Energy Probe

Stephan Kleiser
Tillonburg News
April 14, 2006

Residential electricity charges in Ontario will be going up an average of 16 per cent next month and, according to published reports, that won’t be the end of it.

The average consumer using 1,000 kilowatts of power a month will see their rate increase by almost $10 to $62.

The new rates will increase the cost of hydro to 5.8 cents for the first 600 kilowatts and 6.8 cents for additional usage. Right now, rates are five cents and 5.8 cents respectively.

The province’s regulatory body, the Ontario Energy Board, said the new rates are necessary to pay for some of last summer’s expenses incurred when during record-breaking heat waves – consumers used record amounts of electricity at low rates even though the actual cost of electricity soared.

In addition, many consumers will face increased distribution rates. Distributors, like Tillsonburg Hydro Inc. which is 100 per cent owned by the town, have applied for rate increases to deliver power to consumers. Combining the hydro rate increases with distribution increases also approved this week, Ontarians are facing rate hikes from anywhere between three and 18 per cent.

According to a Canadian Press article, Tillsonburg will be the worst hit.

Average consumers in Toronto will see an increase of $6.72. Many in “Brantford, Niagara Falls, Midland and Welland will pay in the range of $15 more per month, while the Southwestern Ontario Town of Tillsonburg will be hit the hardest: monthly bills will go up an average of $20.26.”

Tillsonburg Councillor Fred Lewis, one of Tillsonburg hydro’s directors was surprised by the numbers saying he “can’t confirm that, the board hasn’t met and I don’t know why that would be the case. I don’t even know where these numbers came from.”

Steve Lund, the town’s director of operations, who is the senior staffer looking after the local hydro company, is out of town and couldn’t be reached.

When asked, Lewis did acknowledge however, that distributions rates were also approved and they may well play a role in the local increase.

Tillsonburg Mayor Stephen Molnar said there is actually a logical explanation behind those numbers, “which incidentally aren’t fair.” He said Tillsonburg’s distribution rates were frozen by the energy board in 1999, which just happened to be at a time when they were paying down reserves in accordance with legislation of the day. “So we were actually in a mode where we were charging less than cost in order to lower reserves.

“As a result, in the past seven years we have been losing money since we weren’t, until this week, permitted to increase rates to levels where they should be,” Molnar said.

That’s why Tillsonburg’s increase will be higher than others, because it is made up of two numbers, the hydro increase and the increase in distribution charges.

But there may be some good news.

Just as electricity costs soared during last summer’s heat wave which forced the province to import costly power, a mild summer this year could bring down costs.

If the McGuinty government continues to carry out its plans to shut down coal-fired plants, however, several observers, among the Toronto energy watchdog Energy Probe, have said rates will continue to climb regardless of the weather.

To help low-income residents, the provincial finance minister has announced plans to offer a one-time rebate of $120 to families earning up to $23,000. And there is a sliding scale all the way to $33,000 or less where residents will get back $20. Close to 1.5 million residents would qualify for a rebate of some kind under the program.

Officials also pushed the message that it is important for residents to lower their energy consumption. In addition, a number of energy saving measures and cash rebates are available to consumers who invest in more energy-efficient appliances. For more information, contact the local hydro company via the town’s customer service centre.

Canadian Press
CTV.ca
April 19, 2006

Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil Ontario’s future electricity needs, despite its obvious downsides – including Chornobyl-type accidents and the need to store radioactive waste, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

"That’s an issue," McGuinty said of the risks associated with nuclear power, including the devastating Chornobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths.

"But I think we should look at our particular history in this country," McGuinty said, noting that there have been no major nuclear accidents in Ontario where reactors have operated for more than two decades.

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in Russia, but also in Ukraine and Belarus.

McGuinty’s government is about to issue a formal response to recommendations in December that called for $40 billion in nuclear refurbishments and expansions over the next 20 years to ensure Ontario has an adequate electricity supply.

The premier denied he’s waiting until after the Chornobyl anniversary to respond.

Critics say there have been some close calls when it comes to the safety of Ontario’s nuclear stations, including two incidents at the Pickering station – a coolant leak in 1983, and brief problems with computers that operate a reactor in 1991. In both cases, safety systems kicked in as they should to prevent potentially devastating accidents.

But industry observer Tom Adams of Energy Probe called those incidents "near misses" that should have deterred governments from considering nuclear as an option again.

"To use an air traffic control analogy . . . when a Cessna sweeps in front of a 747 and they miss each other by a few hundred metres, the air traffic controllers don’t say, ‘Oh well, that was nothing.’ They say, ‘We’re never going to let that happen again.’"

