# Ontario Government Hikes Electricity Rates



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

Saw this article today. $6 more per month per household. Plus taxes. Ouch! 

It also mentions that the OEB extended the off-peak hours by having them start at 7pm instead of 9pm...does anyone happen to know if this change in peak hours is immediate or does it take effect at the end of the month when the TOU hours change?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

It starts May 1. 

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/tou_rates.asp


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Choose Change.

-Health Care Premium
-28% pay hikes for MPPs
-HST
-electricity price hikes


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Yeah, this was announced a few months ago.
Just another step in the pillage of middle class working people in the province.
Given the number of such changes in the last 5 - 7 years, I think most people are becoming desensitized to these things (which is exactly what the govt. wants).
Royal Mail listed some of those changes.
I'd like to add auto and home insurance premiums to that list.
Ontario is simply becoming too expensive to live, work and conduct business in.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Yeah, this was announced a few months ago.
> Just another step in the pillage of middle class working people in the province.
> Given the number of such changes in the last 5 - 7 years, I think most people are becoming desensitized to these things (which is exactly what the govt. wants).
> Royal Mail listed some of those changes.
> *I'd like to add auto and home insurance premiums to that list.*Ontario is simply becoming too expensive to live, work and conduct business in.


Don't forget the price of gas...$1.30 a litre and gold is now $1500 an troy oz!
and Stats Can is lying by saying we only have 2% inflation and less than 5%
unemployment!

maybe there is something to that "2012" thing? 
(The Great Bust Ahead!) 

Yup! I agree and my pension is going down, not up!... thanks to Nortel's
bankruptcy and mismanage of the pension fund. Oh well, in this world
there has to be winners and losers...and I guess I'm the later.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> Don't forget the price of gas...$1.30 a litre and gold is now $1500 an troy oz!


Well, I won't blame the Ontario govt. for all the ills of the world.
IMHO, the provincial govt. can't control the price of gasoline unless they decide to nationalize the gas stations and institute regulated pricing/price control.
Same for the price of gold.

That said, the HST didn't help.
I'm certain the direction of the gas prices was known in 2010 when the HST was implemented....it was common knowledge that crude oil prices are on the way up.
So I'm certain the McGuinty camp was rubbing their hands in glee knowing what the HST is going to do to the gas prices and all the extra revenue $$ that's going to bring in, without any new taxes - $$ that they can then go and spend in more creative ways.



> Stats Can is lying by saying we only have 2% inflation


We discussed that earlier today.
IMO, the CPI numbers are essentially garbage information for individuals.
And these numbers are highly convenient for the govt. since so many benefits and programs are pegged to the CPI number, such as pension indexation (as you are painfully finding out)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have yet to see anything other than anecdotal evidence that CPI is conspiratorially misleading. Yes, everyone has their own inflation rate depending on how they spend their money, but is there any evidence that the CPI basket is unrepresentative in general, or that inflation is raging in a way that isn't reflected in CPI? Total CPI was over 3 percent in March, reflecting the spike in gasoline prices and rises in vegetables.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I have yet to see anything other than anecdotal evidence that CPI is conspiratorially misleading. Yes, everyone has their own inflation rate depending on how they spend their money, but is there any evidence that the CPI basket is unrepresentative in general, or that inflation is raging in a way that isn't reflected in CPI? Total CPI was over 3 percent in March, reflecting the spike in gasoline prices and rises in vegetables.


Nope. The CPI perfectly reflects the change in prices of a basket of goods and services. The basket contents are updated with consumer data about what people actually purchase. What makes the basket unrepresentative is (1) the extent to which your purchasing deviates significantly from the average basket and (2) the extent to which you practice substitution (there is no substitution bias in Canadian inflation reporting).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> IMO, the CPI numbers are essentially garbage information for individuals.
> And these numbers are highly convenient for the govt. since so many benefits and *programs are pegged to the CPI number, such as pension indexation (as you are painfully finding *out)


Ya, my early CPP allowance went up by $3.xx this year..enough to maybe
buy that TH "double-double"..well maybe not enough, since TH had to
raise their prices because the coffee barons raised there prices and so on..
I've yet to get my first OAS payment in a week or so..and anything will
help to replace the 30-50% loss of company pension I'm facing in the next
few months. When that occrurs it may be food banks..here I come!
..and nothing left over for that $8 bottle of Gray Fox that I enjoy once a month!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I have yet to see anything other than anecdotal evidence that CPI is conspiratorially misleading. Yes, everyone has their own inflation rate depending on how they spend their money, but is there any evidence that the CPI basket is unrepresentative in general, *or that inflation is raging in a way that isn't reflected in CPI? *Total CPI was over 3 percent in March, reflecting the spike in gasoline prices and rises in vegetables.


Gasoline according to the CBC has gone up 30 percent in the last "few" months and it's rumoured to hit around $1.50 a liter by the end of this year.
Last year it was around $1.00, now 1.30 and when it hits 1.50, that's
50% hike to me. I pity the poor seniors that still have oil heating and are
not locked into any 5 year plan...it's totally crazy what is happening this year!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> The basket contents are updated with consumer data about what people actually purchase. What makes the basket unrepresentative is (1) the extent to which your purchasing deviates significantly from the average basket and (2) the extent to which you practice substitution (there is no substitution bias in Canadian inflation reporting).


How do you fit 50-100 litres of gas into that basket and on what frequency
is that "basket" updated? It's all smoke and mirrors..real inflation is closer
to 5%. Just leave $1000 in your savings for 5 years and not touch it,
and see what "quantity" of goods it will buy in 5 years, never mind 10 years!

They were talking at one point of converting the $5 bill to a coin! Thankfully
that hasn't happend so far..enough of these loonies and toonies..dragging down
our pockets..we don't need "fiveVs" either. The penny was supposed to be
phased out because the price of copper is worth more than the actual copper
coin.

Banks pay diddly squat in interest..they might throw you $15 in interest
spread over the year..so next year you think you "have struck it rich" by
thinking your money is "growing", but in fact it is shrinking faster than you
think because of real inflation and the rising costs of energy, increased taxes on increased costs of consumer goods, (try and put taxes in the CPI basket! ),food , gasoline, rents or property taxes, insurances and I'm sure
there are other things we have forgotten..not to mention increase cost of
replacing the family vehicle (if bought new).


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

See page 5 of this PDF for a specific discussion of how gasoline "fits into" the basket.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I have yet to see anything other than anecdotal evidence that CPI is conspiratorially misleading.


I'm not saying that the CPI is conspiratorially being forged or doctored by the govt. (we talked discussed on the other thread this morning).
All I am saying is that it is a useless number for households and individuals for making personal finance, investing, budgeting and other related decisions.

IOW, the CPI % does not reflect ground reality for many (most) people.
Everyone is different of course, but I contend that the CPI is so divorced from reality that it's not even funny.

I look around the prices of various things in the GTA (which should be fairly representative I'd think) and the way prices have gone up in the last 3 years, and then I see the "core" CPI at 1.75% and all I can say is that number is worth less than a donkey's arse.

It is, however, quite convenient for the govt. during these times that the CPI does not reflect true situation in the market since so many social benefits are pegged to it.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Good, people use way too much electricity.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

Sherlock said:


> Good, people use way too much electricity.


