DOCSLIB.ORG

Ontario Industrial Electricity Rate Study Prepared for the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters by London Economics International LLC October 22Nd, 20191

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ontario Industrial Electricity Rate Study Prepared for the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters by London Economics International LLC October 22Nd, 20191 Ontario Industrial Electricity Rate Study prepared for the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters by London Economics International LLC October 22nd, 20191 London Economics International LLC (“LEI”) was retained by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (“CME”) to conduct an industrial electricity rate study in Ontario. LEI focused on four key areas: a review of the current system in place for industrial rates in Ontario; a comparison of industrial rates in Ontario to a selection of comparator jurisdictions; a qualitative commentary on the options available to make rates more competitive; and a quantification of the economic impact a targeted industrial rate cut would have on the Ontario economy. Based on LEI’s analysis, rates for Class A and Class B customers are higher than the selected group of North American jurisdictions, but Class A customers with best load shifting outcomes face rates that are more competitive with the comparator jurisdictions. For larger Class B customers and those Class A customers that have less ability to shift load but run energy-intensive operations and are trade exposed, the government should consider developing options that address the higher rates they face. A properly designed Industrial Rate Relief Initiative could benefit industrial consumers and have a wider positive indirect and induced impact on the provincial economy. Such programs should be targeted, time-limited, and commitment linked in order to better optimize outcomes. Table of contents LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 5 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CME .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2 STATUS QUO FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS ...................................................................... 11 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ELECTRICITY BILL COMPONENTS ........................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Electricity component .......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Delivery component ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.1.3 Regulatory component ......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 ESTIMATION OF INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY COSTS ........................................................................................ 18 2.2.1 Sample LDC service territories ............................................................................................................ 18 2.2.2 Proxy customer load profiles................................................................................................................ 19 2.3 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 28 3 ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRICITY RATES IN COMPETITOR JURISDICTIONS ........................... 29 3.1 SELECTION OF JURISDICTIONS....................................................................................................................... 29 3.2 RATE DESIGNS ACROSS REGIONS .................................................................................................................. 31 3.2.1 Alabama: Alabama Power .................................................................................................................... 32 1 Content last modified August 2019, with data gathered between March and June 2019. - 1 - London Economics International LLC 390 Bay Street, Suite 1702 Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2 www.londoneconomics.com 3.2.2 Illinois: ComEd .................................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.3 Indiana: NIPSCO ................................................................................................................................ 34 3.2.4 Michigan: DTE .................................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.5 Rate design observations ...................................................................................................................... 35 3.3 CROSS JURISDICTIONAL BILL COMPARISON .................................................................................................. 36 3.4 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 38 4 DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS TO CHANGE RATES ............................................................... 41 4.1 INDUSTRIAL RATE RELIEF INITIATIVE (“IRRI”) PORTFOLIO ELEMENTS ...................................................... 42 4.1.1 Ending uneconomic spending .............................................................................................................. 42 4.1.2 Shifting responsibility for policy-driven contracts .............................................................................. 43 4.1.3 Competitive investment linked rate buydown (“CILRB”) program .................................................... 45 4.1.4 Monetizing green attributes ................................................................................................................ 47 4.2 IRRI COLLECTIVE IMPACT ............................................................................................................................ 48 5 QUANTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM INDUSTRIAL RATE ADJUSTMENT ...... 50 5.1 OVERVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CONTRIBUTION TO GDP AND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION............................ 50 5.2 OVERVIEW OF IMPLAN ............................................................................................................................... 51 5.3 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 53 5.4 MODEL APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 53 5.5 MODEL RESULTS............................................................................................................................................ 54 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...................................................................................................... 55 7 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 56 7.1 RATE SCHEDULES OF COMPARATORS IN THE US ......................................................................................... 56 7.1.1 Alabama Power .................................................................................................................................... 56 7.1.2 ComEd ................................................................................................................................................. 57 7.1.3 NIPSCO .............................................................................................................................................. 58 7.1.4 DTE Electric Company........................................................................................................................ 59 7.2 RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK ............................................................................................................................... 