China and India have embarked on nuclear energy programs in recent years. But Adams noted that the western world is largely shying away from nuclear plants with the notable exception of Finland, which is constructing a nuclear station to reduce that country’s reliance on Russian gas.

This week, a Greenpeace report predicted the fallout from Chornobyl was grossly underestimated.

The report predicts that 270,000 cancers will have been caused by Chornobyl fallout, 93,000 of them fatal. The report also notes that there have been 60,000 additional deaths in Russia in the last 15 years due to the Chornobyl accident, and that the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus is another 140,000.

"Nuclear power is just as dangerous for Canada in 2006 as it was for Ukraine in 1986,” said Greenpeace Canada’s Dave Martin. "A catastrophic accident has a low probability, but devastating consequences. Canada should phase out nuclear power – conservation and renewable energy are safer, cleaner, and cheaper."

McGuinty acknowledged nuclear energy isn’t without its problems.

"The downside is, of course, that it does produce nuclear waste. The upside is, we can contain it. The downside, again, is, we’ve got to contain it for a thousand years," he said.

But McGuinty has long argued that nuclear has the ability to generate clean, affordable and reliable baseload electricity compared to its alternatives.

Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out, McGuinty said.

That leaves nuclear, which already generates half of the province’s electricity, and coal power. But the Liberals have promised to shut down Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by the end of 2009 due to air pollution concerns.

Proponents of coal say plants that generate electricity from the cheap, abundant commodity can be upgraded with cleaner technology at fractions of the cost of building more nuclear stations.

"This is just pure politics. There is no environmental justification," said Adams, who in a recent study found that two of Ontario’s coal-fired plants are among the cleanest in North America.

Adams said shutting them down would mean Ontario will have to import more electricity from "dirtier" coal plants in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
April 19, 2006

Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil Ontario’s future electricity needs, despite its obvious downsides including Chornobyl-type accidents and radioactive waste, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable, coal plants pollute the air and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out – leaving nuclear power expansions “on the table” for the province, McGuinty said.

“There is nothing that is neat and tidy by way of a solution to our energy challenges,” McGuinty said when asked about the risks associated with nuclear power, including the devastating Chornobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths.

“But I think we should look at our particular history in this country,” McGuinty added, noting that there have been no major nuclear accidents in Ontario.

McGuinty later said it’s “irresponsible” to compare Chornobyl with Canada’s Candu nuclear technology anyway.

“We’ve had (nuclear) technology in place here for some 30 years. There has been nothing like, nothing even approaching like, what happened unfortunately in Chornobyl,” he said inside the Ontario legislature.

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in Russia, but also in Ukraine and Belarus.

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield is about to issue a formal response to recommendations in December that called for $40 billion to construct or replace up to 12,400 megawatts of nuclear power in Ontario – requiring 12 or more new nuclear reactor units in the province.

The premier denied New Democrat accusations that the Liberals are waiting until after the Chornobyl anniversary to respond.

Critics say there have been close calls at Ontario’s nuclear stations, including two incidents at the Pickering station – a coolant leak in 1983, and brief problems with computers that operate a reactor in 1991. In both cases, safety systems kicked in as they should to prevent potentially devastating accidents.

But industry expert Tom Adams called those occurrences “near misses” that should have deterred governments from ever considering nuclear again.

“To use an air traffic control analogy . . . when a Cessna sweeps in front of a 747 and they miss each other by a few hundred metres, the air traffic controllers don’t say, `Oh well, that was nothing.’ They say, `We’re never going to let that happen again.’ ”

China and India have embarked on nuclear energy programs in recent years. But Adams noted that the western world is largely shying away from nuclear plants with the notable exception of Finland, which is constructing a nuclear station to reduce that country’s reliance on Russian gas.

This week, a Greenpeace report predicted that 270,000 cancers will have been caused by Chornobyl fallout, 93,000 of them fatal.

“Nuclear power is just as dangerous for Canada in 2006 as it was for Ukraine in 1986,” said Greenpeace Canada’s Dave Martin. “A catastrophic accident has a low probability, but devastating consequences.”

Martin said safety risks are rising as Ontario’s existing nuclear plants age.

McGuinty acknowledged nuclear energy isn’t without its problems.

“The downside is, of course, that it does produce nuclear waste. The upside is, we can contain it. The downside, again, is, we’ve got to contain it for a thousand years.”

