing wind and solar power, he said, have "already created several hundred thousand jobs."
Jim Harris, past leader of Canada's Green Party and a bestselling business author, is warning Canadian politicians that they are missing the boat on a great job-creating opportunity in failing to keep up with European levels of renewable energy subsidies.
"Spain has just committed to creating a million green energy jobs over the next decade," he wrote in an October 2009 article called Green Jobs Will Pay for Themselves.
As luck would have it, Spain is a pretty instructive country for Canadians to look to as a comparison to our own situation, since it has a population that's similar in size (Canada population is 33 million; Spain's is 40 million) and in 2008 had a roughly similar-sized economy (Canada's GDP is $1.3 trillion; Spain's is $1.4 trillion).
And Spain has truly been a leader in throwing all its policy muscle behind the green-economy effort.
Environmental groups that had argued for decades that if we would only try switching from our fossil fuel habit, we would discover how achievable it is to create a flourishing economy without them, finally had in Spain the pilot project they had been asking for.
But, although you wouldn't know it from the cheerleading of environmentalists in Canada, the United States, and the UN, the reality is that back in Spain, the country supposedly leading the way on renewable energy, the truth was that that entire experiment has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.
In March 2009, economic researchers at Spain's King Juan Carlos University, after hearing so much of this international praise for their country's renewable energy policies, and sensing something quite different going on around them, decided to finally examine the benefits and costs to Spain of this massive "green jobs" creation strategy, which has been underway for more than a decade.
The net effect of Spain's green policy, the authors found, was that it actually "destroys jobs." Lots of them. The report found a "surprisingly low number" of green jobs created in Spain overall - about fifty thousand - and most of them were only short-term work, such as building and installing facilities: Just one out of every ten jobs created was considered "at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity."
But, whether permanent or short-term, for every single so-called green job created in Spain since the government first embarked on the initiative in 1997, the policy killed 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. For every green megawatt of electrical capacity installed, five jobs were wiped out from the economy, often as a result of higher power prices.
"These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain's approach," the researchers concluded, "but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources," whether they're implemented in Japan, Canada, or the United States. In fact, according to the study's analysis, were the United States to adopt the same policies as Spain has - just like President Obama has said he hopes to - it could expect to create 3-5 million jobs, but it will likely eliminate, based on Spain's experience, as many as 11 million other jobs in the process.
But that only represents a portion of the economic damage that has befallen Spain as a direct result of the policy. Because the few "green jobs" that were created didn't just appear out of thin air: They only happened because the government poured billions of taxpayer dollars into the renewable energy sector. Every green job created cost the government $571,138, or about $850,000 (all figures using exchange rates as of late 2009). Every wind-industry job created cost, on average, more than $1 million to create, according to the report - roughly a staggering $1.5 million.
Of course, all that government money has to come from taxpayers, and you don't need an economist to tell you that higher taxes means less prosperity - and fewer jobs - somewhere else in the economy.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Ontario's wind power gusto risks blowback
By LARRY CORNIES, Special to QMI Agency
Last Updated: September 25, 2010 12:00am
On one of the photo websites I regularly visit, an Ontario photographer this week posted a picture of the wind turbines that tower like steel Goliaths along the north side of Hwy. 3 between Blenheim and Wheatley.
The photo, bathed in sepia tones with two turbines in the foreground and three farther back, was intended as an admiring tribute to the potential of alternative energy sources, including wind power.
Within minutes, however, a comment appeared under the photo from a British photographer: "You show the stark ugliness of these largely useless machines very well." That brief exchange pretty much sums up the divide between the champions and detractors of Ontario's turbulent green energy industry.
Some think it points the way forward, positioning the province to stake its claim to an industry still in its wild-west phase. Others see it as regressive and illogical, its projects as ugly as they are intrusive and impractical.
Along the Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario shorelines, the prospect of more and more wind turbines on land and in the water has sharply divided people in ways that transcend NIMBYism.
Some landowners have eagerly signed the long-term leases dangled before them by fledgling energy companies, offering annual payments of $5,000 or more per turbine for the right to erect the giant machine and build the road needed to maintain it. Others landowners have rejected the offers, reasoning that the effects of the towering electric installations on people and the environment are still too unclear -- and the esthetic effect on the landscape too obtrusive -- to sign away the rights for two decades.
Those who do opt for signing contracts can find themselves surrounded by resentful neighbours worried about the health effects of prolonged exposure to low-level turbine noise and electrical interference.