Says you. 

What's a lot of electricity? I'm using an average of 13 kw a day? Is that a lot? For a family of 4? It feels like a lot since my bill has nearly tripled in the last 5 years. 

I figure my "base" is about 8kw a day. That's fridge, freezer, washing machine and dryer tumber along with boiler pump in the winter and fans in the summer. 

That means I cram TV,lights, computer, and clock radio into about 5kw a day.


----------



## Jon202 (Apr 14, 2009)

crazyjackcsa said:


> Says you.
> 
> What's a lot of electricity? I'm using an average of 13 kw a day? Is that a lot? For a family of 4? It feels like a lot since my bill has nearly tripled in the last 5 years.


390 kW/h per Month? Ya... that seems WAY too low.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Another thing I wish they'd raise prices on is garbage disposal, and figure out some way to charge per bag. Why should someone who throws out one garbage bag a week pay the same as someone who throws out a bag every day?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> Gasoline according to the CBC has gone up 30 percent in the last "few" months and it's rumoured to hit around $1.50 a liter by the end of this year.
> Last year it was around $1.00, now 1.30 and when it hits 1.50, that's
> 50% hike to me. I pity the poor seniors that still have oil heating and are
> not locked into any 5 year plan...it's totally crazy what is happening this year!


Gasoline is just part of your basket. Prices for natural gas for home heating is in the toilet. Prices for many durable imported goods have fallen due to the strong dollar. Gasoline is visible because you purchase it on a regular basis. People are even quite irrational about it, driving across town to save 50 cents, or trying to get by on fumes and prayers to buy gas tomorrow when the price will be a penny and a half cheaper. It's nuts.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

crazyjackcsa said:


> Says you.
> 
> What's a lot of electricity? I'm using an average of 13 kw a day? Is that a lot? For a family of 4? It feels like a lot since my bill has nearly tripled in the last 5 years.
> 
> ...


13Kw per day sounds about normal for a family of 4. However, you are going to suffer from from "McGinty's "Stick-er Shock", as they keep raising electricity rates...13Kwh spread over say...8-10 hours of actual daytime/evening usage
runs about 16-18 cents per kwh... your "loaded cost". 

That includes McGinty's HST, the ODR (debt retirement "cash cow") and other surcharges(HST)...so thats about $2.08 to $2.34 per day x 30 days (average) = $70.20 per month x 2 months is around $140 per billing *in the winter months*.

Iincluded are the power factor losses that the local utility charges on 
top of your consumption, which is basically the line losses delivering the
power to your home. That is the loss within the lines and the stepdown
transformer somewhere around your property, that converts ?kv distribution
lines in your area, down to 220-240V to your 100 or 200 amp electrical box. 

Because the stepdown transformer is center-tapped you get 110-120v Phase A and 110-220v Phase B.. each phase is 180 degrees out of phase with each other..and that creates a heating effect (I won't go into electrical theory here) to allow 220 volt appliances (stove,dryer, motors and of course baseboard heaters) to work.

Typically power factor losses can be a percentage of what the load is..
if its a heating element/light bulb, it's not that much..but in a electric
motor (fridge compressor that runs a lot, or wash machine, or furnace
fan (typically 1/2 hp or 350watts), *the power factor adds up to electricity
on your bi-monthly bill that is in addition to what you actually consume.*

Now, I living alone (cat doesn't use any power), use about 677kwh/2=
338kwh per month in the winter months, far less than that in the summer,
when I spend most of my time at a trailer camp.

Now this summer with only my energy efficient new fridge , and a couple of CFLs the actual consumption should be about 30% less ...so I may break "even" with the new rates compared to last year,
when I had the old fridge with the higher consumption compressor.

On my last hydro bill with 677kwh of actual consumption, (11kwh daily
on THAT BILL) , my utility calculated that I had to pay them for 23kwh of "line loss" which is about an extra $3.68 cents loaded rate.

Ok, so that's only about 3.4% of my total consumption..but it all adds up..
especially when you consider there is HST and debt retirement charge on
that wasted power..the power that doesn't do anything useful in your home.

If you can find ways to save even 4% power consumption, you may come
out "even"with the increased rates on May 1.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Prices for many durable imported goods have fallen due to the strong dollar. Gasoline is visible because you purchase it on a regular basis. People are even quite irrational about it, driving across town to save 50 cents, or trying to get by on fumes and prayers to buy gas tomorrow when the price will be a penny and a half cheaper. It's nuts.


Ok I understand, Andrew..but you don't buy these "cheaper durable goods"
on a frequent basis either, like gasoline, so the equation they may be using
is somewhat flawed IMO.

I've only bought 1 durable goods this year, an energy efficient new fridge and
yes,,it was a bit cheaper than the same fridge I bought in 1996...about two
or $300 dollars cheaper even with inflation..so there is merit to what you are
saying in respect to durable goods..but the last time I bought appliances
was 15 years ago..and what was the price of gas per litre then?...lets say
50-60cents for arguments sake.
Now that price per litre is averaging $1.20 to $1.30 per litre and closer to
$1.30 now in my area.

Now, I realize that I'm not frugal still driving 1970s detroit technology V8
even if it has sequential port fuel injection. It's big, it's heavy and it
has 8 cylinders and it loves to drink gas..(8km per litre hwy) compared to
the fuel sippers (50km per gal) available from Nissan and others..but I
just can't afford to buy another fuel efficient vehicle at this time.

So..my truck tank hold about 80some litres..at $1.30/L..that's $104 for
a fillup today..compared to $48 back in 1996.

The difference on gasoline alone for me is $56 a tankfull (averages about
640km) ..and that is significant for my small pension income.
I don't care what the gov't claims the CPI is..that is smoke and mirrors..
I only see what I have to pay out of my own pocket..not their "virtual
basket of goods and services"...

and I think that there are a LOT of people/families out there that are in
the same situation.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> _Prices for many durable imported goods have fallen due to the strong dollar. Gasoline is visible because you purchase it on a regular basis._


Ok I understand, Andrew..but you don't buy these "cheaper durable goods"
on a frequent basis either, like gasoline, so the equation they may be using
is somewhat flawed IMO. I don't drive around town to save 1c a litre either!

I've only bought (1) durable goods this year, an energy efficient new fridge and yes,,it was a bit cheaper than the same fridge I bought in 1996...It's about $200
or maybe even $300 dollars cheaper even with inflation. (Although these durable goods are now designed to last about 10 years vs 15)..so there is merit to what you are saying in respect to durable goods..but the last time I bought appliances was 15 years ago..and what was the price of gas per litre then?...lets say 50 or maybe 60 cents for arguments sake.
Now that price per litre is averaging $1.20 to $1.30 per litre and it's closer to
$1.30 now in my area.

Now, I realize that I'm not frugal still driving 1970s detroit technology V8
even if it has sequential port fuel injection. It's big, it's heavy and it
has 8 cylinders and it loves to drink gas..(8km per litre hwy) compared to
the fuel sippers (50km per gal) available from Nissan and others..but I
just can't afford to buy another fuel efficient vehicle at this time.

So..my truck tank hold about 80some litres..at $1.30/L..that's $104 for
a fillup today..compared to $48 back in 1996.