But McGuinty has long argued that nuclear has the ability to generate clean, affordable and reliable baseload electricity compared to its alternatives.

The Conservatives say the Liberals are ignoring coal, an abundant commodity that produces cheap electricity. The government has promised to close Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by the end of 2009 due to air pollution concerns.

Nuclear stations can take a decade or more to build and past projects have gone billions of dollars over budget. The original cost to construct Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station, located 70 kilometres east of Toronto, tripled to some $14 billion during the 1980s.

Sources have said the Liberals are discussing the potential of a major expansion at Darlington.

Canadian Press
CTV.ca
April 19, 2006

More Ontarians are turning to long-term, fixed-price electricity contracts following last week’s announcement that regulated prices are rising May 1, but experts caution that prices would have to rise dramatically for the contracts to pay off.

"Signing one of those (long-term) contracts is extremely pessimistic,” says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a national consumer group. "What they’re offering is peace of mind at a huge premium."

Most Ontarians are still under the province’s regulated price plan, where they are charged a regulated price per kilowatt hour for the electricity they use for heating, air conditioning, lighting and appliances.

On May 1, the regulated price will rise to 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 600 kWh’s used per summer month, and 6.7 cents per kWh after that. Regulated bills vary across the province depending on what the local utility charges to deliver power.

About 25 per cent of residential consumers have instead chosen to lock in their rates through a long-term contract offered by one of the six electricity retailers serving Ontario, said Ian MacLellan, spokesman for Energyshop.com.

Following the Ontario Energy Board’s announcement that regulated electricity bills will rise between three and 15 per cent for most homeowners starting May 1, "we noticed a very large increase in the number of people signing up (for fixed-rate contracts) through our website,” MacLellan said.

Those consumers are placing a bet on how high electricity prices will rise.

"What customers need to think about is, over the next five years, do I think that electricity prices will go up more than 25 per cent?” said Ian Mondrow, spokesman for Direct Energy, the province’s largest electricity retailer.

"If they go up by more than 25 per cent over the next five years, you could end up being better off. It’s important to say that we don’t sell savings, because no one can say for sure what prices are going to do. We sell certainty.”

For the certainty of knowing what their electricity will cost them for the next five years, Direct Energy’s customers are currently signing up at 9.65 cents per kWh.

However, Mondrow noted that the regulated price includes two types of rebates that fixed-price customers will receive directly. Those two rebates add up to 1.124 cents per kWh, bringing Direct Energy’s effective price down to about 8.53 cents per kWh.

"So, by my math, our price is about 25 per cent higher, after you account for the rebates, than the regulated price plan,” said Mondrow.

Mondrow said Direct Energy, which also operates in Alberta, originally entered Ontario’s electricity market in May 2002. That fall, the market was "effectively closed by Ernie Eves” when the province froze the retail price at 4.3 cents per kWh, which was below cost, Mondrow said. The company re-entered the market about a year ago, when the regulated price plan came into force.

The regulated prices are now determined by a number of factors, including the amount of electricity produced by generators, natural gas prices, and the weather.

The May 1 price rise comes after the Ontario Energy Board underestimated the price of supplying regulated customers. Customers paid about $3.7 billion over the past year, while the electricity cost $4.1 billion.

The summer of 2005 was the hottest in Ontario for 30 years, increasing demand as low water levels reduced output from hydroelectric plants. High natural gas prices also contributed to the cost.

"In terms of supply mix, looking out over the next five years, the most important factor is the government’s announcement that they intend to close down the coal plants by 2009," said Adam White, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario.

"If they do that, our analysis suggests that electricity prices are going to rise significantly. You can generate electricity using coal with our existing plants for about four cents per kWh. With current natural gas prices, you’re looking at at least six."

MacLellan notes that the government has announced incentives for wind power, which is 11 cents per kWh. And solar power is about 42 cents per kWh.

"Anything that they’re going to replace coal with, or just to compensate for our natural growth, it’s pricey," he said.

A rise in the cost of supplying power will not necessarily directly translate into a rise in the regulated price, Adams pointed out.

"We can talk about what the future’s likely to bring in terms of the wholesale price of power, but how that translates into retail prices for households in this highly-politicized environment – I’d love to stick my neck out, but I just don’t know which direction," he said.

For now, he insists, "the only (fixed-price contract) worth thinking about would be green power customers that are prepared to pay a little more."

Bullfrog Power bills itself as the first 100 per cent green electricity retailer in Ontario. The company offers one-year rates, which are currently among the cheapest fixed rates available.