They're backed by experts such as Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who worries that not enough epidemiological studies have been done by arm's-length investigators into what look like legitimate health concerns.
Signs proclaiming "No wind turbines in our lake" have dotted the landscape along the shore of Lake Erie's Pigeon Bay, adjacent to Point Pelee National Park, and on Pelee Island for many months -- a campaign directed primarily against SouthPoint Wind, which wants to build turbines in the shallow waters along the ecologically sensitive coastline.
While it's too early for the protesters to claim victory, their spirits were lifted when local MPPs Bruce Crozier and Pat Hoy presented a petition against the project -- and their own government -- at Queen's Park in June. Weeks later, the government imposed new rules that will require offshore projects to be set at least five kilometres from shore, ratcheting up the cost. That may be enough to unplug the SouthPoint project.
Last week at a public meeting in Clinton, protesters took aim at another Liberal MPP, Carol Mitchell, over the province's Green Energy Act and provisions in it that degrade the right of municipalities to control green energy projects -- all for the sake of quickly creating both jobs and electrical power.
Premier Dalton McGuinty, who has pledged more than $15 billion in projects and subsidies to attract green-energy companies to the province, seems not to appreciate the force of the blowback he risks by pushing local interests aside.
Is he right to see the future of Ontario as linked to technological innovation in the energy sector? Absolutely. Should Ontario aim to be a world leader in green power? Yes, please.
But given the uncertain economics of wind power, the failures of the industry in countries such as Britain and Spain, the surging price of energy, the comparatively low output of individual turbines and the plain unreliable nature of the wind, sea and sky compared to traditional sources, the scheme is fraught with danger.
Add soaring electricity prices and miffed rural constituencies to the mix, and you have the potential for real blowback against the Liberals next year, when energy is likely to become an election issue.
For some rural Ontarians, the diktat of central planners in urban capitals over wind power is going over about as well as the federal strategy to stop the emerald ash borer did a few years ago. That resulted in the destruction of hundreds of hectares of woodland in the name of the environment -- with nary a bit to show for it in the end.
Last Updated: September 25, 2010 12:00am
On one of the photo websites I regularly visit, an Ontario photographer this week posted a picture of the wind turbines that tower like steel Goliaths along the north side of Hwy. 3 between Blenheim and Wheatley.
The photo, bathed in sepia tones with two turbines in the foreground and three farther back, was intended as an admiring tribute to the potential of alternative energy sources, including wind power.
Within minutes, however, a comment appeared under the photo from a British photographer: "You show the stark ugliness of these largely useless machines very well." That brief exchange pretty much sums up the divide between the champions and detractors of Ontario's turbulent green energy industry.
Some think it points the way forward, positioning the province to stake its claim to an industry still in its wild-west phase. Others see it as regressive and illogical, its projects as ugly as they are intrusive and impractical.
Along the Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario shorelines, the prospect of more and more wind turbines on land and in the water has sharply divided people in ways that transcend NIMBYism.
Some landowners have eagerly signed the long-term leases dangled before them by fledgling energy companies, offering annual payments of $5,000 or more per turbine for the right to erect the giant machine and build the road needed to maintain it. Others landowners have rejected the offers, reasoning that the effects of the towering electric installations on people and the environment are still too unclear -- and the esthetic effect on the landscape too obtrusive -- to sign away the rights for two decades.
Those who do opt for signing contracts can find themselves surrounded by resentful neighbours worried about the health effects of prolonged exposure to low-level turbine noise and electrical interference.
They're backed by experts such as Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who worries that not enough epidemiological studies have been done by arm's-length investigators into what look like legitimate health concerns.
Signs proclaiming "No wind turbines in our lake" have dotted the landscape along the shore of Lake Erie's Pigeon Bay, adjacent to Point Pelee National Park, and on Pelee Island for many months -- a campaign directed primarily against SouthPoint Wind, which wants to build turbines in the shallow waters along the ecologically sensitive coastline.
While it's too early for the protesters to claim victory, their spirits were lifted when local MPPs Bruce Crozier and Pat Hoy presented a petition against the project -- and their own government -- at Queen's Park in June. Weeks later, the government imposed new rules that will require offshore projects to be set at least five kilometres from shore, ratcheting up the cost. That may be enough to unplug the SouthPoint project.
Last week at a public meeting in Clinton, protesters took aim at another Liberal MPP, Carol Mitchell, over the province's Green Energy Act and provisions in it that degrade the right of municipalities to control green energy projects -- all for the sake of quickly creating both jobs and electrical power.