60 7.2.1 ReCharge NY ....................................................................................................................................... 62 7.2.2 Tariff L ................................................................................................................................................. 63 7.3 CASE STUDY OF GERMANY ........................................................................................................................... 70 7.3.1 Brief overview of Germany’s “Energiewende” .................................................................................... 70 7.3.1 Industrial electricity prices in Germany compared to Ontario ........................................................... 72 7.3.2 Rate design in Germany ...................................................................................................................... 74 7.3.3 Observations ........................................................................................................................................ 79 7.4 ABOUT LEI AND ITS ONTARIO EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................. 80 7.5 LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED ......................................................................................................................... 82 List of figures FIGURE 1. SUMMARY OF PROXY CUSTOMER RATES BY JURISDICTION (2018, CENTS PER KWH) ................................... 8 FIGURE 2. HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF ELECTRICITY BILL COMPONENTS ..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Financial Reporting and Is Ultimately Responsible for Reviewing and Approving the Financial Statements
    Treasury Board Secretariat ANNUAL REPORT OF ONTARIO Financial Statements of Government Organizations VOLUME 2B | 2015-2016 7$%/( 2)&217(176 9ROXPH% 3DJH *HQHUDO 5HVSRQVLEOH0LQLVWU\IRU*RYHUQPHQW$JHQFLHV LL $*XLGHWRWKHAnnual Report .. LY ),1$1&,$/ 67$7(0(176 6HFWLRQ ņ*RYHUQPHQW 2UJDQL]DWLRQV± &RQW¶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
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Government Acronyms
    ACSP COSINE Archaeology Customer Service Project Coordinated Survey Information Network Exchange ADP (MNR database) Assistive Devices Program EBR AGO Environmental Bill of Rights Art Gallery of Ontario EODC ARF Eastern Ontario Development Corporation Addiction Research Foundation EQAO ATOP Educational Quality and Accountability Office Access to Opportunities Program ERC BUC Education Relations Commission Biosolids Utilization Committee (Pronounced: BUCK, as in BUCboard) FCOISA Foreign Cultural Objects Immunity from Seizure CAATs Act Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology FIPPA Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy CAMH Act Centre for Addiction and Mental Health FSCO CCAC Financial Services Commission of Ontario Community Care Access Centres GAINS CISO Guaranteed Annual Income System Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario GO CORPAY Government of Ontario Corporate Payroll. Maintained by (as in Go Transit or GO-NET) Human Resources System Branch GO-ITS LCBO Government of Ontario Information and Liquor Control Board of Ontario Technology Standards LEAP GTS Learning, Earning and Parenting (program) Government Translation Service LLBO HOP Liquor Licence Board of Ontario Home Oxygen Program (under ADP) LRIF Locked-in Retirement Income Fund IDO Investment and Development Office MAG Ministry of the Attorney General IESO Independent Electricity System Operator MBS Management Board Secretariat ILC Independent Learning Centre MCI Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration IMPAC Interministerial Provincial Advisory MCL Committee Ministry of
    [Show full text]
  • Repurposing Pickering Preliminary Assessment Report
    Repurposing Pickering Exploring the possibilities for new uses and reuses on the Pickering Nuclear site December 11, 2015 This report is made available for information purposes only. The content of this report is based on available facts, the analysis undertaken and assumptions made (the "Content"), as of the date of this report (11/12/2015). The Content may change, subsequent to the date of this report, and these changes may have an impact on the assessment results. Please note that OPG may or may not choose to either update this report or post an updated report. OPG cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of this report or its usefulness for any purpose. OPG will not be liable for any loss, damage cost or expense arising or incurred as a result of any person's use or reliance on this report. 2 Executive Summary As part of planning for the end of commercial operations of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is undertaking a study to explore future uses of the Pickering site. The reason for this is to ensure that the site will continue to be put to productive uses that benefit Ontarians during and after the decommissioning of the Pickering station. Given the transmission (hydro) corridor and other valuable infrastructure that already are in place, through Repurposing Pickering, OPG aims to identify and implement land uses that take advantage of existing assets – without interfering with decommissioning and without preventing the site’s long-term potential from being realized. As a starting point for Repurposing Pickering, the purpose of this first comprehensive study is to explore future possibilities broadly – and then narrow down and recommend a manageable number of land use options for further study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Mutual Benefit
    The Power of Mutual Benefit An outline of the potential benefits of increased Ontario-Quebec electricity trade ONTARIO CLEAN AIR ALLIANCE RESEARCH INC. | www.cleanairalliance.org n June 2008 the Governments of Ontario and Quebec set the stage for a new Iera of climate awareness and action during their historic joint cabinet meeting in Quebec City. As part of this meeting, they signed a farsighted Memorandum of Understanding on Energy that called for building “on synergies between the two provinces’ electricity systems and [working] toward more interconnected electricity systems by identifying and acting on opportunities to improve planning coordination, cooperate on system operations, and encourage greater electricity interconnectedness, where practical.”1 Achieving the vision outlined in the Memorandum will help both provinces Ontario and Quebec in assuring future prosperity while reducing their collective climate impact. Leadership in building cooperation on electricity usage and generation will help have set the stage for them become North American leaders in developing green economies. The a new era of climate “synergies”, noted in the Memorandum, are vast — from significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions to major cost savings on new generation and new awareness and action revenue flows to fund vital public services. With the completion of the new 1,250 megawatt (MW) interconnection between — action that can be Quebec and Ontario in 2010, the total transfer electricity transfer capacity supported through between the two provinces will rise to 2,788 MW.2 Furthermore, all of Ontario’s coal-fired generation will be phased-out by 2014 and most of the province’s increased cooperation nuclear generation capacity will come to the end of its life during the next 10 to 15 years.3 As a result, the opportunity exists to achieve very significant economic between the and ecological benefits by integrating Quebec’s and Ontario’s electric power provinces’ electricity systems.