Canadian Press
CTV.ca
April 19, 2006

More Ontarians are turning to long-term, fixed-price electricity contracts following last week’s announcement that regulated prices are rising May 1, but experts caution that prices would have to rise dramatically for the contracts to pay off.

"Signing one of those (long-term) contracts is extremely pessimistic,” says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a national consumer group. "What they’re offering is peace of mind at a huge premium."

Most Ontarians are still under the province’s regulated price plan, where they are charged a regulated price per kilowatt hour for the electricity they use for heating, air conditioning, lighting and appliances.

On May 1, the regulated price will rise to 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 600 kWh’s used per summer month, and 6.7 cents per kWh after that. Regulated bills vary across the province depending on what the local utility charges to deliver power.

About 25 per cent of residential consumers have instead chosen to lock in their rates through a long-term contract offered by one of the six electricity retailers serving Ontario, said Ian MacLellan, spokesman for Energyshop.com.

Following the Ontario Energy Board’s announcement that regulated electricity bills will rise between three and 15 per cent for most homeowners starting May 1, "we noticed a very large increase in the number of people signing up (for fixed-rate contracts) through our website,” MacLellan said.

Those consumers are placing a bet on how high electricity prices will rise.

"What customers need to think about is, over the next five years, do I think that electricity prices will go up more than 25 per cent?” said Ian Mondrow, spokesman for Direct Energy, the province’s largest electricity retailer.

"If they go up by more than 25 per cent over the next five years, you could end up being better off. It’s important to say that we don’t sell savings, because no one can say for sure what prices are going to do. We sell certainty.”

For the certainty of knowing what their electricity will cost them for the next five years, Direct Energy’s customers are currently signing up at 9.65 cents per kWh.

However, Mondrow noted that the regulated price includes two types of rebates that fixed-price customers will receive directly. Those two rebates add up to 1.124 cents per kWh, bringing Direct Energy’s effective price down to about 8.53 cents per kWh.

"So, by my math, our price is about 25 per cent higher, after you account for the rebates, than the regulated price plan,” said Mondrow.

Mondrow said Direct Energy, which also operates in Alberta, originally entered Ontario’s electricity market in May 2002. That fall, the market was "effectively closed by Ernie Eves” when the province froze the retail price at 4.3 cents per kWh, which was below cost, Mondrow said. The company re-entered the market about a year ago, when the regulated price plan came into force.

The regulated prices are now determined by a number of factors, including the amount of electricity produced by generators, natural gas prices, and the weather.

The May 1 price rise comes after the Ontario Energy Board underestimated the price of supplying regulated customers. Customers paid about $3.7 billion over the past year, while the electricity cost $4.1 billion.

The summer of 2005 was the hottest in Ontario for 30 years, increasing demand as low water levels reduced output from hydroelectric plants. High natural gas prices also contributed to the cost.

"In terms of supply mix, looking out over the next five years, the most important factor is the government’s announcement that they intend to close down the coal plants by 2009," said Adam White, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario.

"If they do that, our analysis suggests that electricity prices are going to rise significantly. You can generate electricity using coal with our existing plants for about four cents per kWh. With current natural gas prices, you’re looking at at least six."

MacLellan notes that the government has announced incentives for wind power, which is 11 cents per kWh. And solar power is about 42 cents per kWh.

"Anything that they’re going to replace coal with, or just to compensate for our natural growth, it’s pricey," he said.

A rise in the cost of supplying power will not necessarily directly translate into a rise in the regulated price, Adams pointed out.

"We can talk about what the future’s likely to bring in terms of the wholesale price of power, but how that translates into retail prices for households in this highly-politicized environment – I’d love to stick my neck out, but I just don’t know which direction," he said.

For now, he insists, "the only (fixed-price contract) worth thinking about would be green power customers that are prepared to pay a little more."

Bullfrog Power bills itself as the first 100 per cent green electricity retailer in Ontario. The company offers one-year rates, which are currently among the cheapest fixed rates available.

Tara Perkins
Toronto Sun
April 19, 2006

More Ontarians are turning to long-term, fixed-price electricity contracts following last week’s announcement that regulated prices are rising May 1, but experts caution that prices would have to rise dramatically for the contracts to pay off.

"Signing one of those (long-term) contracts is extremely pessimistic," says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a national consumer group.

"What they’re offering is peace of mind at a huge premium."

Most Ontarians are still under the province’s regulated price plan, whereby they are charged a regulated price per kilowatt hour for the electricity they use.

On May 1, the regulated price will rise to 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 600 kWhs used per summer month, and 6.7 cents per kWh after that.