Premier Dalton McGuinty, who has pledged more than $15 billion in projects and subsidies to attract green-energy companies to the province, seems not to appreciate the force of the blowback he risks by pushing local interests aside.
Is he right to see the future of Ontario as linked to technological innovation in the energy sector? Absolutely. Should Ontario aim to be a world leader in green power? Yes, please.
But given the uncertain economics of wind power, the failures of the industry in countries such as Britain and Spain, the surging price of energy, the comparatively low output of individual turbines and the plain unreliable nature of the wind, sea and sky compared to traditional sources, the scheme is fraught with danger.
Add soaring electricity prices and miffed rural constituencies to the mix, and you have the potential for real blowback against the Liberals next year, when energy is likely to become an election issue.
For some rural Ontarians, the diktat of central planners in urban capitals over wind power is going over about as well as the federal strategy to stop the emerald ash borer did a few years ago. That resulted in the destruction of hundreds of hectares of woodland in the name of the environment -- with nary a bit to show for it in the end.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Another sneaky hydro hike
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2010/09/23/15450166.html
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, Queen's Park Bureau Chief
Last Updated: September 23, 2010 6:06pm
You’re paying $60 more per year so utilities can get richer. (Toronto Sun file)
TORONTO - The Ontario Energy Board thinks you’re not paying enough for hydro so it’s yanking another $60 out of your wallet.
Ontario hydro ratepayers — already hammered by the HST, time-of-use pricing and rate hikes — will pay an added $240 million a year, the Ontario NDP says.
Officials at the provincial crown agency — whose salaries are paid for through hydro bills — decided earlier this year that utilities should be able to boost their rate of return to 9.85% from 8.39%.
The OEB says that the increase shouldn’t be more than $1 per month for most residential customers, tucked into the delivery charge on the bill.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called Premier Dalton McGuinty on the carpet in the legislature Thursday, demanding to know why ratepayers should have to cough up even more of their stretched dollars to boost profits for the utilities.
“Ontario families are scrambling to deal with sky-high hydro rates. Does the premier think it’s fair to actually ask consumers to pay even more just to ensure healthy profits for hydro utilities?” she said.
Because utilities are a monopoly, the OEB determines how much profit is required to attract investors, appease shareholders and permit investment in infrastructure and then balances that against the interests of the ratepayers who pick up the tab.
Prof Gordon Roberts, of the York University Schulich School of Business, who made a submission to the OEB on behalf of Pollution Probe, recommended a lower rate.
“It’s generous,” Roberts said. “Clearly, if the answer comes out on the generous side (for utilities), it’s less fair for the ratepayers.”
Energy Minister Brad Duguid said the rate of return allows these companies to reinvest, ensuring the province can keep the lights on.
“Local distribution companies are private companies — they have shareholders,” Duguid said.
"The Ontario Energy Board determines what the appropriate rate of return is for them. That’s always the way it’s been and that’s the way it is now. We don’t influence that.”
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, agrees that the OEB has an obligation to ensure utilities have enough funds to invest.
“I think the NDP is pointing their guns at the wrong target ... not blame the regulator that’s really doing its best to adjudicate really an impossible situation,” Solomon said.
He expects the Dalton McGuinty government to do everything in its power to depress rate increases at least until the next election.
But Ontario’s already higher hydro bills will double or triple in future years unless the McGuinty government stops overpaying for wind and solar and rethinks its pledge to abandon cheap, efficient coal plants, he said.
“In the U.K there’s a term that’s become a household term — it’s called fuel poverty,” Solomon said. “They now need subsidies to make their energy payments and we are headed in the same direction.”
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, Queen's Park Bureau Chief
Last Updated: September 23, 2010 6:06pm
You’re paying $60 more per year so utilities can get richer. (Toronto Sun file)
TORONTO - The Ontario Energy Board thinks you’re not paying enough for hydro so it’s yanking another $60 out of your wallet.
Ontario hydro ratepayers — already hammered by the HST, time-of-use pricing and rate hikes — will pay an added $240 million a year, the Ontario NDP says.
Officials at the provincial crown agency — whose salaries are paid for through hydro bills — decided earlier this year that utilities should be able to boost their rate of return to 9.85% from 8.39%.
The OEB says that the increase shouldn’t be more than $1 per month for most residential customers, tucked into the delivery charge on the bill.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called Premier Dalton McGuinty on the carpet in the legislature Thursday, demanding to know why ratepayers should have to cough up even more of their stretched dollars to boost profits for the utilities.
