Energy Probe

Focus Ontario
June 21, 2007

Liberal Government’s New Climate Change Initiatives

GUESTS:
Hon Laurel Broten, Environment Minister
Keith Stewart, WWF – Canada
Tom Adams, Energy Probe

HOST – SEAN MALLEN

Full transcript follows

Preamble

SEAN MALLEN: With apologies to Al Gore, it is ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in Ontario. Even as our concern about climate change continues to grow, the industry that powers our provincial economy, auto manufacturing, is often accused of being one of the biggest culprits. Another inconvenient truth – we get a large portion of our electricity from coalfired generating plants, another principal source of greenhouse gases. The challenge for anyone seeking high office in this province is to balance those seemingly conflicting demands.

There’s no election platform yet from Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals, but given the sudden rush of big-ticket promises and plans on climate change, we strongly suspect that saving the planet will be a key element.

Premier Dalton McGuinty: The opportunity before us is a stronger economy with a much smaller environmental footprint. It really is the best of all worlds. But as his opponents enjoy pointing out, McGuinty has a record to overcome, such as a twice broken promise to close Ontario’s coal-fired generators.

Tim Hudak: He said he’d close the plant by 2007, he broke that promise. Then he said 2009, well he’s going to break that promise. Now we’re supposed to believe him for 2014. Come on!

SEAN MALLEN: The Premier is winning guarded praise from environmentalists for at least setting targets that are more ambitious than Ottawa’s.

Julia Langer, WWF – Canada: And the really important piece of this is that it is a sharp contrast, and a real kick at the federal government to get moving on action on climate change.

SEAN MALLEN: The question remains, can we get there from here with this plan.

From the Global News Room in Toronto, Focus Ontario with Sean Mallen.

SEAN MALLEN: Thanks for joining me again. Later in the program I’ll be joined by an environmentalist and an energy analyst for some other views of the Liberal government’s climate change plans. But first a reminder of some of the key elements – to reduce Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2014, that’s two years later than the Kyoto target – to close all the coal-fired generating plants by 2014; – a $650 million fund to encourage the development of green technologies, especially cars; – and a $17.5 billion initiative to improve public transit in the GTA. And with that quick overview I welcome my first guest, who is the Minister of the Environment, Laurel Broten. Good to have you back on the program, minister.

Hon Laurel Broten: Thank you very much.

SEAN MALLEN: As I indicated in the opening there, you’re getting some guarded praise from environmentalists about the overall targets, but some questions about how you’re going to reach some of those targets. The biggest question is about the coal plants. Tom Adams from Energy Probe, is going to be on in a couple of minutes, and he’s going to say it’s feasible to close the coal plants, but not without buying some pretty expensive power from elsewhere. Is that going to be a trade-off? Are our power rates going to go up?

Laurel Broten: Well, the question that you posed at the beginning of the program is can we get there from here. And I think the answer is a resounding yes, because we’ve been laying the groundwork that we need to be able to do that. We know that about fifty per cent of our 2014 commitment will come from the electricity sector of the greenhouse gas reductions.

SEAN MALLEN: From the coal plants specifically.

Laurel Broten: From the coal plants, but also from all of the work that we’re doing right now to conserve electricity, to put renewables in force, to have a new clean standard offering, a new renewable standard offering, so it’s a real transformation of that sector, and especially in the long term because we have really long term goals for 2020 and for 2050. By 2050, 80 per cent reduction. That really means we have to transform the way we live, and we’re well on our way to doing that.

SEAN MALLEN: To my question, does that translate into higher energy prices in the near future to cover the closure of those coal plants?

Laurel Broten: Well, we’ve seen that we’ve been able to come out with fixed price for solar, for wind. And we are seeing that we have moved from last to first in terms of renewables. The New York Times this week said Ontario is a beacon and a leader in terms of renewable energy. That’s what we need to do. It’s a many front approach, more renewable energy, closing down the coal plants, and at the same time helping Ontarians conserve electricity, and that’s why the incentives that we’ve put forward this week with respect to helping Ontarians in their own homes, reducing their consumption. If we reduce our consumption, that helps us close the coal plants even faster.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, you’re not the energy minister, you don’t want to speculate whether there’s higher prices coming up?

Laurel Broten: I’m certainly not going to speculate as to what we will see in the future, but we do know that coal is cheap because it’s dirty, and it puts out air pollutants, it causes smog, it frankly kills Ontarians, and it contributes to our greenhouse gases. So I have been a long time proponent of wanting to close those coal plants, primarily from a health focus.

SEAN MALLEN: You understand why the Liberals had a credibility issue on this though? I mean you made the promise twice to close them and missed both targets.

Laurel Broten: What we need to remember Sean, is that we’re the only jurisdiction that is doing this. Everyone else is building more, and we’re going the other direction. And when I travel around Canada and North America I have to say that people are really surprised that we’ve taken such a firm stand. They think it’s amazing that we’re doing that, and we are demonstrating that you can go a different route, and you can find alternate sources of electricity, and that you can keep your economy strong. Because you’re right, it is a balance. We want that green economy and those good jobs here and that’s also why we’re seeking to transform the automotive sector as well.

SEAN MALLEN: Well, you raised that and some of the critics suggest that is one of the holes, I mean one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases are the cars that we all drive, whether they be hybrids or not. But you’re not going down the route of tougher emission standards on autos. Can’t really do it in this province.

Laurel Broten: No, wait a minute. What we’re doing is again on all fronts, seeking to change the way we transport ourselves and our goods. So $17.5 billion to totally change and build 52 new projects over the next number of years.

SEAN MALLEN: But they don’t start until 2011. Do they have an impact in this short run, before 2011?

Laurel Broten: Well, they have an impact in terms of the more people we get on public transit, yes. And we’ve already been making significant investments in public transit. So this is building for the next generation. I think what we need to remember is there’s both short term and long term things that need to take place. We need to get the quick hit; we need to find ways to get people onto the buses and the systems that already exist. And so we’ve been doing that to make sure we can expand those programs. We are also entering into an agreement with California with respect to emissions, fuel standards.

SEAN MALLEN: Fuel standards, not emissions.

Laurel Broten: And the Premier has said, we want to see very tough North American continental-wide standards, because in Ontario we build cars for the rest of North America, and a lot of that pollution comes up here.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, I’ll stop you there, we’ll take a break; back in a moment with Laurel Broten.