Regulated bills vary across the province depending on what the local utility charges.

About 25% of residential consumers have instead chosen to lock in their rates through a long-term contract offered by one of the six electricity retailers serving Ontario, said Ian MacLellan, spokesman for energyshop.com.

Those consumers are placing a bet on how high electricity prices will rise.

"It’s important to say that we don’t sell savings because no one can say for sure what prices are going to do," said Ian Mondrow, spokesman for Direct Energy, the province’s largest electricity retailer. "We sell certainty."

He said customers need to determine how high they think electricity prices will rise in the next five years.

For the certainty of knowing what their electricity will cost them for the next five years, Direct Energy’s customers are currently signing up at 9.65 cents per kWh.

However, Mondrow noted that the regulated price includes two types of rebates that fixed-price customers will receive directly.

Those two rebates add up to 1.124 cents per kWh, bringing Direct Energy’s effective price down to about 8.53 cents per kWh.

SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE FIXING YOUR RATE

Some tips for consumers considering a fixed-price electricity contract:

Canadian Press
Toronto Sun
April 20, 2006

Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil Ontario’s future electricity needs despite its obvious risks, Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday.

"That’s an issue," McGuinty said of fears associated with nuclear power, including the devastating Chernobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths.

"But I think we should look at our particular history in this country," McGuinty said, noting that there have been no major nuclear accidents in Ontario, where reactors have operated for more than two decades.

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in Russia.

McGuinty’s government is about to issue a formal response to recommendations in December that called for $40 billion in nuclear refurbishments and expansion over the next 20 years.

The premier denied he’s waiting until after the Chernobyl anniversary to respond.

Critics say there have been some problems at Ontario’s nuclear stations, including incidents at the Pickering station in 1983 and 1991.

‘Near misses’

Industry observer Tom Adams of Energy Probe called those incidents "near misses" that should deter governments from considering nuclear energy as an option.

And this week a Greenpeace report predicted the fallout from Chernobyl was grossly underestimated.

The report predicts that 270,000 cancers will have been caused by Chernobyl, 93,000 of them fatal. The report also notes that there have been 60,000 additional deaths in Russia in the last 15 years due to the Chernobyl accident, and that the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus is another 140,000.

McGuinty acknowledged nuclear energy isn’t without its problems. "The downside is, of course, that it does produce nuclear waste. The upside is we can contain it . The downside, again, is we’ve got to contain it for a thousand years," he said.

Steve Erwin
Calgary Sun
April 20, 2006

Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil Ontario’s future electricity needs, despite its obvious downsides – including Chornobyl-type accidents and radioactive waste, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable, coal plants pollute the air and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out – leaving nuclear power expansions "on the table" for the province, Mr. McGuinty said.

"There is nothing that is neat and tidy by way of a solution to our energy challenges," Mr. McGuinty said when asked about the risks associated with nuclear power, including the devastating Chornobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths.

"But I think we should look at our particular history in this country," Mr. McGuinty added, noting that there have been no major nuclear accidents in Ontario.

Mr. McGuinty later said it’s "irresponsible" to compare Chornobyl with Canada’s Candu nuclear technology anyway.

"We’ve had [nuclear] technology in place here for some 30 years. There has been nothing like, nothing even approaching like, what happened unfortunately in Chornobyl," he said inside the Ontario legislature.

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in Russia, but also in Ukraine and Belarus.

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield is about to issue a formal response to recommendations in December that called for $40-billion to construct or replace up to 12,400 megawatts of nuclear power in Ontario – requiring 12 or more new nuclear reactor units in the province.

The Premier denied New Democrat accusations that the Liberals are waiting until after the Chornobyl anniversary to respond.

Critics say there have been close calls at Ontario’s nuclear stations, including two incidents at the Pickering station – a coolant leak in 1983, and brief problems with computers that operate a reactor in 1991. In both cases, safety systems kicked in as they should to prevent potentially devastating accidents.

But industry expert Tom Adams called those occurrences "near misses" that should have deterred governments from ever considering nuclear again.

"To use an air traffic control analogy . . . when a Cessna sweeps in front of a 747 and they miss each other by a few hundred metres, the air traffic controllers don’t say, ‘Oh well, that was nothing.’ They say, ‘We’re never going to let that happen again.’"

China and India have embarked on nuclear energy programs in recent years. But Adams noted that the western world is largely shying away from nuclear plants with the notable exception of Finland, which is constructing a nuclear station to reduce that country’s reliance on Russian gas.