“Ontario families are scrambling to deal with sky-high hydro rates. Does the premier think it’s fair to actually ask consumers to pay even more just to ensure healthy profits for hydro utilities?” she said.
Because utilities are a monopoly, the OEB determines how much profit is required to attract investors, appease shareholders and permit investment in infrastructure and then balances that against the interests of the ratepayers who pick up the tab.
Prof Gordon Roberts, of the York University Schulich School of Business, who made a submission to the OEB on behalf of Pollution Probe, recommended a lower rate.
“It’s generous,” Roberts said. “Clearly, if the answer comes out on the generous side (for utilities), it’s less fair for the ratepayers.”
Energy Minister Brad Duguid said the rate of return allows these companies to reinvest, ensuring the province can keep the lights on.
“Local distribution companies are private companies — they have shareholders,” Duguid said.
"The Ontario Energy Board determines what the appropriate rate of return is for them. That’s always the way it’s been and that’s the way it is now. We don’t influence that.”
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, agrees that the OEB has an obligation to ensure utilities have enough funds to invest.
“I think the NDP is pointing their guns at the wrong target ... not blame the regulator that’s really doing its best to adjudicate really an impossible situation,” Solomon said.
He expects the Dalton McGuinty government to do everything in its power to depress rate increases at least until the next election.
But Ontario’s already higher hydro bills will double or triple in future years unless the McGuinty government stops overpaying for wind and solar and rethinks its pledge to abandon cheap, efficient coal plants, he said.
“In the U.K there’s a term that’s become a household term — it’s called fuel poverty,” Solomon said. “They now need subsidies to make their energy payments and we are headed in the same direction.”
Energy ad campaign all charged up
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
Last Updated: September 23, 2010 6:38pm
The cost of a $3 million advertising campaign to encourage Ontarians to use less electricity is going straight to their hydro bills.
PC energy critic John Yakubuski said the ads by Ontario Power Authority (OPA) promote the Dalton McGuinty government’s viewpoint on energy.
“With all the money that families are paying for the OPA’s Liberal spin, are you thinking of changing the name to the Ontario Propaganda Authority?” Yakabuski said in the Legislature Thursday.
Tim Butters, of the OPA, said the radio and TV spots were produced at a cost of $400,000, plus the $2.6 million media buy.
The ads will appear on television until October 11.
“We cut costs for this campaign from campaigns of this kind in previous years,” Butters said in an e-mail. “It is a part of our efforts to build a culture of conservation in Ontario.
“Ontario has a target to reduce peak-demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025,” he said. “Together with the local distribution companies, the province has achieved 1,700 MW of peak-demand reduction so far.”
The ad features a backdrop of wind turbines and solar panels, and shows individuals plugging into smart power bars and removing an old fridge.
“A cleaner Ontario is up to all of us,” the ad says.
Last Updated: September 23, 2010 6:38pm
The cost of a $3 million advertising campaign to encourage Ontarians to use less electricity is going straight to their hydro bills.
PC energy critic John Yakubuski said the ads by Ontario Power Authority (OPA) promote the Dalton McGuinty government’s viewpoint on energy.
“With all the money that families are paying for the OPA’s Liberal spin, are you thinking of changing the name to the Ontario Propaganda Authority?” Yakabuski said in the Legislature Thursday.
Tim Butters, of the OPA, said the radio and TV spots were produced at a cost of $400,000, plus the $2.6 million media buy.
The ads will appear on television until October 11.
“We cut costs for this campaign from campaigns of this kind in previous years,” Butters said in an e-mail. “It is a part of our efforts to build a culture of conservation in Ontario.
“Ontario has a target to reduce peak-demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025,” he said. “Together with the local distribution companies, the province has achieved 1,700 MW of peak-demand reduction so far.”
The ad features a backdrop of wind turbines and solar panels, and shows individuals plugging into smart power bars and removing an old fridge.
“A cleaner Ontario is up to all of us,” the ad says.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
PROPOSED CHANGES TO OUR ENERGY SYSTEM REVISITED
I posted a simple version of this in the Spring. Time to revisit it and expand. I feel strongly that this is the only way we are going to get control of the entire energy sector, and out of the hands of government.
Ontario was once the powerhouse of industry with cheap power available to run that industry. Today we have the most expensive power in North America save two or three states in the US, and industry is leaving, or not setting roots here, because of that. The first priority of any next government is to restore Ontario to a cheap power regime and entice industry to return to the Province.
The claim is that energy prices will just keep going up. Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the ingenuity of those of us who think that Ontario’s future is in cheap power, not more expensive power.