* * *

SEAN MALLEN: And we’re back, talking climate change with Environment Minister Laurel Broten. The Premier said minister, that he still had $60 million allocated in the budget, unspent, for climate change programs. So what’s next?

Laurel Broten: Well, you’re going to have to wait and see what we’re doing next.

SEAN MALLEN: Give us a hint.

Laurel Broten: But let me focus on what we are trying to do. What we are doing as a province is really taking incredible leadership to get ourselves to where we need to be to live a sustainable existence. And I know you have a little one, I have two little ones, Keith Stewart has one –

SEAN MALLEN: He’s on the next segment in case you’re wondering.

Laurel Broten: – it really is all about changing the way we live. What we spent the last year doing was really figuring out – the last several years, laying the groundwork – where do our greenhouse gas emissions come from, and how are we going to make those changes. So one of the really important announcements that the premier made when you said he indicated the dollar amount, was putting $150 million of the $210 million that we set aside in the last budget, on the table for homeowners to help them make changes in their life.

SEAN MALLEN: Improve insulation, buy energy-efficient appliances.

Laurel Broten: That’s right, they can get ideas about what to do on gogreenontario.ca. That is really significant because it’s what Ontarians are asking about, they want to be part of it. There’s a part for us to play in the province, that’s take leadership; but in our own homes and in our own lives that’s really where our greenhouse gas emissions come from. So we need to make changes.

SEAN MALLEN: Let me ask you one specific element of that, which is a one-year provincial tax holiday on energy-efficient appliances starting in July. The Liberal government three years ago cancelled a tax credit on energy-efficient appliances that was brought in by the Conservative government. So can you understand why the Tories are saying what’s up, it’s election year, you’re bringing back a variant of a program that they could have kept going for three years?

Laurel Broten: Well, when we cancelled that program we put in place the bounty instead. What we learned was the structure that was in place and the frame of mind that Ontarians had, that what they were really doing was getting a second fridge and putting the old fridge in the basement. So it wasn’t saving us on greenhouse gases, in fact it was making it worse.

SEAN MALLEN: But how is this any different, you’re encouraging people to buy energy-efficient appliances.

Laurel Broten: Now we have a variety of different programs in place and frankly I think Ontarians’ awareness to the issues of the environment has skyrocketed in the last year. I think more than anybody as minister of environment, I really have an understanding of where we were a couple of years ago and where Ontarians are now. I think they understand their footprint. We didn’t even talk about that language a couple of years ago. They understand the impact of their decisions and I know that they are very anxious to participate in making sure that we have a sustainable province with a healthy and clean environment for our kids, and they’re going to do their part, just like the government is.

SEAN MALLEN: The opposition points out that the legislature was originally scheduled to be sitting until the end of this week. A lot of this could have been introduced in the legislature, and maybe even at least start the legislative process. Instead it’s rolled out now. No more sitting before the election, and it all looks like a Liberal election platform.

Laurel Broten: Well, governments keep governing until the end of their mandate, and frankly my constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore expect that, and I think most Ontarians do. What we’re doing right now is to roll out a variety of measures that we budgeted for in the budget. The budget was introduced in the legislature, as it should be, unlike the former government.

SEAN MALLEN: The budget put $17.5 million dollars in energy announcements.

Laurel Broten: With respect to the regulatory regime that we have to close the coal plants, the regulation to do that, we have the legislation in place; and let’s be clear how much legislation we passed – the Clean Water Act, the Species at Risk Act, sustaining and safeguarding our Water Act. A lot of legislation and everything that we committed to.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay fair enough, but this is important stuff, so why can’t this be introduced, at least begin the debate in the legislature, face questions about it in the legislature?

Laurel Broten: Well, we had completed what we said we would do in our mandate. We have been working on our climate change plan and I have been saying for many, many months it would be out in the spring, it would be out in June. We have always, since we’ve shared our summit three years in a row, done a lot of our work with respect to talking about our air quality and what we would do with respect to the environment, climate change, in the month of June. That’s when we’re doing it. I think that Ontarians will be very, very pleased about what we’re undertaking, and I am out every day talking to them and I’m having a chance to talk to you and to the critics as well. So they can be very transparent about it.

SEAN MALLEN: But all this is going to be in the Liberal platform.

Laurel Broten: It’s going to be part of our record, which is what I know that I’m going to be talking to my own constituents about, and frankly I’m very, very proud to be part of a government that has taken green steps since the very beginning of our mandate. We’re not going to stop until we complete the job.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, well you completed the job at Focus Ontario this week. We’ll have you on again.

Laurel Broten: Thank you very much.

SEAN MALLEN: Laurel Broten, Environment Minister. And when Focus returns, some expert commentary on the climate change plan.

* * *

SEAN MALLEN: And welcome back. My guests for this segment are Keith Stewart, who is the climate change campaign manager for WWF Canada; and Tom Adams, the executive director of Energy Probe. Good to see you both, thanks for coming on the program.

Guests: Thank you.

SEAN MALLEN: I want to ask both your opinions first, just an overall review of climate change plans to date. Start with you, Mr Stewart.

Keith Stewart: Well, we’re seeing something. The transit announcement was really impressive. We’ve seen lots of announcements of big funding for transit by many governments before. We’ve rarely actually seen them built, but you know, I think if the public sort of really keeps the pressure on it will get built and it will be a great thing. There are some real problems I think with their energy plan, about whether or not they are going to close the coal plants with the plan they have right now. We’re missing some stuff on the automobile side in terms of regulation, but you know this is a lot better than the federal plan. It’s up there with some of the better provincial climate plans we’ve seen, and I think it’s just going to keep getting better as the bidding in the election begins. And I think this is the base line and it’s going to go up from here between now and October 10th.

SEAN MALLEN: Mr Adams, what do you think?

Tom Adams: Well, the climate change plan itself is something of an excuse not to improve the quality of our air. They’re not investing in air pollution control equipment. It’s very cost effective, very environmentally effective.

SEAN MALLEN: On the coal plants you mean.