    [Show full text]
  • OPA Sub Appl Evid 20090305
    Updated: March 5, 2009 EB-2008-0312 Table of Contents Page 1 of 2 ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY 2009 REVENUE REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Exhibit Schedule Tab A – ADMINISTRATION A 1 1 Submission A 2 1 2009-2011 Business Plan A 3 1 CECO Annual Report 2008 A 4 1 Supplement to CECO Annual Report 2007 dated May 2008 A 5 1 2007 Annual Report A 6 1 Organizational Charts A 7 1 List of Directives and Letters from the Minister of Energy & Infrastructure 2 Directives from the Minister of Energy & Infrastructure (February 25, 2008 to September 17, 2008) 3 Directives from the Minister of Energy & Infrastructure (December 19, 2008 to January 23, 2009) B – STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES B 1 1 Strategic Objective 1 Plan for an adequate, reliable and sustainable system that integrates conservation, generation and transmission B 2 1 Strategic Objective 2 Plan, procure and manage conservation resources to meet the requirements identified in the IPSP and promote sustainable conservation practices that contribute to a culture of conservation B 3 1 Strategic Objective 3 Plan and design procurement processes and enter into procurement contracts for generation resources to meet the requirements identified in the IPSP and to embed “best-in-class” contracting practices that support investment in necessary infrastructure and contribute to a sustainable electricity system Updated: March 5, 2009 EB-2008-0312 Table of Contents Page 2 of 2 Description Exhibit Schedule Tab B 4 1 Strategic Objective 4 Identify and assess barriers to the development of economically
    [Show full text]
  • Canada (Ontario)
    Ontario Country Report Innovative Electricity Markets to Incorporate Variable Production to IEA – Renewable Energy Technology Deployment May 2008 IPA Energy + COWI A/S SGA Energy Water Consulting Innovative Electricity Markets to Incorporate Variable Production to IEA – Renewable Energy Technology Deployment IPA Energy + Water Economics 41 Manor Place Edinburgh EH3 7EB Scotland Tel: +44 (0) 131 240 0840 Fax: +44 (0) 131 220 6440 Email: [email protected] web: www.ipaeconomics.com TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 MARKET MECHANISMS 1 1.1 Renewable Generation Capacity 1 1.2 Institutions 2 1.3 Renewable Generation Size 3 1.4 Renewable Generation and Power Markets 5 1.5 Degree of Centralization 6 1.6 Support Mechanisms 6 1.7 Trading 7 1.8 Dispatch 7 1.9 Notification 8 1.10 Imbalance Settlement 8 1.11 System Balancing 9 1.12 Summary 10 2 CROSS BORDER TRADING 11 2.1 Current Cross Border Flows 11 2.2 Cross Border Capacity Mechanisms 13 2.3 Cross Border Trading 15 2.4 Renewable Support Mechanisms 17 2.5 Utilisation for Variable Generation 18 2.6 Summary 18 3 GRID PLANNING 19 3.1 Grid Investment 19 3.2 Planning & Security Standards 22 3.3 Transmission Access & Charging 22 ANNEX A – ABBREVIATIONS 26 ANNEX B – GLOSSARY 28 ANNEX C – REFERENCES 30 ANNEX D - THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY COUNCIL (NERC) 31 i SECTION 1 MARKET MECHANISMS 1 MARKET MECHANISMS This section provides an overview of the operation of variable renewable generation within the Ontario market. 1.1 Renewable Generation Capacity Ontario currently has over 31 GW of capacity on its system.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision 2013-421 Alberta Electric System Operator
    Decision 2013-421 Alberta Electric System Operator 2014 ISO Tariff Application and 2013 ISO Tariff Update Negotiated Settlement – Cost Causation Study November 27, 2013 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 2013-421: Alberta Electric System Operator AESO 2014 ISO Tariff Application and 2013 ISO Tariff Update Negotiated Settlement – Cost Causation Study Application No. 1609765 Proceeding ID No. 2718 November 27, 2013 Published by Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: 403-592-8845 Fax: 403-592-4406 Web site: www.auc.ab.ca Contents 1 Introduction and background .............................................................................................. 1 2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 2 3 Commission findings ............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Commission considerations in assessing the settlement agreement .............................. 4 3.2 Fairness of the negotiated settlement process ................................................................ 6 3.3 Just and reasonable rates and public interest considerations ......................................... 7 3.4 Is the settlement agreement patently against the public interest or contrary to law? ..... 7 4 Order .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Legislative Framework