Modern civilization runs on one main, core, aspect: lots of net energy available at a very cheap cost. Every aspect of this civilization is build, and requires, large net cheap energy.
A modern civilization requires that the cost of that net energy be cheap enough for everyone to afford. Not only is energy directly needed by people to power and heat their homes, but every item they buy has an energy cost in it.
Discretionary income, monies available to people to buy non-essential items, requires that energy not be a large component of the essential expenses. Increase the cost of energy, and people have less money for the "frivolous" items, such as going out for dinner, hobbies, charitable activities, traveling to visit family, or even vacations. Those in the lower income brackets, who have little or no discretionary income, will have to do with less of other necessities, like food, when energy prices increase.
With people spending less on food or "frivolous" items that means less of these items are purchased, that means less money for the companies and stores that provide those items, that means people laid off in those industries. Thus increasing energy costs to consumers means people lose their jobs, who then pay no taxes and must be supported by the government's IE benefits, which increases government expenses, which they either borrow or get from you in higher taxes, squeezing you even more.
Add to that when energy costs increase, industry pass those costs to the consumer. When retail outlets have higher energy costs they add even more onto the price of those items. This in turn puts more items out of reach, so fewer are sold, meaning layoffs.
To add salt to the wound, the Bank of Canada sees the increase in energy as core contributor of inflation, adding non-core item price increases due to the core energy price increase, and there is an over all increase in inflation. BoCs reaction is to increase interest rates in an attempt to throttle those increases.
Except it can't because energy increases are not curtailed by increases in interest rates because as people consume less energy to try and save on costs (where physically possible), the energy providers ask for more increases to compensate for the loss! (ie the Global Adjustment. In Germany when demand is low they PAY consumers to use more. Here we charge people more because the producers are losing. The GA does not force power producers to become efficient when demand is down, such as in this recession.)
What a mess increasing energy costs precipitate! It's a vicious positive feedback cycle.
But there is more.
Those who wish for us to get off, completely, from fossil fuels want us to move more to electrical power, specifically for heating (ground source heat pumps), and electric vehicles. Electric vehicles will put the biggest demand increase on power production. One can do the calculation and see that in order to replace the 15billion liters of gasoline Ontario consumes every year with electric vehicles would mean we would have to more than DOUBLE our nuclear capacity.
They want us to move to more electrical devices to curb fossil fuel use, but they want to charge more for that power. Quick way to kill the economy. If fossil fuel prices are poised to increase, electrical power must be as cheap as possible to be a viable alternative to FF use.
The bottom line is higher power costs, which increases prices to consumers, is the root of the problem. It was suggested in the meeting that we provide choices to consumers on what type of payment options they wish to buy into. Sounds good on paper, but that is just tinkering with prices. It does not fundamentally change the costs to provide power in the first place. No pricing options are going to stop prices from rising as costs to produce power keep rising.
We must take cost increases head on. We need a fundamental top down change in how power is produced, administered, and managed in this Province.
Thus this is what I propose should be done. The OPA should take over the role of the OEB, and incorporate the IESO as part of OPA (or some new agency). It should be funded from the sale of power, not the government, and an arm’s length organization. They implement and govern the power system of the province. They would be responsible for buying and selling of power in the province. They would do all billings of electrical use, not H1 (H1’s recent predatory nature to consumers makes them radioactive to a future new government, they have to lose billings).
They would also be responsible for funding of all energy production projects. The President of this organization is appointed by the Ontario Energy Board of Directors (see below), and reports only to that board, not the government.
A new board, Ontario Energy Board of Directors (OEBoD) would be created replacing the OEB, is to be restructured to be just a board, funded by the Provincial Government, but no one appointed by the government. The board members would consist of the following people in no specific order:
-- Minister of Energy (The minister not someone he/she appoints)
-- Chief Executive of the OPA
-- One appointee from the OPG
-- One appointee from H1
-- One appointee from retailers and municipal distributors
None of those positions can be Chair of the Board.
The rest of the board, some 8-12 seats, would be one appointee from various associations of consumer stakeholders only (no advocacy groups) including from industry, farming, home owners. Any organization of consumers only would be free to apply for a seat at the board approved by the board. A minimum of 8 people would be required. That Board of Directors reports to the Government, but not directed by the Government.
The Chair would be voted from that group only, with a maximum of 2 years in that position.
The Board's duties would be to set the goals and directions of future energy production and transmission in the province. They would set regulations and prices. They would be responsible for approving new production based on facts and evidence, not what is considered politically correct, or what some political or environmental advocacy group wishes to peddle.