Tom Adams: On the coal plants. They say they’re going to close the coal plants in 2015 or 2014. The reasons that drove them to break the promises have not changed. The cost of natural gas is still through the roof. Building a big fleet of natural gas-fired generating stations, which Ontario is now in the midst of, is going to turn into very, very expensive power. The minister wasn’t keen on answering a question on that one. When you look at the rest of what they’re doing, I mean they’ve got announcements on what they’re doing on climate change, but at the same time they’re still subsidizing the pulp and paper sector. They’ve still got extensive subsidies in the auto sector. They’re building new freeways. A lot of their other commitments are really quite at odds with what they say they’re trying to achieve on the climate change file. So we’ve got a contradictory position here.

Keith Stewart: Yes, right now they’re spending more money building highways than on transit, and until you put those two around, you know you can’t be taken too seriously on the climate front.

SEAN MALLEN: Have we gotten enough to a tipping point for people to accept that? People still want the good roads, people still drive their cars.

Keith Stewart: Yes, I think people are. People are demanding action on climate change and I think people are becoming more and more aware of the changes we actually have to make to make that happen. And I think the overwhelming support we saw for those transit announcements, because frankly even if you drive your car, if we got 800 more people onto transit, that would be a good thing even for drivers.

SEAN MALLEN: I think you both may differ on coal plants, or not coal plants, but I think you’re somewhat on the same page on nuclear plants. There is a question about whether they can keep the lights on under the current plan, given with what’s going to be happening with the nuclear plants.

Keith Stewart: Well, I actually think they can keep the lights. The question is how much coal are they going to use to do that. Their energy plan is really a nuclear plan, it’s like most of the money is for nuclear plants and they don’t mention that in their climate announcement, and the current plan just assumes that all nuclear plants get better every year as they get older, which seems to me an unusual assumption. Those things don’t work as well as they get older. And it’s very slow to build nuclear plants. Soon we’re going to see an announcement that the Pickering B plant can’t all be refurbished, so that means we’re going to have to build more new nuclear plants. That’s going to take ten to fifteen years. So there is that gap, you fill that gap with coal. So we actually think they should be moving much more aggressively on the conservation and renewables front, and rather than putting the eggs in the nuclear basket.

SEAN MALLEN: Mr Adams, can we get there with more aggressive conservation?

Keith Stewart: We’ve been looking at the conservation programs that are out there. I think there’s reason to be a little skeptical about some of the numbers that are coming out, but there is some progress as well, like a lot of the conservation programs are moving in the right direction in a number of areas. Look at the portfolio of replacement power that’s coming in to deal with the fact that we’ve got all these aging generating stations and we’ve got the commitment to close the coal plants. You look at the portfolio of this new generation, one of the characteristics there is all the rate impacts are pushed off until after the election. And what we’re likely to see is, as soon as this election is over, and then the new government, whatever its stripe, is going to be coming out saying, oh, who knew, we’re in for these very steep increases. And I think that changes the debate. People are very concerned about improving the environment. They want to see progress. They’ve been promised a free lunch; when the bill for the lunch starts to show up, the debate changes.

SEAN MALLEN: I wonder Mr Stewart, if indeed energy prices do go up, whether that might be a good thing in a way, forced conservation.

Keith Stewart: Energy prices will go up because anything new we’re building now is going to be more expensive. This is another math, the price can go up, but if you’re using less, you could actually end up with a lower bill. So this is why I think the emphasis on conservation is the best place to be investing, to be regulating, to be putting in place tough rules.

SEAN MALLEN: I guess my question is, it doesn’t enforce conservation though.

Keith Stewart: And if prices go up, then it does give a real incentive for people to look for those savings even more. The thing is we actually are paying huge costs for power right now. It isn’t always on your electrical bill though. I mean you’ve got the Ontario Medical Association saying we’re spending billions a year trying to cure people for diseases caused by air pollution. And when you look at things like the Stern report that came out of the UK government in terms of the cost of climate change, if we put the cost on the greenhouse gases that are coming out of those coal plants, then you would be looking at the price of coal as far, far beyond anything else you can think of. The actual price of coal, when you look at the environmental health impact, it makes it the most expensive form of power. So we’re paying those costs now, they’re just not on your electrical bill. So I think in fairness we need to get those costs down as quickly as possible.

SEAN MALLEN: Let me talk about the transportation sector, our cars. Of course they’re probably the biggest contributor beyond the coal plants. Start with you, Mr Adams, is there any way the government of Ontario could come down hard on the automotive industry, given it’s one jurisdiction that empowers the economy?

Tom Adams: We’ve got to rethink our relationship with the automobile and the way we use our highways. We think that toll roads are a big part of the solution. You look at other jurisdictions, other parts of the world, that have been doing this.

SEAN MALLEN: Hard to get elected in Ontario, promoting toll roads.

Tom Adams: But what you do see, even Mayor Miller, who was campaigning against toll roads, now he’s starting to say gee, you know this could solve some problems. So the politics of toll roads are very tough, but the environmental benefit, the economic benefit, of having free-flowing roads so that emergency vehicles can get through, all that kind of stuff, there are a lot of up sides, but it takes a new thinking. Building more freeways is not going to solve our congestion problems.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, and that’s the last word. So toll roads, I bet we don’t see it in anybody’s platform. Anyway, Keith Stewart, Tom Adams, thanks very much for coming on the program.

Guests: Thank you.

Taped Thursday, June 21, 2007 for Global TV
Air date – Saturday, June 23, 2007 – 1830
Encore Presentation Sunday, June 24, 2007 – 0700, 1130 and 2330

Focus Ontario’s website: www.globaltv.com/focusontario

Toronto.ctv.ca

July 31, 2007

As Toronto residents brace for staggering heat, experts say striking a balance between power consumption and supply will be difficult in the coming week.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator says three vital nuclear units – representing eight per cent of the province’s power suppy – are down at the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant, which could lead to power outages in the GTA.

The OIESO says if the humidity rises with the mercury, residents could be asked to limit their power intake for the second time this summer.

"We obviously pay very close attention to the weather," Terry Young, a spokesperson from OIESO, told CTV News on Monday.

Toronto has already experienced one power advisory this summer when residents were asked to limit their consumption to prevent rolling black outs.

According to the OIESO every three-degree increase of humidity increases power demand 450 megawatts, with is equivalent to one nuclear reactor.

Forecasters are calling for temperatures in the mid-thirties on Wednesday and Thursday of this week.