The difference on gasoline alone for me is $56 a tankfull (averages about
640km) ..and that is significant for my small pension income.
I don't care what the gov't claims the CPI is..that is smoke and mirrors..
I only see what I have to pay out of my own pocket..not their "virtual
basket of goods and services"...

and I think that there are a LOT of people/families out there that are in
the same situation.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Choose Change.
> 
> -Health Care Premium
> -28% pay hikes for MPPs
> ...


That's right. The PC has already promised to repeal the Health Care Premium, roll back MPP raises, revert the HST, and electricity price cuts.

Wait, they haven't?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Sherlock said:


> Good, people use way too much electricity.


Maybe you do, Mr. Holmes, I don't.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> That's right. The PC has already promised to repeal the Health Care Premium, roll back MPP raises, revert the HST, and electricity price cuts.
> 
> Wait, they haven't?


Bingo.

None of these things are popular, but some were necessary, and they are all here to stay regardless of who is in power.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

We already unplug everything. Guess we have to pay up now.


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

Our electricity for 4 people is under $100/month, seems very reasonable to me for all the conveniences I get from it. 

I'd much rather see fellow Ontarians paying the full cost of electricity than some government hiding the true costs. Especially as there is so much flagrant waste of power, and that power has an environment cost attached to it. 

I'd actually be in favour of a large electricity price increase if it meant we could shut down the remaining coal plants, and have cleaner power for the price.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Bullseye said:


> .
> 
> I'd much rather see fellow Ontarians paying the full cost of electricity than some government hiding the true costs. Especially as there is so much flagrant waste of power, and that power has an environment cost attached to it.
> 
> *I'd actually be in favour of a large electricity price increase if it meant we could shut down the remaining coal plants, and have cleaner power for the *price.


Your wish will be granted. Over the next 5 years they are going to phase
out any coal fired generators..which are the cheapest operate, but as
you say..too much pollution and everyones on the "green bandwagon" now.

But green power is very expensive to install and operate. Why do you think
that the OEB approved OPG to pay these windfarms 80c a kwh?

Not only is it a big overhead cost to install, but land has to be either purchased
or leased for many years to sustain a windfarm because you need to build
a substation and a transmission line to connect to the grid.

One windmill generator isn't going to make much difference, but a hundred
or more will provide power for quite a few homes (197mw) like the one
on Wolfe Island near Kingston Ont.

http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/wind-power/wolfe-island-wind-project-1978-mw-wolfe-island

This is the only way it's going to be feasible is to do it on a large scale.

So lets say we are paying 10c a kwh during daytime NOW on TOU....
are you prepared to pay .20 or even possibly .30c kwh someday?

And lets not forget the loaded cost delived to you + HST...
that 20c kwh rate will be more like 30c a kwh loaded cost.

So start putting some money away for your future hydro bills...just like
the cost of gasoline, it will never become cheap again..unless the world
economy collapses...and that will only affect oil prices, not self sustained
Ontario hydro generation.

"Can you hear that giant sucking sound?"


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Carver, for the umpteenth time, OPA are *NOT* paying 80 cents per kWh for wind. They are paying 13.5 cents for on-shore and 19 cents for off-shore. Look for yourself:

http://www.fit.powerauthority.on.ca...ntentID=10543&SiteNodeID=1103&BL_ExpandID=260

Now, I don't really support this approach to encouraging renewable power development, but I think it's important that we're using facts in our discussions.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Carver, for the umpteenth time, OPA are *NOT* paying 80 cents per kWh for wind. They are paying 13.5 cents for on-shore and 19 cents for off-shore. Look for yourself:


Glad you found that Andrew..I guess I was stuck on the solar green power
rate..and assumed that the wind was about the same.
But, nevertheless, the rates that OPG is paying the wind generators, is
what we will be (probably) paying within the next 5 years, as there is a
shift to "green power" to supplement hydro and nuclear.

Just got my electricity bill (seems to be down slightly because of the new
energy efficient fridge..but I got it last month, so it hasn't been a full 60 days..and the furnace is running less now..so it's hard to tell. I'll have to
compare it relative to last years bill of the same time period.

Anyway, what I was going to say was that in my electricity bill, I see this
little insert from Ontario that they are taking 10% off my electricity bill for
the next 5 years...shutting down coal fired plants, moving to green power..
blah blah..etc..

_"To help you with the increased costs of these essential investments, the
Ontario Government has taken 10% off your electricity bill-including electricity
costs, regulatory charges, the debt retirement charge and taxes."_

Now they are increasing the cost of electricity starting May 1st..wtf?

So, on one hand they tell me that they are giving me a 10% break and on the
other hand they are raising the rate by 3.8 % ..so is this some smoke
and mirrors game they are playing on us? So they raise the rates
and then tell us.."we are giving you a "generous" 10% reduction on your bill
so you can cope with the increased bill? 

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2011/19/c5345.html



> Now, I don't really support this approach to encouraging renewable power development, but I think it's important that we're using facts in our discussions.


Ok, got yer point! I stand corrected.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

From my understanding, the rise in rates is being driven by the cost of maintaining and renewing our conventional fleet of power generation (ie, new gas plants, renovations to nuclear) and transmission system. Some of it is for the FIT, and the component devoted to FIT will grow over time, but as yet this is just catching up with too-low prices in the 1990s (didn't cover the cost of operation and depreciation for political reasons). It's a bit scary that rates are rising so much, but it's better than keeping rates artificially low and subsidizing through other forms of taxation.

The 10% rebate is probably a political ploy by the province to assuage voter anger. The 4% increase was the regulated utility's ability to raise rates. The 10% rebate is coming from the provincial treasury.


----------



## donaldhumiston (Apr 26, 2011)

The never ending price hikes. It is a slow way of torture for the majority of the people all around the globe. It is just so sad.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

crazyjackcsa said:


> Says you.
> 
> What's a lot of electricity? I'm using an average of 13 kw a day? Is that a lot? For a family of 4? It feels like a lot since my bill has nearly tripled in the last 5 years.
> 
> ...


I'd say you are in the low quartile, if not low decile. I think the average user in Ontario is about 30 kWh/day.

We use here about 17 kWh/day, including hot water heating. Take out the hot water to be comparable to most folks (who heat water with gas), and we are somewhere in the 10 to 13 range.

I don't feel particularly deprived, so it isn't clear to me why the average user can't make progress to what you and I use, given a pricing incentive. "I don't want to" is an unconvincing argument.

I support higher prices for electricity. It is the correct thing to do. We use too much of it because it is priced too low. The evil externalities are biting us in the ***.

What I don't support is the subsidy for PV and wind generation. This whole idea is hugely uneconomic. Let's look at it for one household to get an idea of how expensive are these systems. 

The first $400 or so of everyone's annual bill is fixed costs. So the most I can save by cutting my consumption to zero is about $700 annually. 

To set up solar panels or wind or similar would have a capital cost of $40,000 to $80,000 to generate 5kWh/day. If I stay on the grid, I get a return at best of $700 on $40K to $80K. Even If I disconnect from the grid and have an annual "dividend" of $1100, the return is still miserable.

This is why McGuinty's policies are so foolish. We'd all be better off attacking the demand side by higher prices than the supply side with foolish subsidies. Better we all pay a little more directly in electricity price than a lot more on capital costs and the Samsung deal.