Anyone would be able to present their case to the Board, including the suggestion of price options should the next government wish to go that route. Board sessions would be entirely public similar to how Congressional Hearings are done in the US. Cross-examination would be conducted, and expert witnesses called to testify.
Once all submissions are completed, the Board would vote requiring a super majority (75%) to confirm a plan. The Board would then order the OPA to carry out the plan.
This process would put the production of power in this province into the hands of the consumers of that power. This is what is required when producers of power have a monopoly and the political party in power has an agenda based not on science, but ideology.
Is this proposal workable and has a possibility of implementation? It would mean appending or repealing a few Provincial Acts. Thus it is up to the voters.
Ontario was once the powerhouse of industry with cheap power available to run that industry. Today we have the most expensive power in North America save two or three states in the US, and industry is leaving, or not setting roots here, because of that. The first priority of any next government is to restore Ontario to a cheap power regime and entice industry to return to the Province.
The claim is that energy prices will just keep going up. Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the ingenuity of those of us who think that Ontario’s future is in cheap power, not more expensive power.
Modern civilization runs on one main, core, aspect: lots of net energy available at a very cheap cost. Every aspect of this civilization is build, and requires, large net cheap energy.
A modern civilization requires that the cost of that net energy be cheap enough for everyone to afford. Not only is energy directly needed by people to power and heat their homes, but every item they buy has an energy cost in it.
Discretionary income, monies available to people to buy non-essential items, requires that energy not be a large component of the essential expenses. Increase the cost of energy, and people have less money for the "frivolous" items, such as going out for dinner, hobbies, charitable activities, traveling to visit family, or even vacations. Those in the lower income brackets, who have little or no discretionary income, will have to do with less of other necessities, like food, when energy prices increase.
With people spending less on food or "frivolous" items that means less of these items are purchased, that means less money for the companies and stores that provide those items, that means people laid off in those industries. Thus increasing energy costs to consumers means people lose their jobs, who then pay no taxes and must be supported by the government's IE benefits, which increases government expenses, which they either borrow or get from you in higher taxes, squeezing you even more.
Add to that when energy costs increase, industry pass those costs to the consumer. When retail outlets have higher energy costs they add even more onto the price of those items. This in turn puts more items out of reach, so fewer are sold, meaning layoffs.
To add salt to the wound, the Bank of Canada sees the increase in energy as core contributor of inflation, adding non-core item price increases due to the core energy price increase, and there is an over all increase in inflation. BoCs reaction is to increase interest rates in an attempt to throttle those increases.
Except it can't because energy increases are not curtailed by increases in interest rates because as people consume less energy to try and save on costs (where physically possible), the energy providers ask for more increases to compensate for the loss! (ie the Global Adjustment. In Germany when demand is low they PAY consumers to use more. Here we charge people more because the producers are losing. The GA does not force power producers to become efficient when demand is down, such as in this recession.)
What a mess increasing energy costs precipitate! It's a vicious positive feedback cycle.
But there is more.
Those who wish for us to get off, completely, from fossil fuels want us to move more to electrical power, specifically for heating (ground source heat pumps), and electric vehicles. Electric vehicles will put the biggest demand increase on power production. One can do the calculation and see that in order to replace the 15billion liters of gasoline Ontario consumes every year with electric vehicles would mean we would have to more than DOUBLE our nuclear capacity.
They want us to move to more electrical devices to curb fossil fuel use, but they want to charge more for that power. Quick way to kill the economy. If fossil fuel prices are poised to increase, electrical power must be as cheap as possible to be a viable alternative to FF use.
The bottom line is higher power costs, which increases prices to consumers, is the root of the problem. It was suggested in the meeting that we provide choices to consumers on what type of payment options they wish to buy into. Sounds good on paper, but that is just tinkering with prices. It does not fundamentally change the costs to provide power in the first place. No pricing options are going to stop prices from rising as costs to produce power keep rising.
We must take cost increases head on. We need a fundamental top down change in how power is produced, administered, and managed in this Province.
Thus this is what I propose should be done. The OPA should take over the role of the OEB, and incorporate the IESO as part of OPA (or some new agency). It should be funded from the sale of power, not the government, and an arm’s length organization. They implement and govern the power system of the province. They would be responsible for buying and selling of power in the province. They would do all billings of electrical use, not H1 (H1’s recent predatory nature to consumers makes them radioactive to a future new government, they have to lose billings).