    Filed: 2020-12-31 EB-2020-0290 Exhibit A1 Tab 6 Schedule 1 Page 1 of 13 1 SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 2 3 1.0 PURPOSE 4 The purpose of this evidence is to provide a summary of the extensive legislative and 5 regulatory framework as well as other government requirements that govern OPG and apply 6 to OPG’s prescribed facilities. The evidence also summarizes relevant best practices and 7 guidelines to which OPG adheres, particularly in matters where regulations are under 8 development. 9 10 This evidence is substantially the same as that filed in EB-2016-0152, with the following 11 exceptions: the discussion of amendments to Ontario Regulation 53/05 (“O. Reg. 53/05”) made 12 subsequent to EB-2016-0152 in Section 3 (Attachment 1); the addition of the discussion of the 13 Independent Electricity System Operator’s (“IESO”) electricity market renewal program in 14 Section 5; changes to legislation regarding environmental assessments in Section 9.2; and 15 introduction of legislation regarding public sector compensation in Sections 10.2 and 10.3. 16 17 2.0 INTRODUCTION 18 OPG is subject to provincial and federal legislation and regulations, including the decisions of 19 administrative tribunals or other regulatory bodies whose powers are derived from such 20 legislation or regulations (e.g., the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the IESO, and the 21 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”), and to Canada’s international obligations 22 under certain international treaties (e.g., regarding international boundary waters and nuclear 23 safeguards). Compliance with the legislative framework can drive the need for certain 24 programs and capital and non-capital expenditures, and impact OPG’s operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximizing the Value of OPG
    ONTARIO CLEAN AIR ALLIANCE RESEARCH Maximizing the Value of OPG A Submission to the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets AUGUST 2014 Introduction On April 11, 2014 the Government of Ontario established the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets to recommend ways to maximize the value of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and other government enterprises. To maximize the value of OPG and bring its return on equity in line with other regu- lated entities, OPG needs to refocus its operations on its low-cost, high-profit water power assets and move away from high-cost, high-risk nuclear projects. Ontario Hydro OPG’s predecessor, Ontario Hydro, was essentially bankrupted by its pursuit of was essentially nuclear megaprojects, leaving the provincial government holding a stranded debt of roughly $20 billion.1 Paying off this debt has added to electricity costs for businesses bankrupted by its and consumers alike. In addition, it has absorbed all the provincial income tax pay- pursuit of nuclear ments from OPG, Hydro One and more than 70 local electricity utilities for the past 15 years. It has also absorbed all the dividend payments made to the government by megaprojects, OPG and Hydro One over this timeframe. leaving the Despite repeated assurances of strict cost control and better approaches, each and provincial every major nuclear project undertaken in Ontario has run massively over budget.2 In addition, the actual cost of retrofitting the Point LePreau Nuclear Station in New government Brunswick was more than double the original estimate.3 holding a stranded The Darlington Re-Build Project debt of roughly If OPG continues on its current track of pursuing a re-build of its Darlington Nuclear $20 billion Station, the utility will set the province up for another energy project cost disaster that will lead to higher electricity prices, further weaken OPG’s profitability, and saddle the province with increased debt.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Meters and TOU Pricing in Ontario: from Policy to Legislation to Province-Wide Implementation
    Presentation to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Technical Conference Desmond Hotel and Conference Centre Albany, New York Monday, April 14, 2008 Smart Meters and TOU Pricing in Ontario: From Policy to Legislation to Province-Wide Implementation Shane T. Pospisil President and CEO Ontario Energy Association Ontario Energy Association The 190-member Ontario Energy Association (OEA) is Ontario’s premier energy trade organization. The OEA represents: (1) firms involved in the generation, transmission, distribution and marketing of electricity; and (2) firms involved in the transmission, distribution and marketing of natural gas. OEA members together employ about 32,000 Ontarians and last year accounted for over $34 billion in market revenues. 