Ontario Government Perpetuates Poor Electricity Policy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN August 2020 Ontario Government Perpetuates Poor Electricity Policy by Philip Cross Summary The sharply rising cost of electricity in On- burden of electricity costs from ratepayers to tario for more than a decade has been a ma- taxpayers. jor drain on both the province’s economy and Both of these trends have continued under its public finances. Electricity prices for hydro the Ford government. Consumers of electricity consumers have risen by more than 50 percent continue to see prices rise, especially large and since 2001, especially after the attempt to shift medium-sized businesses. to renewable energy sources with the Green Energy Act in 2009. Meanwhile, producers continue to receive government subsidies to produce costly power While ratepayers have seen prices increase that often exceeds Ontario’s demand. sharply, governments have attempted to cush- ion the impact by subsidizing the difference Subsidizing hydro prices continues to add between what customers pay and the actual to Ontario’s already large and growing public price paid to producers. This has shifted the debt. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 1 Ontario Government Perpetuates Poor Electricity Policy Introduction troduced by the NDP government in 1994 and maintained by Mike Harris’s Progressive Con- Cheap and reliable energy sources are one of servative government after 1995. Ontario ten- the foundations of economic growth. As a re- tatively deregulated electricity prices in 2002 sult, the doubling of electricity prices in On- as part of a move to privatize Hydro One (which tario over the last two decades has had wide- owns the transmission network of power lines spread implications for household spending, and towers). Almost immediately the whole- business investment, government finances, and sale price shot above 5 cents per kilowatt hour export competitiveness. To offset their adverse to reach a peak of 10.9 cents in September of impact, governments in Ontario increasingly that year, a reflection of intense summer heat, have resorted to subsidizing electricity rates. drought, and the failure to restart two nuclear Despite promising to lower electricity prices generating units. and restore transparency to Ontario’s finances, the Ford government has raised prices because Public outrage, already primed for stoking by it was unable to rein in the Global Adjustment rolling blackouts and price spikes in Califor- surcharge and it has not made public the con- nia’s electricity market, led Premier Ernie Eves tracts granted to renewable power generators. on November 11, 2002, to cap retail electricity prices at 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour retroac- However, the rising price of electricity in On- tive to May (Mackie, 2002, November 12). This tario does not fully capture the cost of electri- began a decades-long pattern of sharply rising city to its economy, because the government electricity prices punctuated by brief periods of continues to subsidize prices. This shifts the price cuts, almost always introduced just before burden of electricity costs from ratepayers to a provincial election (see figure 1). As one aca- taxpayers. The continuing reliance on subsidies demic study of the tentative move to privitiza- to mask the true cost of electricity diverts tion concluded, “Ontario’s competitive market policymakers and the public from focusing on has been destroyed by the government” (De- the solution, which is returning to competitive wees, 2005: 145). The competitive market for pricing of electricity generation. The problem electricity in Ontario has never been restored would have been averted if government had as governments increasingly took control of relied on market forces rather than government energy policy, which resulted in steadily wors- dictates to determine energy choices, as wind ening outcomes for Ontario’s energy users and and solar power were never competitive with all taxpayers. the cost of natural gas or hydro. Lower electri- city costs would help restore Ontario’s com- Partly due to the fiasco surrounding Eves’ han- petitiveness, sound public finances, and public dling of electricity prices, Dalton McGuinty’s trust in government. Liberals won the October 2003 election. The new government soon decided that the cap Background on electricity prices was too costly, and raised rates by 22.5 percent between 2003 and 2006. Electricity prices in Ontario barely budged be- It briefly lowered prices in 2007 prior to a pro- tween 1993 and 2001. This reflected a freeze vincial general election, which the Liberal gov- on retail hydro rates at 4.3 cents an hour in- ernment won with another majority. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 2 Ontario Government Perpetuates Poor Electricity Policy Figure 1: Ontario Electricity Price Index ning for market prices to determine what en- ergy sources to use, with increasingly harmful 200 results lasting over a decade. 