Tom Adams, a spokesperson from Energy Probe, says Toronto is particularly vulnerable because there aren’t enough power lines to import energy from New York or other generators.

In order to meet increased demand the province will be firing up its coal plants, which are a major contributor to poor air quality.

Wind turbines are ruled out as a reliable source of energy.

On a hot day, the city uses 26,000 megawatts and on Monday at noon the turbines were producing only nine megawatts of energy.

But for residents who love the heat, there are plenty of outdoor activities in the GTA designed to keep you cool.

City pools are open and the new HTO Park and beach at Spadina and Queen’s Quay provides ample room for catching some rays.

Even with the water close by, experts recommend residents take precautions to avoid heat-related illnesses:

* Wear lightweight, light-colored clothing to reflect the sun’s rays
* Drink and carry ample amounts of water to prevent dehydration
* Eat small meals and avoid meals laden with protein
* Avoid strenuous activity and take regular breaks if working outdoors.
* Stay indoors when possible.

With reports from CTV’s Paul Bliss and Desmond Brown

Oilweek magazine
August 9, 2007

Cutting industrial hydro rates by at least 15 per cent and reining in salaries and inefficiencies at Ontario’s power agencies would provide a badly needed boost to the province’s flagging manufacturing sector, New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said Thursday.

The all-in cost of industrial electricity in Ontario would be no higher than $55 a megawatt hour – $10 less than the current rate – if he were elected premier in the Oct. 10 election, Hampton told a news conference in Hamilton – a city that has endured significant manufacturing job losses of late.

Manufacturing companies in sectors like steel, auto parts and forestry would be eligible for the lower rate at the start of next year and would have the price locked in for five years, he said.

Those businesses would be required to guarantee jobs and meet energy-efficiency targets, but Hampton said he doesn’t think getting those commitments would be a problem.

"I’ve met with people in the forest sector, the steel sector, and the auto parts sector and many of them would be quite prepared to sit down and negotiate," he said.

"A lot of companies want to stay in Ontario. They want to continue to manufacture and produce here, but the tools to do that just aren‘t there."

Hampton said the lower rates wouldn’t lead to higher bills for non-commercial users because he would limit the salaries and profits at Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation to make up the difference.

He also said costs have risen more than 50 per cent since hydro deregulation and he would look at combining some of the hydro services.

"There’s absolutely no reason why we should be paying hydro executives $1 million plus, $2 million plus when the head of Hydro Quebec is paid $500,000 and when the heads of Manitoba Hydro, Saskatchewan Power, and B.C. Hydro are paid even less than that," he said.

"For starters we would consolidate Hydro One, the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority because there’s a great deal of duplication of work and duplication of effort in those three agencies."

Tom Adams of utility watchdog Energy Probe said trying to undo deregulation and cutting salaries would not save enough money to help lower industrial rates and would almost definitely lead to higher bills for homeowners.

"If you add up all the executive salaries across the entire power system it adds up to a very, very tiny amount on your overall power bill – executive salaries are way less than one per cent," Adams said.

"If rates are going to go down for one class of customers they’ll have to go up for another class of customers."

While Hydro One had profits of $455 million in 2006, and Ontario Power Generation made $490 million, that revenue ends up benefiting ratepayers by paying off existing debt and building hydro projects, said Steve Erwin, press secretary for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan.

"It’s quite unclear how the NDP would cover the cost of its proposed rate cut, unless it meant scaling back on important energy projects in the province which are funded by agency profits," Erwin said.

Ontario’s wholesale rates are also in line with other jurisdictions like New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, Erwin said, while some companies are already paying less thanks to government rebates.

Companies including Bowater, Tembec and St. Mary’s Paper are already paying rates in the mid-to-high $40 range per megawatt hour because of a rebate program for northern Ontario pulp and paper companies.

Paul Clipsham, director of policy for the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said the association is generally supportive of any initiative to help the sector compete – although he questioned whether the NDP’s policy would be popular with businesses.

He doubted that many companies would want to lock into a five-year contract or absolutely guarantee jobs.

"I don’t think that’s the best approach to take and I don’t know if that would be very appealing," he said.

"To try to guarantee those jobs over that five-year period is challenging, especially when you’ve got plants that are closing their doors. I think the approach is questionable."

Robin Harvey
Toronto Star
August 12, 2007

Years after the 2003 blackout, most people still are clueless as to what sparked the chaos.

The prevailing myth is that our gluttonous demand for power fried the system. The paranoid say it was due to a terrorist/government (take your pick) conspiracy gone awry. In the movie Déjà Vu terrorism fighter Denzel Washington links it to a secret government time machine.

But it was just trees. Branches hit three power lines in Ohio between 3:05 and 3:12 p.m. on Aug. 14, 2003. By 4:15, after stupendous blunders both human and cybernetic, more than 263 power plants had died, cutting power to Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Ontario.

There was no subway. No elevators. Good (or obnoxious, take your pick) Samaritans directed traffic. At block-party barbecues and ice-cream fests, we scarfed down the spoils.

Waxing weird, Mayor Mel predicted "the biggest baby boom we’ve ever seen." But there is no bumper crop of three-year-olds running around these days, a Statscan spokesperson said last week.

We bought batteries, candles and emergency kits. Some creeps overcharged. And briefly the motto "be prepared" crept into the zeitgeist.

Too briefly, says Gord McBean, director of policy studies at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, a group formed by academics, the insurance community, and other agencies to improve society’s capacity to adapt to, withstand and recover from disasters. "Once a disaster disappears from their priorities, people forget."

Calls to half a dozen hardware stores proved that. "After 9/11 . . . the blackout, we got a surge for emergency kits," one clerk said. "No more."

Still, the crisis had some lasting positive impact.

In 2005, Woodstock’s environmental committee started a voluntary blackout day, urging residents to cut energy use to mark the 2003 anniversary. This year the city has challenged municipalities province-wide to join in on Tuesday from noon to 8 p.m. So far, seven local governments have agreed.

A joint U.S.-Canadian commission made new technical standards, already required in Ontario back then, mandatory across North America.

The Ohio energy firm that started the mess went on a tree-trimming frenzy, prompting area homeowners to complain.

The blackout made Toronto’s Solomiya Gotsko, now 18, an environmentalist. "I’d never seen the stars in the city before. Now I care. We deserve to see the stars."