2 Overview of Presentation ¾ Energy, the Economy and the Environment: Finding the Right Balance Industrial Strategy Public Policy Energy Plan Conservation Environmental Policy Strategy ¾ Issues and Challenges – Unique to Ontario? Similar to Other Jurisdictions? ¾ What is Ontario’s strategy to transition from a consumer culture to a culture of conservation? True-Cost Pricing Consumer Awareness, Education and Empowerment Conservation, Demand Management and Energy Efficiency Programming Skills/Knowledge Capacity of Market Players Smart Meters and Time-of-Use (TOU) Pricing End Game: Market Transformation 3 Energy, the Economy and the Environment: Finding the Right Balance Province of Ontario: (1) Land mass of UK, France and Germany combined, with an environmentally-conscious population approaching 13 million. (2) Currently, one of the most energy-intensive jurisdictions in the world (2007 generation output = 156.4 TWh), with 85 regulated Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) across the Province. Toronto Population: 5,300,000 (CMA) Note: Average Toronto homeowner uses about 900-1,000 kWh/month.
    [Show full text]
  • Branching out We Envision a City That Is Healthier Because Every Citizen Cares for the Urban Forest
    2009 ANNUAL REPORT branching out We envision a city that is healthier because every citizen cares for the urban forest. LEAF stewardship site at the Bathurst Subway Station. F LEA J / ARA H A © Kanchan M is branching out As an organization LEAF HAS BraNCHED OUT IN MANY DIffereNT WAYS this past year. I would like to thank our passionate staff and board, funders, partner organizations, dedicated that champions the urban volunteers, the media and our program participants for making this happen. Each has demonstrated incredible commitment to protecting and enhancing urban forests in Toronto and across Ontario. forest our mission is to: We have collaborated with a number of supportive partners this year: Ontario Power Generation and the Toronto Transit Commission have helped us support our Tree Tender volunteers in creating urban forest demonstration gardens in diverse areas of Raise public awareness the city. The Ontario Power Authority and many local partners helped us launch our Cool Communities pilot project in Guelph/Kitchener/Waterloo area and community groups from across Toronto joined us in leading Tree Tours throughout the year. © Kanchan MAHARAJ / LEAF Foster a sense of ownership Through our role in co-founding the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition, we have taken a lead in advocating for the urban forest on a provincial level. The goal of the coalition is to increase provincial investment in leafy Engage diverse communities green infrastructure such as urban forests, green roofs, wetlands and natural areas. We also co-founded the Urban Forest Stewardship Network, an alliance of community-based organizations that are working together Provide educational tools and resources to strengthen urban forest efforts across the province.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiating Near-Term Transmission Components of the York Region Integrated Regional Resource Plan
    120 Adelaide Street West Suite 1600 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1 T 416-967-7474 F 416-967-1947 www.powerauthority.on.ca June 14,2013 Mr. Bing Young Director, Transmission System Development Hydro One Networks, Inc. 483 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P5 Initiating Near-Term Transmission Components of the York Region Integrated Regional Resource Plan Dear Bing: The purpose of this letter is to: • Hand off from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) the lead responsibility for the planning process associated with the near-term transmission component of the York Region Integrated Regional Resource Planning (IRRP) process to Hydro One. • Request that Hydro One develop wires solutions and implement the near-term transmission component of the integrated plan to meet the near- and medium-term reliability needs of York Region. This is consistent with the regional planning process endorsed by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) as part of its Renewed Regulatory Framework for Electricity. The York Region Working Group (Working Group), consisting of staff from the OPA, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), Hydro One and the York Region local distribution companies, has been conducting an IRRP process for York Region. In combination with conservation and local generation options, the Working Group has identified two transmission projects for meeting the reliability needs of the area for the near and medium term. These projects are located at Holland TS, and along the Parkway Belt transmission corridor. The Working Group has identified these projects for near-term implementation and has discussed preliminary options. However, more detailed study and development work is required before these projects can be implemented.
    [Show full text]