There are so many things to do an the demand side. Outlaw electric heating, whether water or space in favour of gas in regions that have access to gas. Get rid of all the 3kWh/day freezers and refrigerators in favour of the modern 1kWh/day units. Tell people to turn off all the lights in unoccupied buildings at night. Reduce the illumination standards in public places and give seniors a flashlight. That last one is tongue in cheek, but really, when Home Depot, Costco etc. shut off half the lighting last summer during electricity shortages, did it really make it any harder to shop? Get some thermal hot water systems installed. Even if we heavily subsidize these things it has to be more cost effective than subsidizing PV systems at $0.80/kWh. 

Raise the price of electricity and the population will figure out what to do. Of course the politician who does this won't be re-elected. But neither will his successor repeal it, as it is clearly the right thing to do. Instead we get McGuinty's foolishness.

October can't come soon enough for me in Ontario.

hboy43


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Somebody gets it!


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

Stop wasting like an idiot and you won't be out of pocket.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

Sure, if you're wasting in the first place, you can see savings by reduction.

It's pretty easy to take usage from 30kwh a day to say 25. It gets a little harder when you cut from 25 down to 20. 20 down to 15 is tougher still. dropping from 15 down to 10? Near impossible. And lets say you do. is your bill 1/3 the original size? Nope. Standard monthly fees see to that.

And for the guy (like me) who has done nearly everything resonable to get to 13 kwh? And has been there for 5 years. Prices still are increasing by a larger percentage.

And like savings and investing. It's really the percentage that matters.

That's leaving politics aside. If you wanted to include a little political grandstanding, it's insane that we pay a wind company massive subsidies for wind and solar, and then when people don't use that much power, we have to pay other places to take it from us!

http://management.torontosun.com/2011/04/25/ontario-pays-others-to-take-its-costly-power

How about a real smart meter? One that actually charges you based on actual supply and demand? Not an artificially imposed supply and demand plan?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

crazyjackcsa said:


> That's leaving politics aside. If you wanted to include a little political grandstanding, it's insane that we pay a wind company massive subsidies for wind and solar, and then when people don't use that much power, we have to pay other places to take it from us!
> 
> [How about a real smart meter? One that actually charges you based on actual supply and demand? Not an artificially imposed supply and demand plan?


excerpt from the Toronto Sun article...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The negative export price is not available to regular Ontario consumers.

*Residential ratepayers in the province pay the market rate for electricity plus a special provincial global adjustment to cover extra costs, such as the guaranteed prices Ontario has agreed to pay some producers of clean energy like solar and wind.*

Adams said the *province has been struggling with an oversupply of electricity — as potentially dangerous to the stability of the system *as a shortage of power — for much of the past week.

“Ontario has become a gigantic exporter of power
---------------------------------------------------------------------

MAJOR RANT ON!
---------------
So here is the crux of the matter, folks! WE ARE BEING SCAMMED
by the IESO and the Ont gov't is part of that scam. The more we get
scammed by them jacking up rates on us..the more the McGinty gov't
gets in HST, so it's not in their best interest to give us any breaks.

Everyone knows what is happening at the gas pumps, as the price
per litre keeps creeping up every week by a cent or two. 
The same thing is going to happen to electricity over the next few
years..why? Because Ontario Hydro (a provincially owned utility) was
broken up and replaced by independent entities are now "revenue generators".
Yes, their main purpose is to not only provide power to the people of Ontario
at changing market price, but also to make a PROFIT for themselves.

We are entering an era of scammers, ripoff artists eyeing that after tax
dollar as fair game. Gone are the days of fiscal responsibilty, mandates to serve the people of Ontario, and basic human decency/understanding that many people are struggling out there to survive. 

It's becoming a jungle mentality..the strongest jump on the weakest. Your ability to pay has nothing to with the charges on your bill...PAY UP OR ELSE WE CUT YOU OFF! Taxes and energy costs are eating away rapidly on your household
dollars and will continue to do so. It's not getting any better, in fact it will
only get more expensive from here on. 

CAN'T YOU HEAR THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND????
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Rant off



minor rant
----------
Now I could go with a smart meter like that..but that will never happen!
Hydro costs will continue to rise, because its becoming privatized now,
and why should someone who invests millions, even billions in new
generation capacity take any pity on the Ontario consumer?.....

The politicians certainly don't, the banks don't, the oil barons don't,
the scam artists don't, the local municipal taxes don't, the utilities don't,
CCRA don't, contractors don't, CC companies dont......

I think you get my point..how deep are your pockets?..they will be deeper
in the coming years, because you will have to reach down deeper to
pay everybody MORE!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

> How about a real smart meter? One that actually charges you based on actual supply and demand? Not an artificially imposed supply and demand plan?


There's two sides to that coin: maybe you pay little to nothing for power when there's an excess, but you might be paying over a dollar a kWh on those hot summer days (which is often the marginal cost of power).

Frankly, residential consumption is not high enough to justify more sophisticated power management systems yet. Many industrial and commercial users have some arrangements already.

Smart meters are still relatively new. It's possible that they will eventually allow residential users to pay for power at the spot rate (but don't expect to avoid having to pay a monthly fee to maintain a connection-the hundreds of thousands of km of power lines aren't free to maintain). I think that might end up causing more stress than not. What would you do, have an alarm or something that warns you when the rate is above 25 cents a kWh so you can run around madly unplugging all your devices?


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

As of 11:00 am the market clearing price for Ontario electricity is 1.24cents/kWh. The Global Adjustment (surcharge to enable solar, wind, minor hydro generators to receive their massive guaranteed rates) is 4.3cents/kWh. The subsidies in this case are nearly 3.5x the actual market clearing rate.

The current market price is actually cheaper than it has been in the past 10 years, but with all the clean energy subsidies, electricity has never been so expensive. Although onshore wind can be competitive, offshore wind and solar will see us paying up to 31cents/kWh just to recoup the costs. Either the technology has to improve, alternatives have to be exhausted, or we have to decide that a green world is worth spending triple what we currently pay.

Unfortunately, we have very little say in the matter.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The feed in tariff program is nuts. You won't get any disagreement from me. 

But let's be frank, 1.4 cents is below cost for any form of power including capital costs. There happens to be a surplus at the moment, in part because of the strong winds the last few days but also due to low demand due to it being Sunday!


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

Electricity has been kept artificially cheap. So has the cost of gas. 

For those complaining about a rate hike - Explain to me how much of my electricity bill do you think your taxes should be paying for? 

I forget the exact numbers but I worked it out when the announced it - the "rebate" McGuinty promised to assuage all the whiners worked out to roughly $80 per person in Ontario. That means on a superficial examination each of us is paying $80 per person to keep the price of electricity low. And that's per person not taxpayer. So its more than that really. 

If seniors or low income families can't afford their power bill, the solution is to help them pay it. NOT make it so guys like me who can afford the REAL cost of electricity get it cheap as well. 

Read Joseph Heath's book "Filthy Lucre" for a good explanation of this.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

This thread makes my eyes roll.

So if prices spiked to $800/MWh for a few hours because of a Bruce or Darlington forced outage at 1PM on an August summer weekday, are you going to whine about not having to pay the $0.80/kWh just for the power--never mind the transmission, distribution and other charges.