Jim Morrison, owner of Mackenzie’s High Park restaurant on Bloor St., says his worry has worn off, but memories of free food at a local pub and drinks served by candlelight remain. "People showed spirit."

Could it happen again? Experts say maybe, but it is unlikely.

Energy Probe chief Tom Adams sees progress because of the blackout. Though summer power use still peaks at record highs, yearly use has flattened, meaning that if you consider growth, overall we are conserving. And Hydro One has strengthened the power grid infrastructure, something Adams says was long overdue.

Sylvia Kovesfalvi, with Ontario’s energy ministry, says a 2006 independent North American agency audit concluded Ontario had sufficient generating capacity to cover demand until 2015; and more was built.

Ontario will have given out 800,000 green smart meters by year’s end, and by 2010 everyone will have one, she says. The commission inquiry into the blackout set regulations (with hefty fines for violators) to make sure power firms across North America adhere to technical and training standards.

And there is the lasting cultural legacy, such as it is. Part of the graphically erotic Shortbus is set during the blackout. Cleveland’s Great Lakes Brewing Co. named its dark brew Blackout Stout in honour of Ohio’s role in the mess. You can still buy Blackout tour T-shirts for $5.99 (U.S.) on eBay, where Time magazine’s blackout issue was lately offered for 97 cents (U.S.), and Newsweek’s for $4.25.

Tyler Hamilton
Toronto Star
August 15, 2007

Critics of the Liberal government are screaming foul that John Beck, the top executive at construction giant Aecon Group, has been elected chair of the Ontario Power Authority as the province embarks on a $40 billion upgrade to the electricity system that includes new nuclear plants.

Aecon is the largest publicly traded construction and infrastructure company in Canada, and a major player in Ontario’s energy sector.

One of its biggest projects, a $200 million contract through a joint venture with engineering firm SNC Lavalin Inc., is the multibillion-dollar refurbishment of the Bruce A nuclear reactors – a controversial deal inked with the power authority in October 2005.

Beck, whom the energy minister appointed as a director of the power authority’s 10-member board in May 2005, was quietly elected chair two months ago by fellow board members. There was no official announcement of the change.

Even Beck, who is chair and chief executive of Aecon, saw potential problems with the appointment.

"I was concerned about perception of conflict," he said in an interview, explaining that he approached the province’s integrity commissioner for advice and was told, in writing, that there was no conflict.

However, he has agreed to step aside from any board issues that he regards as a possible conflict of interest.

"This is quite extraordinary," said New Democrat environment critic Peter Tabuns. "There’s the perception that you’ve got the fox guarding the chicken coop, and a guy who wants to go big on transmission and generation."

The role of the power authority is to plan for and procure new generation, as well as strike electricity purchase agreements with large power producers. The agency is also responsible for planning future development of the electricity system, including new transmission and major power-generation projects that represent potential business for companies such as Aecon.

Tabuns said the optics of having a top Aecon executive at the head of the power authority’s board, an otherwise diverse and experienced group, don’t look good just two months before an election. It also sends a bad signal, he said, at a time when the province should be giving priority to renewable energy projects and distributed generation.

Premier Dalton McGuinty should know better, he said.

"I don’t know why McGuinty wants this headache."

Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, said it was "shocking" to learn of the appointment. "It’s an obvious and drastic conflict of interest, and I can’t believe the provincial government thought it would be appropriate."

But the energy ministry and the power authority defended the appointment.

Steve Erwin, spokesperson for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, said it’s not unusual to have board members with expertise and in some cases influence in the sector they oversee.

"He was elected by the board, and was already a board member when appointed, so if people think there’s a controversy, they certainly didn’t say so when the OPA board was first established," said Erwin.

"Minister Duncan has much respect for Mr. Beck and has absolutely no doubts whatsoever about his integrity and leadership."

The chair has no executive authority.

"He represents, along with management, the board’s view to the ministry," said power authority spokesperson Tim Taylor. "It’s a slightly different role than you’d see of a chairman in a private-sector organization."

Beck said he was flattered when a number of fellow board members elected him as chair, pointing out that the minister played no role in the decision. He said his experience dealing with government and running the board of a large public company is what got him the job.

But according to the Electricity Act, the power authority’s directors "must be independent of participants in the electricity sector."

Erwin said he wouldn’t define Aecon as a "participant" because the company is a global organization involved in many sectors, while Beck said the power authority would never make a decision where Aecon is directly involved.

But Andrew Stark, a professor of political science at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said the rules don’t distinguish between indirect and direct involvement when it comes to conflict of interest.

"The general rule of thumb would be that, if somebody holding an official position has the capacity to participate, even if he’s not the sole decision maker, in a decision that can affect the financial interest he has or is associated with, then there’s a conflict of interest," said Stark.

Aecon’s participation in Ontario’s energy markets was made clear on June 19 when Beck spoke at the company’s annual meeting.

"We have a hand in building, expanding and maintaining virtually every form of power generating facility used in the province – from the early hydro facilities to natural gas and co-generation plants, to the Bruce Nuclear facility," he said.

He said the company completed $75 million worth of power construction projects in Ontario. The company’s order backlog, he added, "has another $100 million worth of work scheduled for future periods."

Jennifer Wilson
CBC News feature article
September 25, 2007

Every flick of a switch sends electrical currents flying through Ontario’s 29,000 kilometres of transmission lines, powering millions of homes, offices, lights and computers. Many days it can also spark quite the political debate.

Ontario’s population is on the rise and demand looks to be growing far faster than the province’s 31,000 MW of generating capacity can handle. When paired with plans to shut the aging coal-fired power plants for environmental reasons and the need to replace many of the older nuclear reactors within the next 15 years, whoever forms the next government in Ontario will need to make decisions, and soon, about how to handle the energy crisis.

As the provincial election heads into its final stage, the leaders began to turn their attention to the province’s energy needs, a historic underpinning of its manufacturing prowess. But the discussions made it clear that there’s no easy answer to this pressing problem, despite the fact that it has been building for decades.

The current system

For decades, Ontario’s power needs were provincially regulated and run by a provincial commission and, later, crown corporation known as Ontario Hydro.

That changed in 1998 when, in an attempt to get a handle on rising energy costs and the debt hangover from building expensive nuclear plants, then Conservative premier Mike Harris separated Ontario Hydro into five branches and also opened the system to private power operators.

