Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • A critical look at BC’s new tax breaks and subsidies for LNG May 7, 2019
    The BC government has offered much more to the LNG industry than the previous government. Read the report by senior economist Marc Lee.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver April 30, 2019
    The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver is $19.50/hour. This is the amount needed for a family of four with each of two parents working full-time at this hourly rate to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children, escape severe financial stress and participate in the social, civic and cultural lives of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Time to regulate gas prices in BC and stop industry gouging April 29, 2019
    Drivers in Metro Vancouver are reeling from record high gas prices, and many commentators are blaming taxes. But it’s not taxes causing pain at the pump — it’s industry gouging. Our latest research shows that gas prices have gone up by 55 cents per litre since 2016 — and the vast majority of that increase […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Ontario Electricity Sector V – What they knew, and when they knew it…

Last month I published a full-length article in the “The Monitor” magazine providing a “how we got here” analysis of the Ontario electricity sector and some options for the next Government.  Since then, two things have changed: first on May 31 two investigative journalists, Carolyn Jarvis and Brian Hill, wrote an excellent story for Global News about how successive Liberal Ministers of Energy ignored expert agency advice, which resulted in Ontario households having to pay billions of dollars more for electricity (see 3:51 Global News video here); and second, on June 2 the current Liberal Premier conceded that the Liberal party will not win the election to be held tomorrow (June 7).

My article brings together and updates the four electricity-related blogs that I’ve prepared at the PEF (first, second, third and fourth), focusing on the gradual, stealth privatization of electricity generation and showing how criticism of this process by progressive groups was muted by the promise of energy democratization and renewables (wind and solar) generation that would help reduce emissions and pollution. The electricity sector in Ontario became a prime case study of some of the inequality-creating trends buffeting our societies. Corporations (and their investors) who secured lucrative contracts and high-income households and speculators that could afford solar panels made out like bandits, while low-income households in Ontario faced growing electricity poverty. When prices became a political liability, the government responded not by going after the power producers, but rather by borrowing on behalf of ratepayers. I argued that objectives matter, and that the experience in Ontario shows that governance, policy and implementation matter even more.

The Liberal Premier’s concession confirms that a new government will indeed be able to review and implement new electricity policy in Ontario. Jarvis and Hill’s reporting shows how much work awaits the new Minister of Energy. Their story is based on over 4,000 pages of internal emails, ministerial briefings and other documents created by OPA in the 18 months staring January 2009 during which the Green Energy Act (“GEA”) was being discussed and the feed-in-tariff (“FIT”) program was being designed and implemented. These are the most relevant findings and how they fit into the themes I develop in my article:

1) The Ministry ignored Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and other expert advice on the design, pricing, and scope of the FIT program

In past blogs I’ve sometimes critiqued the professionalism of the relevant bureaucracy because it was hard to believe that they would have proposed/signed off on some key design aspects of the FIT and other programs. Based on the Global News story, it appears I may have been too harsh. The story highlights the fate of the key bureaucrat in charge of the FIT program, presumably now retired and feeling comfortable enough to talk about his experience almost a decade after the fact. The story is one of the Ministry apparently going “full steam ahead” on the FIT program regardless of expert opinion that would have saved billions of dollars. I have covered in detail the policy lunacy of front-end loading high-priced long-term contracts without any price-adjustment mechanism. According to the OPA documents and the person in charge of the FIT program, the Liberals knew this and still went forward with it. Ontario rate-payers and tax-payers will continue to pay the price.

2) In addition to having widespread support from environmental organizations to move forward with the FIT program, the Ministry was being pressed by the private sector

The Ministry was selling the GEA generally and the FIT program specifically as the “green” alternative that would kick-start the “democratization” of the “distributed” grid. Environmental groups were on board, along with most progressives. So were the capitalists. As policy, the Liberals specifically excluded the provincially-owned generating company, OPG, from renewable generation programs. So green energy would be provided exclusively by the private sector. Energy cooperatives got the smallest pieces of the pie. The process favored corporations and other independent entrepreneurs, who made out like bandits. The Global News article notes that in stakeholder meetings, industry groups and individuals pressed the government to increase FIT prices, which were ultimately established by the Ministry, often above the prices and/or for longer periods than recommended by the experts.

3) The Ministry did not appear to have evidence-based rationale behind its claim that the FIT program would only “add 1% per year for 15 years” to electricity prices

According to the FIT expert and OPA record, it appears that the Liberal Minister of Energy’s 2009 claim that the cost impact of the FIT program would be minimal was not based on OPA advice. At the time, the Ministry did not provide the OPA its rationale for the 1% figure. That figure was ludicrous then and has now been proven to be false. In the absence of such rationale, it seems that the 1% was a politically-driven “alternative fact” designed to sell a policy that would not have been implemented, or would have been implemented very differently, had the public, progressives and environmentalists known its true ultimate economic and social cost.

And political cost… it appears that high electricity prices have been an important factor in this election and is one of the reasons voters appear in the mood to punish the current government. The electricity file will be a priority for the new government. However, the new Minister of Energy will unfortunately have limited scope to deal with the problems of the future, as s/he will be burdened from having to deal with these legacy issues from this sorry past.

Enjoy and share:


Comment from Ruby Mekker
Time: June 6, 2018, 8:02 pm

Not once in your article did you mention the human and environmental damage done in the name of Green Energy. I only wish someone would do an indepth study of Lake K2 (K2 wind turbine project) to determine why and how of Lake K2’s formation and the long term consequence of its formation. I wish someone would study the 20 wells damaged and people having sediment filled water that MOECC maintains is clean to drink (Mr. Baird refused to drink it) and what about all the health issues ignored by MOECC. Who protected the people, the water, the environment. Water is a basic necessity of life but it was ignored in reality and in your report. Very disappointed that it is only the financial aspect that brought this fiasco to the public’s attention.

Write a comment

Related articles