This week, a Greenpeace report predicted that 270,000 cancers will have been caused by Chornobyl fallout, 93,000 of them fatal.

"Nuclear power is just as dangerous for Canada in 2006 as it was for Ukraine in 1986," said Greenpeace Canada’s Dave Martin. "A catastrophic accident has a low probability, but devastating consequences."

Mr. Martin said safety risks are rising as Ontario’s existing nuclear plants age.

Mr. McGuinty acknowledged nuclear energy isn’t without its problems.

"The downside is, of course, that it does produce nuclear waste. The upside is, we can contain it. The downside, again, is, we’ve got to contain it for a thousand years."

But Mr. McGuinty has long argued that nuclear has the ability to generate clean, affordable and reliable baseload electricity compared to its alternatives.

The Conservatives say the Liberals are ignoring coal, an abundant commodity that produces cheap electricity. The government has promised to close Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by the end of 2009 due to air pollution concerns.

Nuclear stations can take a decade or more to build and past projects have gone billions of dollars over budget. The original cost to construct Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station, located 70 kilometres east of Toronto, tripled to some $14-billion during the 1980s.

Sources have said the Liberals are discussing the potential of a major expansion at Darlington.

Kevin Werner
Stoney Creek News
April 20, 2006

Most Hamilton residents will only get singed by their local hydro utility after the Ontario Energy Board unveiled last week a series of price shocks across the province.

Households will start paying on May 1, 5.8 cents per-kilowatt-hour, per month up to 600 kilowatts from May to October. Beyond the 600 kilowatt hours, residents will pay 6.7 cents. Customers are now paying five cents per-kilowatt-hour and 5.8 cents per-kilowatt-hour.

The threshold will rise to 1,000 kilowatt hours from November to April.

The threshold rises during the winter months because homes dependent on electric heating have less flexibility in reducing their power consumption.

For non-residential users, the cost will remain at $750 kilowatt-hours per month throughout the year.

The OEB also jacked up the cost of distribution utilities charge for residents who use 1,000 kilowatts per month. Horizon Hamilton, of which the City of Hamilton is its only shareholder, will charge an extra $6.50, but Horizon St. Catharines customers will pay an extra $8.35. Hamilton Utilities Corporation and St. Catharines Hydro own Horizon Utilities Corporation.

Hydro One, the largest provincial electricity provider, will charge its customers $11.70 extra. Hydro One has a number of customers in Ancaster and Glanbrook, meaning a higher electricity bill of, on average, about $191 for the mostly rural customers.

Horizon Hamilton had one of the lowest increases across the province and certainly the lowest in the Golden Horseshoe.

Niagara Falls received a whopping $14.56 increase, while London Hydro will have a $13.80 hike. Grimsby Power’s rate will increase $12.72 and Burlington Power increased by $9.58.

Overall, Ontario residents will pay between three to 15 per cent more in electricity bills this year, depending on the prices utilities charge to deliver power.

The Ontario Energy Board blamed the higher electricity costs on last year’s summer, which was the hottest in 30 years, that forced the Ontario government to buy more expensive electricity; higher than anticipated prices for natural gas; and lower water levels, which reduced the electricity output from hydro plants.

Ontario households paid on average $60 less than the actual cost of supplying electricity. It resulted in a $384-million deficit.

The new prices are also part of a government policy to have consumers pay the actual cost of buying electricity on the open market.

And expect those energy prices to skyrocket, says Tom Adams of Energy Probe. He says if the Liberals carry out their plan to replace Ontario’s coal-fired generating plants by 2009, prices will continue to rise.

Environmental groups said the hikes would help encourage people to reduce their electricity use, but they criticized the Liberals for not doing enough to promote conservation.

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield urged people to close their blinds to keep out the hot sun, replace air conditioners with fans and if it’s neccessary to use air conditioners, turn them up a few degrees.

Edward de Gale, founder and executive director of Share the Warmth, a non-profit organization that assists low-income families from higher energy costs, says people will have to bear the brunt of skyrocketing electricity prices.

He urged the government to create a permanent fund to assist people who are at risk to ever climbing electricity prices.

Anticipating public outcry for the impact higher electricity prices will have on low-income residents, the Liberals introduced legislation last week to provide $100 million in assistance to nearly 1.5 million families hurt most by the rate hikes.

The OEB in November will be authorized for the first time to revise electricity prices again in the same year, which could mean further price shocks to the public.

Tom Adams
Presentatio to CAMPUT
May 16, 2006

1

2

3 

 5

6

7 

8   

9 

10