180 The cost of providing guaranteed above-market rates to generators of renewable sources is paid 160 by a surcharge on electricity bills called the 140 Global Adjustment, which also covers the cost of refurbishing nuclear plants and conservation 120 programs. As the wholesale price of electric- 2002 =100 ity rises, this boosts the subsidy needed to keep 100 the retail price steady, which helps boost the Global Adjustment. The cost of the Global Ad- 80 justment has soared from $700 million to $12.1 60 billion by 2019, with almost one-third directly attributable to renewable energy contracts (Of- fice of the Auditor General of Ontario, 2011: 94; Source: Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index: Table 18- Aliakbari and Yunis, 2019: 13). Ontario’s Audi- 10-0005-01. tor General (OAG) said hydro customers paid $37 billion more than necessary between 2006 and 2014 due to adjustment charges to pay for renewable energy. The end result helped send nominal electricity prices soaring by 71.3 per- The Green Energy Act raises prices cent between 2008 and 2016. significantly With an election approaching and Ontario Hydro projecting electricity rates would increase a fur- In 2009 the Liberal government adopted the ther 46 percent over the next five years (Ca- Green Energy and Green Economy Act as part nadian Niagara Power Inc., undated), the gov- of its policy response to the global recession. ernment introduced the Clean Energy Benefit, The program’s aim was to accelerate the phase- which lowered rates by 10 percent on January out of coal-fired electricity and jump-start the 1, 2011 for five years, at a cost of over $1 billion development of renewable energy, which it saw a year (Winfield, 2017: 261). The Liberals won a “as a potential replacement for the traditional majority government in that year’s election. manufacturing industries that were in decline” (Winfield, 2017: 258). These goals were to be ac- The Wynne government uses more debt complished through Feed-in-Tariffs (FIT) that to lower prices guaranteed access and prices for renewable en- ergy and local content requirements for partic- By 2016, electricity prices had exactly doubled ipants in the FIT program (the local manufac- since the Liberal administration began in 2003, turing content requirements were later ruled an average yearly increase of nearly 8 percent. illegal by the World Trade Organization). These A popular backlash led the Liberal government policies explicitly substituted government plan- to rebate the provincial portion of the Har- fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 3 Ontario Government Perpetuates Poor Electricity Policy monized Sales Tax for residential and small Partly because high electricity prices and a businesses as of January 1, 2017. It announced weak economy dampened demand (which only a further 25 percent drop in electricity rates reinforced the increase in the provincial debt), for these same customers starting July 1, 2017, the generation of solar and wind power was for a period of four years (Office of the Audi- superfluous to Ontario’s needs and ended up tor General of Ontario, 2017: 235). This extend- being exported at below what it cost to pro- ed the now-familiar pattern of several years duce it. By 2014, the OAG estimated Ontario of rate hikes followed by rebates just before had nearly twice the energy capacity it needed elections in 2003 (when electricity prices fell (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, 2011: 4.3 percent), 2007 (-1.4 percent), 2011 (-1.9 per- 99). At the same time, the government renewed cent), and 2018 (-8.8 percent). The only election its commitment to nuclear power as the cen- year when prices rose was 2014, when they in- trepiece of Ontario’s electrical power. However, creased 7.7 percent.1 with electricity demand continuing to decline after the recession ended, nuclear power sup- Using debt to subsidize lower electricity prices plied a growing portion of Ontario’s power, leav- transfers the cost from ratepayers to taxpay- ing little need for the growing supply of renew- ers. What ratepayers saved on their monthly able power. Because storing surplus power is hydro bills is more than offset by higher taxes difficult, most of the excess power was exported to pay for these savings years in the future. In at less than half the price charged to domestic the words of the Financial Accountability Of- ratepayers. Subsidized power exported to cus- fice (FAO), “The HST rebate and adjusting the tomers and competitors in nearby states cost electricity relief programs will transfer costs Ontarians $1.3 billion from 2005 to 2011 (Office of from ratepayers to the Province, thereby pro- the Auditor General of Ontario, 2011: 112). viding savings to eligible electricity ratepayers but a corresponding increase in costs to the The OAG detailed how the Ontario govern- Province. However, the proposed electricity ment tried to keep the growing debt that arose cost refinancing provides a temporary savings from subsidizing electricity rates off its balance but higher costs to eligible electricity ratepay- sheet and annual deficits.