They would also be responsible for funding of all energy production projects. The President of this organization is appointed by the Ontario Energy Board of Directors (see below), and reports only to that board, not the government.
A new board, Ontario Energy Board of Directors (OEBoD) would be created replacing the OEB, is to be restructured to be just a board, funded by the Provincial Government, but no one appointed by the government. The board members would consist of the following people in no specific order:
-- Minister of Energy (The minister not someone he/she appoints)
-- Chief Executive of the OPA
-- One appointee from the OPG
-- One appointee from H1
-- One appointee from retailers and municipal distributors
None of those positions can be Chair of the Board.
The rest of the board, some 8-12 seats, would be one appointee from various associations of consumer stakeholders only (no advocacy groups) including from industry, farming, home owners. Any organization of consumers only would be free to apply for a seat at the board approved by the board. A minimum of 8 people would be required. That Board of Directors reports to the Government, but not directed by the Government.
The Chair would be voted from that group only, with a maximum of 2 years in that position.
The Board's duties would be to set the goals and directions of future energy production and transmission in the province. They would set regulations and prices. They would be responsible for approving new production based on facts and evidence, not what is considered politically correct, or what some political or environmental advocacy group wishes to peddle.
Anyone would be able to present their case to the Board, including the suggestion of price options should the next government wish to go that route. Board sessions would be entirely public similar to how Congressional Hearings are done in the US. Cross-examination would be conducted, and expert witnesses called to testify.
Once all submissions are completed, the Board would vote requiring a super majority (75%) to confirm a plan. The Board would then order the OPA to carry out the plan.
This process would put the production of power in this province into the hands of the consumers of that power. This is what is required when producers of power have a monopoly and the political party in power has an agenda based not on science, but ideology.
Is this proposal workable and has a possibility of implementation? It would mean appending or repealing a few Provincial Acts. Thus it is up to the voters.
Ontario consumers to face higher electricity bills from profit-boosting
KAREN HOWLETT
TORONTO— Globe and Mail Update
Published Thursday, Sep. 23, 2010 1:42PM EDT
Electricity consumers facing rapidly rising bills in Ontario have another reason to complain after revelations on Thursday that power generators and distributors were given the go-ahead to boost their profits.
The province’s energy regulator has ruled that Ontario Power Generation, as well as all licensed electricity distributors and transmitters, are allowed to earn returns on equity of 9.85 per cent for this year, up from 8.4 per cent in 2009.
The higher rate will go straight to the bottom line for these companies and add another $240-million a year to consumers’ electricity bills, said New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath.
The new returns on equity took effect May 1 and were quietly approved last February by the Ontario Energy Board. The Energy Board’s ruling came to light on Thursday when Ms. Horwath raised it during Question Period.
“Ontario families are scrambling to deal with sky-high hydro bills,” she said. “Does the Premier think it’s fair to actually ask consumers to pay even more just to ensure healthy profits for hydro utilities?”
Energy Minister Brad Duguid, who is already under fire over rising electricity rates, insisted that the higher returns apply only to private utilities in the province and not to Crown-owned Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One. He said he has no control over how much profit private utilities earn.
”These local distribution companies are private companies,” Mr. Duguid told reporters on Thursday. “Their returns are set by the OEB. The government doesn’t have input into that.”
However, the Energy Board’s letter is addressed to Ontario Power Generation and “all licensed electricity distributors and transmitters” as well as gas distributors. A spokesman for the Energy Board confirmed that the new rate does indeed apply to every electricity entity, including OPG and Hydro One.
Mr. Duguid told reporters that hydro rates are climbing because the province is making investments to modernize the system and replace pollution-spewing coal plants with cleaner sources of electricity.
However, Ms. Horwath said the higher returns approved by the Energy Board have nothing to do with making investments and will go straight to their bottom lines.
“Why should families, struggling with their bills, fork over an extra $60 a year just to fatten the profits of already-profitable utilities?,” she said.
The government’s electricity policies dominated Question Period.
“Right across the board in Dalton McGuinty’s hydro bureaucracy, people are getting fat and rich ...while seniors and families are getting whacked every time they open their hydro bills,” Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak told reporters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/ontario-consumers-to-face-higher-electricity-bills-from-profit-boosting/article1721343/?cmpid=rss1
TORONTO— Globe and Mail Update
Published Thursday, Sep. 23, 2010 1:42PM EDT
Electricity consumers facing rapidly rising bills in Ontario have another reason to complain after revelations on Thursday that power generators and distributors were given the go-ahead to boost their profits.