This is the way the regulated market works. Be glad that you as the ratepayer are simply subsidizing you as the taxpayer.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Hmm...so gas (@ $1.35) is subsidized, electricity is subsidized?

Methinks politicians and bureaucratcs are subsidized.
How about we whack 1/3rd of them.
Prices of both gas and electricity will come down.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

HaroldCrump said:


> Hmm...so gas (@ $1.35) is subsidized, electricity is subsidized?


Yes. North Americans pay a fraction for gas that other countries do. Electricity costs a fraction of what the market price would be.


----------



## donaldhumiston (Apr 26, 2011)

Live within your means and spend only on the things you need. That is a small start but in the long run, it will help a lot too.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

realist said:


> Yes. North Americans pay a fraction for gas that other countries do. Electricity costs a fraction of what the market price would be.


If you insist on comparing apples to shag carpeting:

Don't confuse subsidized to heavily taxed. European countries have far more taxes applied to gasoline than the U.S. (and to a lesser extent, Canada). Keeping in mind the general size of our two countries, gas needs to be cheaper to move people and products economically. I can point to a number of countries (Venezeula is the cheapest at 12cents a gallon) where gas is far cheaper.

And you can't tell me what the market price of Electricity could be, as the market isn't free. I can't buy power from a company that makes it using the cheapest means possible. I'm forced to pay for the price I'm told. Power could be far cheaper if we burned tonnes of coal, and used hydro power, but we don't.

And subsidized using my taxes, or my bill, I pay no matter what.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

crazyjackcsa said:


> I
> And subsidized using my taxes, or my bill, I pay no matter what.


No, it means SOMEONE pays. The problem with separating the costs of health care, environmental regulation and clean up etc. from the cost of gas/electricity is that the people paying are not necessarily the people using it, and those costs can increase with impact to the consumer, or their usage habits.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

realist said:


> No, it means SOMEONE pays. The problem with separating the costs of health care, environmental regulation and clean up etc. from the cost of gas/electricity is that the people paying are not necessarily the people using it, and those costs can increase with impact to the consumer, or their usage habits.


I'm confused... Somebody pays for it, but it isn't me? So where does this magical money come from? Slice it or dice it, it's taxes. And who pays taxes? Taxpayers. So do businesses, and where do those costs get passed to? Consumers. HMMMM....sounds like me again.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you pay it through taxes, it's pooled and you can't avoid it by changing your behaviour. If you pay for it directly, you can avoid paying for it by changing your behaviour. Standard prisoners dilemma. There is a different between paying costs indirectly in a pooled fashion and paying it directly.

Imagine four room-mates at university. Do you not think there is any difference in behaviour if people take turns buying groceries for the whole house and split the cost four ways, vs each person buying their own food?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> If you pay it through taxes, it's pooled and you can't avoid it by changing your behaviour. If you pay for it directly, you can avoid paying for it by changing your behaviour. *Standard prisoners dilemma*. There is a different between paying costs indirectly in a pooled fashion and paying it directly.


So..your are suggesting we are held prisoner?..when we have to buy goods
or commodities (gas/oil and electricity) from gov't sanctioned provincial
refineries or gov't controlled (OEB) utilility prices? Short of spending
$10,000 or more to install a nat gas 10Kw generator on your property and
getting off the grid..how else can the consumer escape rising prices?



> Do you not think there is any difference in behaviour if people take turns buying groceries for the whole house and split the cost four ways, vs each person buying their own food?


Ok, I agree with what you are saying here..BUT there is a big difference in
shopping for food at various supermarkets, which are engaged in true competion and lowering prices to get your business..
VS.. downright "price fixing" by OEB and "Big Oil". 

You can't just say..screw you <Hydro One>! I'm going over
to your competition and realize any savings,
in this "squeeze em till it hurts" game they are playing with us.

Yes, there are these "electricity marketers"..but they don't really give you a break, because of now with, the tiered smart meter rates, and they want to make a profit for themselves, so you will pay the averaged rate of the 3 tiered rate
+ a profit for the electricity marketer. 

But, even if you do..you are not saving ANYTHING..because ONTARIO says..
"So!... you want to "save" by going to a marketer and going off the RPP?

Ok..we'll just tack on a "provincial benefit/global adjustment" charge kickback 
to our electricity generators, so you cannot take advantage of any savings
from the spot prices on electricity this way....so that'll fix yer little red wagon!" .

Can you really think that the electricity (or gasoline) consumer wins in this setup?

McGinty wins every time from rising electricity/gasoline prices!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prisoner's dilemma

It doesn't really have anything to do with prisoners or being held prisoner. It's a kind of collective action problem.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

First of all, if you want to lock in your electricity prices, you can.

Second, there should be some clarification of the electricity market in Ontario. OPG is the main generator. They produce the power and have nothing to do with delivering that power to your home. Hydro One is the high-voltage transmission company. Except in rural communities, they also are not the ones that deliver the power to your home. This is done by the distribution companies such as Toronto Hydro, Powerstream, Horizon, etc. 

All distribution revenues are regulated using an incentive-based mechanism whereby return on capital increases as efficiencies increase. This allows benefit sharing of these efficiencies between ratepayers and the distribution companies.

Transmission revenues are also regulated. Why is there regulation in place? Because it simply does not make economic sense for all parties to have competition in a natural monopoly such as electricity. Generation is NOT a natural monopoly, which is why OPG's revenues are a hybrid of both regulated and non-regulated revenue streams.

This brings me back to my first point--retailers. Retailers offer customers the opportunity to lock in the cost of power. They are able to do this because they can hedge their positions in the unregulated generation/power markets (this has nothing to do with transmission/distribution).

As for smart metering and TOU billing, this is a way to control peak load growth to reduce the capital required to expand the system to satisfy peak load. Europe has done this for decades, and it's about time for markets in North America to evolve and accept these changes.

(sorry, one of my pet peeves is the interchanged use of (the former) Ontario Hydro, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation)


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

Well put atrp2biz. You've articulated my feelings on the subject.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Hmm...so gas (@ $1.35) is subsidized, electricity is subsidized?
> 
> Methinks politicians and bureaucratcs are subsidized.
> How about we whack 1/3rd of them.
> Prices of both gas and electricity will come down.


Only 1/3 Harold?

I think you'd have to whack at least half , so the other half get the point.

Below is a simple premise that I have learned through my life, and have come to believe without doubt:

"The bigger the government gets, the poorer it's citizens get"


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> If you pay it through taxes, it's pooled and you can't avoid it by changing your behaviour. If you pay for it directly, you can avoid paying for it by changing your behaviour. Standard prisoners dilemma. There is a different between paying costs indirectly in a pooled fashion and paying it directly.
> 
> Imagine four room-mates at university. Do you not think there is any difference in behaviour if people take turns buying groceries for the whole house and split the cost four ways, vs each person buying their own food?


I understand that, and it isn't my point. My point is, I STILL PAY ,and I can't avoid it! A hike in charges is a hike in charges, a doubling of my bill is just that. I may pay a smaller % than a big user, but I still pay.

