OPA Technical Presentation

One of the resources the Ministry of Energy notes for the LTEP process is an Ontario Power Authority "Technical Presentation": Status, Outlook and Options for Electricity Service In Support of the 2013 LTEP Consultation [PowerPoint]

It's an interesting but flawed document.

In terms of costing out an electricity supply mix, slides 2 and 3 of the document present a generation capacity comparison between 2003 and 2013, and a comparable comparison of the energy produced in 2003 and the OPA's anticipated production in 2013.

Diving into the numbers one fascinating fact emerges - one which it's hard to imagine is a coincidence. Tallying up the generation and accounting for net exports (Exports - Imports), it turns out that the two years are equal.

If you think about this presentation from the OPA, that seems to indicate that all Ontario demand reductions since 2003 are due to the OPA run conservation programs.

Uh huh.

If you think about it a little longer, it also means that all conservation savings have been exported.

Since 2008 exports have averaged around $30/MWh (3 cents/kWh).

The OPA produced a 2011 Conservation Results Report which boasted:

"From 2006 to 2011, conservation programs have seen an investment of $2.0 billion and have saved customers $4.0 billion in avoided costs. Overall, 2011 conservation programs in Ontario influenced 717 million kWh of verified and sustainable annual energy savings yielding a program cost to consumers of 3 cents per kWh. The most cost effective year to date"

There's a couple of issues here:

• 717 million kWh is 0.7TWh, which is less than 1/10th of the conservation production indicated for 2013 in the "technical presentation" for the LTEP.

• Natural gas contracts guarantee a "net revenue requirement" (NRR), which means the incremental cost of generation is essentially the cost of the fuel to produce it. With gas prices at low levels, the conservation, if it displaced anything, would usually displace production with an incremental cost similar to that claimed for the conservation programs.

• approximately 30% of the time, in recent years and projected out to ~2018, there is no fossil fuel generation to displace (without paying to curtail non-utility generators), so there is no fuel displaced by conservation programs.

___

Slides 5 of the OPA document notes "Total costs for electricity service in Ontario have increased, but less than projected in 2010" without offering any insight as to why that is.

• Here's 3 possible reasons:

• A slowdown in the procurement/permitting of renewable energy projects (see Tom Adams' Green Energy Cold Feet)

• The gutting of pricing to the public generator (see OPG Turning Water into debt by Parker Gallant and Scott Luft)

• The seizure of payments from the debt retirement charge to hide the cost increases (Stranded Debt - Abandoned Responsibility by Scott Luft and Ontario Energy Ministry or The Freedom of NO Information by Parker Gallant)

Slide 10 of the OPA document graphs a couple of growth scenarios, and the document discusses many of the variables that make forecasting challenging. The problem here is they again go back only to 2003 (which is the first full year of the market operation in Canada - so maybe they are most comfortable with market statistics).