The province’s energy regulator has ruled that Ontario Power Generation, as well as all licensed electricity distributors and transmitters, are allowed to earn returns on equity of 9.85 per cent for this year, up from 8.4 per cent in 2009.
The higher rate will go straight to the bottom line for these companies and add another $240-million a year to consumers’ electricity bills, said New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath.
The new returns on equity took effect May 1 and were quietly approved last February by the Ontario Energy Board. The Energy Board’s ruling came to light on Thursday when Ms. Horwath raised it during Question Period.
“Ontario families are scrambling to deal with sky-high hydro bills,” she said. “Does the Premier think it’s fair to actually ask consumers to pay even more just to ensure healthy profits for hydro utilities?”
Energy Minister Brad Duguid, who is already under fire over rising electricity rates, insisted that the higher returns apply only to private utilities in the province and not to Crown-owned Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One. He said he has no control over how much profit private utilities earn.
”These local distribution companies are private companies,” Mr. Duguid told reporters on Thursday. “Their returns are set by the OEB. The government doesn’t have input into that.”
However, the Energy Board’s letter is addressed to Ontario Power Generation and “all licensed electricity distributors and transmitters” as well as gas distributors. A spokesman for the Energy Board confirmed that the new rate does indeed apply to every electricity entity, including OPG and Hydro One.
Mr. Duguid told reporters that hydro rates are climbing because the province is making investments to modernize the system and replace pollution-spewing coal plants with cleaner sources of electricity.
However, Ms. Horwath said the higher returns approved by the Energy Board have nothing to do with making investments and will go straight to their bottom lines.
“Why should families, struggling with their bills, fork over an extra $60 a year just to fatten the profits of already-profitable utilities?,” she said.
The government’s electricity policies dominated Question Period.
“Right across the board in Dalton McGuinty’s hydro bureaucracy, people are getting fat and rich ...while seniors and families are getting whacked every time they open their hydro bills,” Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak told reporters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/ontario-consumers-to-face-higher-electricity-bills-from-profit-boosting/article1721343/?cmpid=rss1
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
ARE WE LIVING IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY?
Only in a Third World socialist/communist/dictatorial government are people forced to change their habits to what the government and special interest groups have planned.
Only in a Third World socialist/communist/dictatorial government are essentials for life rationed to the point of everyone being poor and dependant on government.
There are eco-environmental groups and NGO's who want us to live like we did in the Middle Ages. (except them the elites of course). These people, who are successfully lobbying government and have infiltrated key positions in government, are anti-individualism, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-modern civilization. Their goal is to kill Western Civilization and our way of life. Return us to poverty of the Middle Ages.
Their efforts to force "conservation" of energy, their efforts for force "renewables" on to us, their efforts for make energy priced out of ability to pay is not what a modern society is about. If we need more power, BUILD MORE RELIABLE PLANTS!
China just signed a 25 year agreement for coal from Russia to power their country. They aren't worried about "global warming" because they know it is a Western obsession, not a real threat. They know that a modern society is built on plentiful cheap reliable power. They aren't stupid!
Yet we have people here who are stupid. People who have control over government policies. People who feel they need to be righteous by "saving the planet", and to hell with the fate of everyone else. Individuals in their mind have no value.
Everyone needs to stand up and stop this from proceeding further. Hell, even the Castro brothers now admit communism doesn't work.
"You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out."
Only in a Third World socialist/communist/dictatorial government are essentials for life rationed to the point of everyone being poor and dependant on government.
This is the road we are on, make no mistake about it.
There are eco-environmental groups and NGO's who want us to live like we did in the Middle Ages. (except them the elites of course). These people, who are successfully lobbying government and have infiltrated key positions in government, are anti-individualism, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-modern civilization. Their goal is to kill Western Civilization and our way of life. Return us to poverty of the Middle Ages.
Their efforts to force "conservation" of energy, their efforts for force "renewables" on to us, their efforts for make energy priced out of ability to pay is not what a modern society is about. If we need more power, BUILD MORE RELIABLE PLANTS!
China just signed a 25 year agreement for coal from Russia to power their country. They aren't worried about "global warming" because they know it is a Western obsession, not a real threat. They know that a modern society is built on plentiful cheap reliable power. They aren't stupid!
Yet we have people here who are stupid. People who have control over government policies. People who feel they need to be righteous by "saving the planet", and to hell with the fate of everyone else. Individuals in their mind have no value.
Everyone needs to stand up and stop this from proceeding further. Hell, even the Castro brothers now admit communism doesn't work.
"You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)