You may believe there is a difference in paying costs directly or indirectly, but the end is still the same, you pay, one way or another. I have no say in how my power is generated, and therefore have no input as to costs. If a resturant is too expensive, I don't go there. I still have to eat though. I'd love to be able to have the option to buy cheap power from a company with a shoddy evironmental and safety record, but I don't. There is one game in town, and I don't like the way they are operating.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

atrp2biz said:


> First of all, if you want to lock in your electricity prices, you can.


So you have locked in with electricity marketer? May I ask what you
are paying now per 1kwh?




> This brings me back to my first point--retailers. Retailers offer customers the opportunity to lock in the cost of power. They are able to do this because they can hedge their positions in the unregulated generation/power markets (this has nothing to do with transmission/distribution).


Arent the retailers driven by profit off the electricity they buy in bulk
for you and sell it to your at a higher cost. How is does this scheme
save you any money? BTW..I locked in a couple years ago and I'm glad
I was able to get out..My electricity bills shot up around 30% after I locked
in and this was before the HST came into play.

You cannot save any money by locking in. This is a SCAM! They get you
both ways..Locked in TOU rates + provincial benefit charge..another 4 or
5 cents per KWH on top of all of the other charges you are paying
so all of a sudden that 10c per kwh becomes a loaded cost of 20c or
more!


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

I don't lock in my electricity rates, much the same as I don't lock in mortgage rates as I believe variable is the way to go. Of course they're in it to make money--but if it lets you sleep better at night or allows businesses to forecast their costs...

Again, retailers can only offer the power--not the wires costs.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

See, carver just doesn't want to pay for hydro.

Go buy a diesel generator and put it in your basement. You'll save a fortune.


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The 10% rebate is probably a political ploy by the province to assuage voter anger. The 4% increase was the regulated utility's ability to raise rates. The 10% rebate is coming from the provincial treasury.


Of course, it was a political ploy. CP24 just felt in the trap. They are soooo easy to trick. So naive. They believe everything the police and the government tell them. Anyway, the 10% rebate was announced the day BEFORE the huge increase was announced.  It's always better to hear the good news before the bad one. Right?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> See, carver just doesn't want to pay for hydro.
> 
> Go buy a diesel generator and put it in your basement. You'll save a fortune.


Andrew..I never said I didn't want to pay for my electricity consumption,
which is as frugal as I can make it..but I don't like getting ripped off
by two levels of gov't!

A diesel genny is out of the question! Have you priced diesel at the pumps
lately? A 2 cylinder diesel running a 10Kw generator will burn probably 
close to a litre per hour..IF I'm drawing the full 10Kw power off it.

Less, if it's just idling during the night..or maybe it could just shut down during the quiet hours..but then there is that pesky 120v fridge. 

Then the cans of diesel fuel, I would need to keep handy, not to mention the noise/smell of the exhaust. 

No easy or economical solution, it seems.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> A diesel genny is out of the question! Have you priced diesel at the pumps
> lately? A 2 cylinder diesel running a 10Kw generator will burn probably
> close to a litre per hour..IF I'm drawing the full 10Kw power off it.


I am pretty sure Andrew had his tongue firmly in cheek.

hboy43


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Ontario provincial Tories have announced their official election campaign.
Top of the list are measures to address the hydro costs.

Highlights are:
- Scrap the HST from hydro bills
- Scrap the so called "debt retirement charge"
- Scrap the FIT and other expensive "green energy" programs
- Make TOU optional i.e. opt-in and opt-out basis

These measures, if implemented, will make a substantial difference to household energy bills.
For our household, I expect savings of at least 20%.

Since 2008 or so, hydro is being used by our present provincial govt. simply as a disguise for higher taxation.

http://www.680news.com/business/art...emove-provincial-part-of-hst-from-hydro-bills


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

> Scrap the FIT and other expensive "green energy" programs


Let's scrap Cat converters from our cars as well. 



> Scrap the so called "debt retirement charge"


While we're at it, let's just scrap all of our debt repayments.



> Make TOU optional i.e. opt-in and opt-out basis


I'm especially amused by this comment. I mean, why should those that produce the biggest hit to the system pay the most eh? By scrapping this, you are essentially taxing those who use energy during non-peak times. If the demand continues during peak periods, we will have to find another way to pay for the infrastructure required to support it. Or do you suggest that we take out another loan and not pay it back as well?

Excuse my continued opposition, but your demands are unreasonable. Your bill is more transparent than your grocery bill.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'd be okay if the fixed rate (non-TOU) is just slightly less than the max TOU rate. If that makes people feel better, then fine. But I think many people are imagining that a fixed non-TOU rate would be low, like the off-peak TOU rate. It just isn't going to happen.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Ontario provincial Tories have announced their official election campaign.
> Top of the list are measures to address the hydro costs.
> 
> Highlights are:
> ...


Do you believe in Miracles?

Hudak is finally getting off his fanny and setting up an election platform.
Those are just election promises to get voter attention..they are not
legally binding and not cast in stone. If they implement all of the
reductions (cash cow HST and DRC included), the impact on the Ont
deficit is over 1.3 BILLION! 

With the deficit growning by the hour, it may be a "blue sky" promise similar
to Chretien's promise of a few years ago.."When I will become PM, I will
KILL the GST!..ya right!..We all know what happened there..at least
Harper reduced it by 2%..and that probably has some financial consequences
on the Federal deficit as well.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Ontario's hydro rates have been diddled with since the breakup of the old Ontario Hydro (taxpayer dollar wasting) monster. 

Now we have a two-headed monster instead of one. (OPG/Hydro One)
Throw in the OEB, the independent electricity systems operator, the province's appetite for taxes, and the independent electricity retailers
into the mix.. stir some additional hidden charges like the "provincial 
benefit/global adjustment into the mix..and baking that cake these days 
for the electricity consumer has never been so convoluted and expensive!

I agree that it isn't going to happen the way we are all envisioning..even
if Hudak manages to get into power..if they cut taxes..then they have
to recover the lost revenue somewhere. The lenders that hold the "investments" on the Ontario generating grid, aren't going to stand 
by and say."no problem Mr. Hudak, we will take the loss in revenue to
help out the Ontario electricity consumer."

Lose tax revenue one way, they have to make it up in other ways..and
the sneaky way to do it is to raise the Provincial sales tax to 9 or 9.5% 
(as in Quebec is doing on Jan 2012.). Applied to the GST it will be an effective tax rate of ...14.97% then. 

If the ONT deficit continues to grow within the next 5 years..maybe we should all buy chances on lottery tickets to help pay for electricity?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hudak won't be able to do anything about the FIT contracts already signed--that is, unless he wants Ontario to get sued into the stone age. Shame. The FIT dying would be a good move. Even if you are in favour of promoting renewables, this is a pretty inefficient way to do it.

Eliminating the HST on electricity will cost the provincial treasury--how would he replace that revenue or what else would he cut? It doesn't seem responsible to me to be proposing unfunded tax cuts when Ontario is in not inconsiderable fiscal difficulty.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Eliminating the HST on electricity will cost the provincial treasury--how would he replace that revenue or what else would he cut? It doesn't seem responsible to me to be proposing unfunded tax cuts when Ontario is in not inconsiderable fiscal difficulty.


Well lets not lose sleep over those hypothetical questions, Andrew.
Hudak is not in tune with what's happening in the business sector,
as it applies to electricity infrastructure spending and investment
He's only being driven by public opinion to "do something and fast!
..we are being slaughtered by the rising electricity rates!"