Provincially-owned Hydro One was given the responsibility of operating transmission lines and also serving as the local distribution company in some parts of the province, while Ontario Power Generation, also provincially owned, became the province’s generation company, operating the hydroelectric, nuclear and coal-fired stations that generate about 85 per cent of the province’s energy. The rest comes from private operators, many of them large mills that sell their surplus requirements to the grid.

Since 1998, two additional energy planners were added to the mix. The Ontario Energy Board, an independent tribunal, was given the responsibility for regulating the natural gas and electricity sectors, and in 2004 the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) was charged with addressing the supply gap in the face of aging infrastructure, retiring power plants and increasing demand.

OPA’s most recent plan was released in August and called on the provincial government to spend an additional $26.5 billion on nuclear power plants in order to ensure a steady energy supply until 2025. It also proposed doubling the amount of renewable energy on the grid by 2025 and phasing out coal-fired plants by 2014, while increasing hydroelectric output and conservation efforts.

There were already two nuclear reactor refurbishments in the works, but the OPA plan said further refurbishments could be necessary in order to meet the expected demand.

The energy crunch

According to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IES0), energy demand in the province has steadily increased over the past decade at an average of 1.5 per cent a year, and suppliers are struggling to keep the lights on.

The most obvious example of the province’s energy crisis was the Aug. 14, 2003 blackout, which left more than 50 million people from New York to Toronto to North Bay in the dark. According to a Canada-U.S. joint task force the outage was caused when an Ohio coal plant unexpectedly shut down, in the process triggering a series of transmission line problems that overloaded the circuits.

Since then, demand has grown. In 2006, the province needed 152.3 terawatt hours (a million megawatt hours) of electricity and the IESO says the province will demand an additional 16.7 TWh by 2014.

Currently, the province produces about 31,214 MW from five nuclear stations, 68 hydroelectric, four coal, 22 oil and gas, four wind and five biomass and landfill gas plants. That breaks down to nuclear, 54 per cent; hydro, 22 per cent; coal, 16 per cent; and eight for the rest.

There’s an additional 10,000 MW of production currently under construction, but critics fear that even with energy imported from the U.S., Quebec or the Prairies (which will require a huge and expensive transmission-line corridor), the province still won’t be able to meet demand.

The options

When it comes to power, it’s not easy to be green. Energy planners need to balance quick means of meeting the increasing demand with safe, low-emission technologies.

The dirtiest culprits in the energy mix are the province’s four coal-fired power stations – Nanticoke, Lambton, Thunder Bay and Atikokan – which account for about 16 per cent of the province’s generating capacity.

While coal power is inexpensive, the environmental costs are huge. When coal is burned for energy it produces greenhouse gases as well as pollutants such a nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury. Most of the pollutants can be eliminated by scrubbers and other technology but there is not yet a proven, full-scale way of capturing carbon dioxide emissions, the most pervasive of the greenhouse gases.

The current government management plan would see these plants closed by 2014 – Premier Dalton McGuinty had promised to close them by 2007 but had to backtrack following the blackout and new growth forecasts. However, the government still needs to find a way to replace the reliable power boost that coal plants can provide when the rest of the system is operating at maximum capacity.

Natural gas is one low-emission option. It accounts for about six per cent of Ontario’s power supply but it is a non-renewable resource that has been going up in price because of demands elsewhere.

The more climate friendly ways of generating electricity, such as solar, hydroelectric, wind, biomass and nuclear all come with high start-up costs. Solar and wind have weather-dependant drawbacks.

Hydroelectric generation, which accounts for about 22 per cent of the province’s energy, is low-emission but the most accessible sites have already been exploited.

Biomass production, which uses alcohols, ethers and other chemicals made from plant, agriculture and forestry residues, and municipal solid and industrial waste, are lower emission than fossil fuel and are renewable. But they can also release pollutants when burned.

Then there is nuclear

Finally, there’s nuclear power, which produces between 50 and 60 per cent of Ontario’s energy needs, depending on the daily requirement.

The province’s three nuclear stations at Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Power (on Lake Huron) have a total of 20 CANDU reactors, 16 of them currently in operation.

Nuclear energy produces the "base" for the province’s energy usage as these reactors are always generating and aren’t turned off, except for maintenance.

Nuclear power is highly efficient, as one uranium dioxide pellet can produce as much energy as 400 tonnes of coal, and is low emission as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. But it’s technology is very expensive and the construction of the most recent Darlington plants in the late 1980s, in a period of already high construction costs, is responsible for almost half of the the billions of dollars in debt that rate payers are still paying off.

Critics also cite the potential health and environmental concerns should there be a nuclear accident as well as the problem of what to do with the thousands of tonnes of leftover waste that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years.

Despite the concerns with nuclear, it is expected to continue to play an important role in Ontario’s electricity production through 2025. However, to do so, the province will need to replace or refurbish much of the current technology to maintain energy production at current levels.

The Canadian nuclear association has estimated that by 2020 the province will need to replace about 80 per cent of its total electrical generation technology or roughly 25,000 MW, about half of which is nuclear, because of growth in demand and aging plants.

So, the problem for government becomes not only meeting the new demand but also maintaining the current levels in the face of aging technology.

The political solutions

Ontario’s energy future has been one of the important, if understated, themes of the campaign, though it has not had the same prominence as school funding or health care.

To meet the needs the Liberal plan is to shut down the coal power plants by 2014, a delay from their original plan to close them by 2007 and to encourage innovation in the energy sector.

Under Dalton McGuinty, 3,000 MW of new generation was added to the energy mix, with an additional 10,000 MW in the works. This new generation included renewable sources such as wind turbines and a solar farm near Sarnia as well as a commitment to two new nuclear reactors. "A reliable, healthy mix is going to have nuclear," McGuinty said during the recent leaders debate. "We’re going to pursue conservation and renewables at the same time."

The Conservative leader John Tory pledged during his campaign to spend $1.3 billion on coal scrubbers to clean up the four coal-fired plants.

During the debate, he said his party would move quickly to increase the number of "reliable and greenhouse-gas free" nuclear power plants in the province to meet future energy needs and help curb the use of the coal plants. He said that while he was committed to exploring renewable energy options, the province will need more than the two additional nuclear plants the Liberals are promising.