The issues behind the scenes are more complex than just scrapping this 
and scrapping that. 

It's easy for a political candidate just before the election, to wave some
hastily concocted election platform document in front of his supporters
on TV and tell them..."vote for me!..and I will implement this!". 

Even if he did manage to swing the voters to get into the "captain's chair" 
of the good ship "Ontario".. heading for that BIG "deficit iceberg",
his first few days/months would be to find out from his advisers..
and "captains of the industry, how difficult it will be to turn the
"titanic"around, and perhaps the best way out of the electricity rate
minefield is come up with "PLAN B" to steer a different course of action.

Of course, McGinty won't take this sitting down as the election 
rhetoric and promises heat up the political soapbox.

I'm sure the "Grits" will have something to say against the "Tories" 
proposals on reducing electricity rates. In the end, McGinty
will issue the next "HST bribe checks", and promise the voters
to make further little cuts here and there on your electricity bill,
and that will be pretty much the status quo.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hudak is likely going to win this election unless he really puts his foot in it like John Tory did last time. McGuinty is a pretty experienced politician, so we shouldn't write him off, but there is quite a groundswell of displeasure with his government.

I supported a lot of the changes he has implemented since 2003, including some really visionary moves like the Greenbelt and starting to rationalize transportation planning in the GTA. Implementing the HST and the corporate tax cuts will also be looked back on as positive, courageous changes. McGuinty could have taken the easy route and avoided this controversy...

All that said, I'll need to see what each party proposes. I'm going into this election with an open mind. I get the sense that McGuinty is a spent force as an agent for change. Hopefully Hudak is proposing more good than bad.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I think I'll run on a platform of repealing all provincial taxes!


----------



## ramy98 (Sep 20, 2009)

2 % inflation lol


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

crazyjackcsa said:


> I understand that, and it isn't my point. My point is, I STILL PAY ,and I can't avoid it! A hike in charges is a hike in charges, a doubling of my bill is just that. I may pay a smaller % than a big user, but I still pay.
> 
> You may believe there is a difference in paying costs directly or indirectly, but the end is still the same, you pay, one way or another. I have no say in how my power is generated, and therefore have no input as to costs.


I think you are missing the point. You can control how much electricity you consume. Right now you could generate 100% of your own power through solar, a generator, whatever... but because your taxes pay for other peoples power bills, you would be paying twice. 

If the direct price to the consumer goes up they can adjust their behavior accordingly to affect their cost. If you are paying through your taxes you have less control over your own cost. 

The point andrewf is getting at is that if we all paid the *real* cost of electricity, heavy users would use less, and we would all pay less as a group, and all be better off as a group than we are currently.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Thanks. I lose the will to comment when people disagree with something that fundamental.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I'd be okay if the fixed rate (non-TOU) is just slightly less than the max TOU rate. If that makes people feel better, then fine. But I think many people are imagining that a fixed non-TOU rate would be low, like the off-peak TOU rate. It just isn't going to happen.


But that was the way it used to be during the early days of the TOU introduction.
I don't recall precise numbers, but back in 2009 when TOU became effective (at least in my area), the flat rate used to be about .053c.
Off peak TOU rate was set at .048c, mid peak at .83 and peak was at .093 or thereabouts.
All rates have changed since then, but I suspect the spreads are similar even now.

TOU is punitive for several households, as you can see from the rates.

The fact that TOU and rates are being used as poker bargaining chips are evident from the fact that the govt. keeps tinkering with them to drive public opinion and approval ratings.
Witness the recent rate hike and the corresponding change in TOU time slots...off-peak now begins at 7:00 pm during summer instead of 9:00 pm.
7:00 pm is as peak as it gets, IMO.

It is politics, more than anything else, that's driving these rates and decisions.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I agree that there are political considerations, particularly around public acceptance. On the other hand, TOU is a necessary tool for managing peak demand and reducing overall system cost to deliver electricity.

Perhaps the best solution would have been to continue subsidizing electricity for a few years longer while consumers became accustomed to TOU pricing. Coinciding the rise in rates with introduction of TOU in consumers' minds has muddled the issue.

For more up-to-date figures, here are the rates effective May 1:

For fixed rate plans it is 6.8 cents for the first tier (currently 600 kWh) and 7.9 cents thereafter. 

TOU is 5.9 cents off-peak, 8.9 mid-peak and 10.7 peak.

http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Electricity/Electricity+Prices

I suspect these rates still have a lower effective price for fixed rate customers, possibly for political reasons.

I did a comparison between rate regimes for a theoretical customer using 1000 kWh a month. For the blended cost of TOU to match the fixed rate system, the user would need to have a demand profile like 62% off-peak, 28% mid-peak and 10% peak. I suspect that is not the typical demand profile, so TOU customers are unfairly being charged more than fixed-rate customers--especially since fixed rate customers are likelier to have a higher cost of power delivery since more of their demand will occur on peak or mid peak without the price incentive to avoid it.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The latest from C.D Howe on the FIT program:

http://cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_117.pdf

(haven't read this; this is a drive-by post)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> The latest from C.D Howe on the FIT program:
> 
> http://cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_117.pdf
> 
> (haven't read this; this is a drive-by post)


Thanks moneyGal. Drive by "sharing"? 

The reality of decisions to go green power are now sinking in in the true
cost. In the end, it isn't going to be any cheaper than building
more nuclear/nat gas generating capacity..but it is GREEN..and we do want to be green in everything today, because somebody is brainwashing us that we need to be green.

I see that the windfarm rate is now down to 13.5c/kwh and solar is at
48.5c/kwh..so at least the subsidies are coming down, but unfortunately
it will cost the "average" household $310 a year more, not to mention
the additional HST on that. 

As far as "50,000 jobs being created" ...initially yes, it will create some jobs during
the installation phase of solar or wind..but you don't need 50K jobs to sustain solar or wind long term...(estimated at $179K per job..900 mllion??) in "job creation" cost... to realize that there is some "fuzzy math" going on here, and somebody is benefitting from this.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

"However, most of these renewable energy projects operate only intermittently – the wind does not always blow nor does
the sun always shine."

I was at a conference on wind energy and an Ontario power rep said something along these lines. People there from Germany literally laughed out loud at him and pointed out that this is only an issue when you have a small number of generators in a small number of places. e.g. if you spread it out, it fixes the problem (at least to some degree). 

The article makes some other good points but does not address the other issues, such as government funding of nuclear. Focusing on the cost difference between natural gas and renewables is a false dichotomy, and does not look at the full picture. 

Argument in favour of full cost pricing: 
http://www.ontario-sea.org/Storage/...dies_and_Moving_Towards_Full_Cost_Pricing.pdf

The SEA is obviously not a disinterested party but the discussions of costing are interesting. One of the better points imho is towards the end - the number of large buildings that could easily install CHP (combined heat and power) generating


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Yeah, it should be possible to take a portfolio optimization approach to renewable power generation. Different technologies in different locations can be selected to give a high probability of meeting expected demand with a target amount of risk.

Ontario is also in a position to buy hydro from Quebec when intermittent sources fall short, and sell into other jurisdictions when there is a surplus. Quebec, through its dams, has the capacity to store power.