He has also expressed an interest in seeing if private companies, such as Bruce Power, can both build and own these stations, which would be a first in Ontario.

The NDP energy platform would halt plans for nuclear expansion and focus on reducing consumption and boosting clean, renewable power.

If elected, Howard Hampton also plans to close the Nanticoke coal plant – considered the worst polluter of the four – by 2011. During the debate, Hampton cited Ontario’s "sad history" with nuclear power and said that energy efficiency must be the central point of any energy program.

The Green Party plan focuses on reducing overall electricity usage by 20 per cent. If leader Frank de Jong were elected, the party would ban the construction and refurbishment of nuclear reactors and close the coal-fired plants by 2009, depending on whether consumers could reach energy reduction targets.

Norm Rubin, the director of nuclear research at Energy Probe, which is not a fan of nuclear energy, said Tory’s coal plan makes sense. "Instead of arbitrarily choosing a shutdown date, we should be getting the emissions out of the air," he said. "Clean up the coal plants and run them less."

But he was critical of the Liberal and Tory plans for building more nuclear plants, especially since they could not replace lost generation from the closure of coal plants.

"Nuclear plants and coal plants provide different functions in the grid," he explained. "Coal is the backup, effective and dispatchable source. It, unlike nuclear power, can be shut down."

Energy Probe’s view is that research and investment in renewable energy sources should be encouraged and that existing nuclear reactors should run until the end of their natural lives and not be rebuilt.

Marlene Bergsma
The Standard (St. Catharines)
September 28, 2007

If you could save six cents by running your dishwasher after midnight, would you do it?

How about saving another 30 cents by setting your clothes dryer to hum while you sleep?

Horizon Utilities – the company supplying power to 232,000 customers in St. Catharines and Hamilton – hopes you will.

So does the government of Ontario.

As part of a provincially mandated initiative, Horizon is switching all its customers to smart meters by 2010. In east Hamilton, 50,000 homes in a neighbourhood bounded by Rymal Road, Upper Wentworth and East Townline are getting the new meters this year.

In St. Catharines, about 1,000 new homes or homes that need replacement meters will get the new technology.

The idea is to track not only how much power you use, but when you use it.

By offering cheaper rates to consumers when demand is lower, industry officials hope to entice customers to switch their power-hogging appliances – like pool heaters or air conditioners – to run at off-peak hours, such as overnight, or on the weekend.

"Our electricity system is reaching capacity," said Sandy Manners, spokeswoman for Horizon Utilities. "It’s an encouragement for people to shift their usage away from peak times. We either do that, or we build more generating capacity."

Currently, about 500 north St. Catharines customers already have the meters, in the neighbourhood bounded by Niagara Street, Scott Street, Carlton Street and Government Road, Manners said.

But none of the meters are working smartly yet.

They are functioning as regular meters, which track total consumption over a billing period.

Horizon is still testing various data collection and transmission systems before deciding how customers’ hour-by-hour information will be collected and sent to utility headquarters for billing, Manners said.

In the meantime, each Horizon customer is paying 80 cents per month or about $10 per year to cover the cost of installing the new meters, Manners said.

That’s why St. Catharines Coun. Jeff Burch thinks the meters are "a huge waste of money."

The potential savings is small, Burch said, while the cost of collecting the data "is huge, and that is being passed on to the consumer.

"People have compared it to the federal gun registry, for the amount of money it is wasting," Burch said.

Burch accepts the need to reduce peak electricity demand, but prefers a system of rotating brownouts, which he says is working well in Florida.

"The way you reduce the peaks is to make people use less," Burch said.

Environmental organization Energy Probe is also skeptical about the smart meter program, saying the savings have to be big enough in order for consumers to want to change their habits.

"So far the difference between peak and off-peak is pretty slim," said Norm Rubin, a senior policy analyst. "It empowers consumers to make choices, but the problem is it’s an expensive way to do it, and whether we end up coming out ahead is yet to be seen."

Coun. Joe Kushner, who is a representative on the St. Catharines Hydro Board, which is part-owner of Horizon, said he supports the move to smart meters.

He agrees they’re expensive, "but I would hope the technology would improve to bring down the cost.

"If it’s effective, then rates will be less than they would have been without the smart meters," Kushner said.

Derek DeCloet
Globe and Mail
September 29, 2007

John Tory does not speak in sentences, even paragraphs. The man who wants to be Ontario’s next premier speaks in chapters. Ask him about health costs, and prepare for a dissertation on why emergency rooms are stuffed with people who shouldn’t be in them. Ask about his scheme to fund religious schools, and Mr. Tory will take you on a tour of history, back to 1867 and the Fathers of Confederation.

Ask him about nuclear power, and … on second thought, don’t ask him about nuclear power. The province’s creaking electrical grid is one of the hidden issues of the Oct. 10 election campaign. The leaders would rather talk about other things, and that goes even for the verbose chief of the Progressive Conservatives.

Naturally, he’s pleased to remind us all of Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty’s busted pledge to shut down all of Ontario’s coal-fired generators by 2007. "He wasted four years trying to cover up for what was a grossly irresponsible promise that he made," Mr. Tory said. All right, then, what would the Conservatives do? The answers aren’t reassuring.

That the province is heading toward a power crunch, with or without coal plants, is obvious. Norm Rubin of Energy Probe, an energy and utility watchdog, says the province can credit "dumb luck" for the fact blackouts are so rare. Government-owned Ontario Power Generation last year relied on nukes for 44 per cent of its power. Hydroelectric represented 32 per cent and dirty, rotten fossil fuels most of the rest. Renewables are still a marginal source of electricity in Ontario.

The problem is the nukes are getting old, and they’ve never been terribly reliable to begin with. Coal has become politically incorrect; natural gas is expensive and so is wind. By 2025, the gap between what the province will need and what its current generators can provide will be huge, perhaps 15,000 megawatts (MW). It’s going to take tens of billions of dollars to fill the need.

Who takes the risk, and how will it be built? Those are two huge questions but you’d never know it from reading the pap in the parties’ platforms. If wishful thinking built generators, Ontario’s politicians would have enough power to keep the Eastern Seaboard from freezing in the dark.

The New Democrats want "safe, green, renewable energy instead of nuclear mega-schemes." Well, don’t we all? The Liberals’ policy book doesn’t even mention the word nuclear. (It does talk about getting rid of coal – seven times in 42 pages.) Nuclear is a modest part of the Grit solution, once you get past all the rhetoric about "cleaner and greener."

Then there’s Mr. Tory’s plan, which in some respects is the bravest, or at least the most honest. It contains the usual nod to windmills and other renewable sources of energy. But it admits eliminating coal isn’t going to happen soon, so the Conservatives propose to install clean air technology at Nanticoke, OPG’s biggest coal-fired plant, to remove some of the nastier smog-producing stuff. As for nukes? We need new ones, says the PC leader, while keeping the details fuzzy.

"I will say this – Mr. McGuinty has suggested he thinks two reactors will be sufficient. I believe the number is in excess of that," Mr. Tory told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board this week. He says that if elected, he’d go to Jan Carr, head of the Ontario Power Authority, and ask for an opinion. "I am absolutely confident that the number that will come back, in terms of how much nuclear you have to invest in, will be more in the order of six or eight reactors, as opposed to two."

That’s quite a statement in a province where voters still remember Ontario Hydro’s nuclear-fuelled bankruptcy and the disastrous, multibillion-dollar effort to restart the Pickering reactors east of Toronto – even more so when Mr. Tory says he doesn’t really know how much it will cost. "If John Tory really thinks he’s going to make the [power] grid better by expanding nuclear power in Ontario, he and his genius advisers haven’t been paying attention," Mr. Rubin says.

But the bigger mystery is why all of the parties leaders seem to believe that, having failed dismally with a centrally planned power system, the solution is even more central planning, with Queen’s Park demanding windmills here, nukes there and solar panels over there. Oh, and don’t forget the price caps. Even if you own the most ancient, juice-sucking appliances, and run them on the hottest day of July when the power grid is groaning, you can’t be forced to pay more than 6.2 cents per kilowatt-hour under the province’s price rules. Smart meters, which allow utilities to charge more for electricity at peak times, are being rolled out, but even those prices are fixes.

Some have estimated the cost of rebuilding Ontario’s power supply at $40-billion or more. Private money would come in handy, but most of it’s going to be invested in places that no longer use Soviet-style utility policy. The McGuinty Liberals, it seems, don’t understand this and the New Democrats have never understood it. The Conservatives could have distinguished themselves with a plan to bring market economics back to the power grid, but they missed it.

The Agenda (TVO)

October 1, 2007

Energy Probe‘s Norm Rubin made a strong appearance as a guest on this episode of TVO’s The Agenda, which aired on October 1, and can be viewed in full at: www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=43.

The following points summarize Norm’s main arguments in regard to the energy policies of the various parties, in the lead-up to Ontario’s provincial elections (Norm appears a third of the way through the video):

Teviah Moro
The Orillia Packet & Times
October 2, 2007

Is it a money saver, environmental safeguard, or a profit generator?

One expert calls it a "wonderful" idea that may not pay off in the end.

Whatever the case, Orillia city councillors aren’t yet sold on the province’s plan to install 800,000 Smart Meters across Ontario by year end.

"I want to know that Ontario is getting the best bang for their buck," Coun. Michael Fogarty said after Monday’s council meeting.

He estimated with a $200 installation cost per household, and 12,000 in Orillia, it will cost $2.4 million in capital costs. "Is that $2.4 million better spent elsewhere?"

And one councillor, at least, believes the $1-billion plan is just a profit-driven scam that will drive up prices.

"It’s a target on the people and they brought the big guns out to sell it," Coun. Maurice McMillan bristled on Tuesday.

By Dec. 31, 2010, all consumers are to have one of the gizmos in place which discourage electricity consumption during peak times by tracking how much power is used and at what time of day.

Consumers will pay higher prices for electricity during periods of high demand, and lower prices during periods of low demand.

"The way they’re marketing it, there will be savings, if you can do this, if you can change your life, and I don’t know if there’s going to be a savings," Coun. Tim Lauer said after Monday night’s council meeting after a presentation about Ontario’s electricity sector.

Terry Young, director of external relations and communications for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) fielded questions about the smart meter from councillors.

"Hopefully, with the right education, customers will be shifting their use of electricity," Young said.

Currently, residential users pay rates set by the Ontario Energy Board according to the Regulated Price Plan. This year, it hovered around 5 cents per kilowatt hour.

With Smart Meters, the rate will be 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour on weekdays 7-11 a.m., 9.2 cents, 11 a.m. – 5 p.m., 7.2 cents, 10 p.m.- 7 a.m., 3.2 cents, 10 p.m. – 7 a.m. and 3.2 cents on weekends.

Lauer questioned how Smart Meter rates would average out on any given day for conscientious consumers, compared with the current regulated rate. "When you average that all out, on an average kilowatt hour a day, I’m wondering how much saving it is?"

Fogarty asked if it makes sense to invest in more generation rather than installing Smart Meters.

Young suggested that it may not, environmentally or fiscally.

"It’s one less plant that you have that has an impact on the environment; it’s one less plant that you’re paying for."

As it stands, Ontario has 31,000 megawatts of installed capacity. The consumption peak set last year was 27,005 megawatts between 4 and 5 p.m. on Aug.1.

During only 32 of 9,000 hours, demand exceeded 25,000 megawatts, Young said. "But we have to have that 2,000 megawatts available for just 32 hours of the year," he said, explaining why shifting demand to different times can reduce the need at peaks.

Still, the province has 7,000 more megawatts of generation planned for installation by 2011. It plans to take coal plants off line.

Norm Rubin, a senior policy analyst with Energy Probe, a consumer and environmental research group, said the Smart Meter is a "wonderful" idea that empowers consumers.

"The problem is that they do it at a fairly high cost," Rubin said.

And it’s questionable if the average customer’s actions will translate into any significant savings, he said.

Moreover, "keeners" who hang their laundry up to dry instead of throwing it in the dryer won’t necessarily benefit but still have to pay for the meter’s data collection, Rubin said.

McMillan believes the gizmos are bad for the consumer, but great for bottom lines in a profit-hungry sector.

"This is a great tool to increase profits for the city," McMillan said, referring to revenue generated by the Orillia Power Corporation.

"If it costs $200 million for that (multi-use recreation facility), we’re going to raise it through your hydro bill."