Power storage technologies are coming along, but they will play a limited role.

Given that natgas plants cost 11 cents a kWh at today's depressed fuel prices, 13.5 cents for wind is not _so_ bad, although natgas is dispatchable power. 

But, even still, the FIT was a bad was to stimulate renewable development. I would rather something more like a carbon tax and let the market figure it out. It'd be a lot cheaper than many people imagine. We already have an effective carbon tax of ~$40/tonne CO2 on gasoline, why not extend it to other fossil fuels and level the playing field?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Power storage technologies are coming along, but they will play a limited role.


Not necessarily a limited role, if you include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles among the storage technologies. About 3.1 million electric vehicles are forecast to be sold in the US alone over the next four years; there are policymakers and entrepreneurs plotting ways to use plug-in hybrids as mobile storage devices for renewable-generated electricity; they can feed unused electricity back into the grid through their batteries when plugged in. See http://www.energyboom.com/electric-vehicles-grid-energy-storage for some details.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

realist said:


> "However, most of these renewable energy projects operate only intermittently – the wind does not always blow nor does
> the sun always shine."
> 
> 
> The SEA is obviously not a disinterested party but the discussions of costing are interesting. One of the better points imho is towards the end - the number of large buildings that could easily install CHP (combined heat and power) generating


Wow..didn't realize that Ontarioans are big power wasters!
GDP per kwh:
California = 9.76
Ontario = 3.68
Quebec =1.70

and it only costs .069c per kwh from heritage hydro dam power generators.??
WTF?... are we doing fooling around with wind and solar.Lets build some more
hydro dams up north..give the first nations some money, dam up the rivers
and build some transmission line infrastructure.

We have towns up in northern Ontario, Cochrane/Hornepayne, which should already be on the hydro grid and the new transmission lines can hook up with existing ones.

This green power idea is just a drop in the bucket and a very expensive way to go about it...although it's not a complete waste of investment, but lets face it, investment should be made in power generation that will try and keep up with demand in the coming years.

Politicians should be setting visions for the future and not sitting around
emitting their own form of pollution..all that hot air!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> Not necessarily a limited role, if you include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles among the storage technologies. About 3.1 million electric vehicles are forecast to be sold in the US alone over the next four years; there are policymakers and entrepreneurs plotting ways to use plug-in hybrids as mobile storage devices for renewable-generated electricity; they can feed unused electricity back into the grid through their batteries when plugged in. See http://www.energyboom.com/electric-vehicles-grid-energy-storage for some details.


Another "pie in the sky" idea!

*"When not being used, the plug-in vehicles will not only draw energy from the grid, but also be able to supply energy to the grid from their batteries. Experts estimate that four cars would be able to power an average household for several hours. "*

Even if I had one of these, there is NO way I would allow my electric vehicles
battery energy to be drawn off an used by my neighbors. 
This might be basically the reaction you would get.

"Screw them..they can pay for their own source of power...I'm keeping mine
in my car battery..because if I need to go somewhere with it, I'm not going
to wait around for a few hours until the lithium battery gets recharged. Would
you allow your neighbors to take gas out of your tank? 

Years ago..Popular Science magazine stated in an article about nuclear
generated power.." in the future electricity from nuclear generators will
be so cheap, that meters may not be necessary.."

What happened to that concept?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

brad said:


> Not necessarily a limited role, if you include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles among the storage technologies. About 3.1 million electric vehicles are forecast to be sold in the US alone over the next four years; there are policymakers and entrepreneurs plotting ways to use plug-in hybrids as mobile storage devices for renewable-generated electricity; they can feed unused electricity back into the grid through their batteries when plugged in. See http://www.energyboom.com/electric-vehicles-grid-energy-storage for some details.


Plug-in electric vehicles will play a role, eventually, but I see them being more useful for grid stabilization (15 minutes or so until dispatchable power generators can be brought online) and dealing with surges in demand where transmission capacity is limited.

I don't think a fully built-out EV fleet would be enough to provide all the storage we'd need. And that will take decades.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Carver, on-going operating cost of hydro is cheap. Building it is not especially so. The far north hydro assets haven't been exploited due to the high capital costs of the dams and the high voltage direct current lines that would be needed to transport the power the thousands of kms necessary, but also the environmental impact. Maybe they will be exploited eventually, but I don't think the economic case is there yet.

And Popular Science is, for the most part, a waste of time. They are in the business of being horribly wrong about the future and explaining it badly to middle America.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> And Popular Science is, for the most part, a waste of time. They are in the business of being horribly wrong about the future and explaining it badly to middle America.


Maybe so..but it was fun reading it..just like reading about the flying car, they promised would fufill the world of tomorrow (this was in the 60s)


I remember the show with Bob <forget his last name> back in the late 70s...the show showed him "flying around" from "place to place"...can you imagine millions of "middle Americans" flying around, texting/yakking on cell phones, and
generally not paying attention to their flying, crashing into
each other, falling out of the sky onto innocent pedestrians...
ah yes...thankfully wiser minds, and the insurance companies put a stop to that
pipe dream. 

I really can't comment on the EV charging or grid stabilization "theory..and
this is another pipe dream that may be possible in the world of tomorrow,
but certainly not in the near distant future..like 10-20 years.

Taking a 220v ac power feed and converting it to DC that a high voltage
lithium battery string can use is one thing..but to extract the stored
DC in the lithium battery back through an inverter to convert it back to
220 ac with the 20% power loss (heat generated) in the inversion process, 
is just not economical to me... as an electronic engineer understanding
commercial power systems/inverters.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Maybe DC-AC inverters are better now. AFAIK, the efficiency is in the high 90s%.

Scientific American is a much better popular science magazine than PopSci.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Maybe DC-AC inverters are better now. AFAIK, the efficiency is in the high 90s%.
> 
> 
> > Some may be. The thing is that they have to be pure sinewave inverters,
> ...


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I suspect that is not the typical demand profile, so TOU customers are unfairly being charged more than fixed-rate customers--especially since fixed rate customers are likelier to have a higher cost of power delivery since more of their demand will occur on peak or mid peak without the price incentive to avoid it.


I got the latest rates in this mail earlier this week.
Your conclusion is absolutely correct - TOU customers are paying more than their fair share.
Also, in all the years I had been on flat pricing, I never ever exceeded the first tier consumption limit.
So as long as a household stays under that, they are paying only marginally more than the off-peak rate, but the mid-peak and on-peak rates are punitive.

Which is why I support Mr. Hudak's proposal of allowing households to choose TOU or flat pricing based on their consumption profile.
I realize this is not a good solution since everyone will simply choose what's cheapest for them given their _current_ habits, instead of modifying behavior.

This month, I'm finally in the bottom-most consumption household group in my city.
My consumption is now just about the lowest it has ever been, yet I am paying a lot more than just a couple of years ago.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Harold, someone has to pay--either the user or the provincial treasury/average tax payer. I'd much rather that people paid for the power they consume, but I'm a big commie. So, I'm willing to tolerate flat-rate pricing only if it's higher than the average rate paid under TOU. You seem to be okay with allowing everyone to pay less under the flat rate--of course this will lead to nearly everyone using the flat rate, and either rates rising or higher taxes to make up the shortfall. There is no free lunch, except where we can eliminate waste.


----------

