Stories
Ontario and Alberta, unplugged
September 28, 2017
Ontario and Alberta used to be the reliable twin engines of Canada’s economy. They created jobs for refugees from the sclerotic economies of Atlantic Canada and provided tax transfers to subsidize statist Quebec Inc. Long suffering victims of socialist governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan looked to their neighbours east and west with a mixture of envy and resentment, while a lot of British Columbians dismissed them as hyperactive greed heads with no appreciation for work-life balance. Those days are over, writes Mark Milke, as Ontario and Alberta are now smothering their competitive advantages with unaffordable green energy policies.
Stories

Ontario and Alberta, unplugged

September 28, 2017
Ontario and Alberta used to be the reliable twin engines of Canada’s economy. They created jobs for refugees from the sclerotic economies of Atlantic Canada and provided tax transfers to subsidize statist Quebec Inc. Long suffering victims of socialist governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan looked to their neighbours east and west with a mixture of envy and resentment, while a lot of British Columbians dismissed them as hyperactive greed heads with no appreciation for work-life balance. Those days are over, writes Mark Milke, as Ontario and Alberta are now smothering their competitive advantages with unaffordable green energy policies.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

If Canadians needed a reminder of why politics and energy don’t mix, they received more evidence recently in Alberta and Ontario.

Start with Alberta. A Postmedia freedom of information request to the Balancing Power Pool, an arms-length agency responsible for managing the province’s power supply, turned up an internal report that worried about increased government interference in Alberta’s power market.

Some history: Alberta’s NDP government is aiming to phase out inexpensive coal-fired electricity early and replace it with power generation from natural gas, wind and solar. It imposed another tax on carbon dioxide emissions this year in addition to one brought in back in 2007. It did so to both make coal-fired electricity unsustainable but also use the carbon tax proceeds to subsidize the switchover to these other electricity generation types. In other words, Alberta is making cheap energy more expensive while subsidizing costlier renewables.

As an example, when the province decided that several coal-fired power plants that would otherwise run for several more decades must instead be shuttered early, by 2030, Alberta’s governing politicians recognized they had a problem. Telling private companies their capital stock is suddenly of little value, courtesy of a government-mandated shutdown, would signal to those same companies not to invest in replacement power generation. It would tell investors to stay far away from the Alberta power market in the future.

To not dissuade future investment in electricity generation, Alberta’s NDP government offered payments to the soon-to-be-shut-down coal-fired facilities. Budget 2017 recorded an expense liability of $1.1-billion—compensation to coal plant owners—to be paid out over 14 years.

That reimbursement is just the start. The province will spend another $4.7-billion between 2016 and 2020 on everything from rebates to consumers (for government-caused higher power prices), retrofits for homes and businesses, subsidies to corporations for green power initiatives, and green infrastructure grants.

But the rising costs won’t end here. Alberta’s power market is complicated and its Balancing Pool was designed so if a government changed the rules in the middle of a long-term capital investment, a company with a contract could cancel the deal, thereby creating a loss for the Pool to cover. And that’s exactly what happened when the province introduced its newer, more costly and wide-ranging carbon tax that made some electricity more expensive.

But when the power purchase contracts are cancelled someone is on the hook. And that someone is you. As the undisclosed report obtained by PostMedia puts it, the Balancing Pool will “simply pass [the extra cost] on to consumers.”

This Alberta report is just the latest illustration how political interference in markets leads to higher costs. Another on Ontario’s plan to buy more power from Quebec also demonstrates how meddling in power will most likely drive prices up.

Marc Brouillete, author of a study that analyzes the 2016 Ontario-Quebec deal to see more Quebec power flow into Ontario to reduce natural-gas fired electricity generation, estimates the arrangement will cost provincial consumers $200-million more. Brouillete’s estimate, if bang-on, would be in addition to past political mismanagement of Ontario’s power grid.

Recall that such political interference already cost Ontario consumers billions of dollars and will pick Ontarians’ pockets for decades to come. A 2015 report from the Ontario Auditor General tracked the Global Adjustment fees on Ontarians’ power bills. The auditor characterizes such fees as “excess payments to generators over the market price for electricity.” Consumers paid more than necessary for home energy.

The incurred cost was $37-billion between 2006 and 2014, with another $133-billion forecast between 2015 and 2032. Since that report, the Ontario government in an act of political damage control decided to shift some current power costs to future generations. It did so by borrowing money now to pay part of today’s power costs. That merely shifts actual power costs to future consumers, a sort-of Ponzi power scheme. Prices will drop in advance of the 2018 provincial election and rise afterward.

All of this sums up the problem with political interference in the power market. Once governments and politicians start, their interference is expensive for consumers and sometimes taxpayers, and then they keep interfering in a futile attempt to fix earlier and costly errors.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Absent Minded: Ontario Tackles the School Attendance Crisis

Canadian schools have a problem – kids aren’t showing up. In Ontario, nearly 60 percent of high school students aren’t meeting the provincial standard for attendance. And Canada leads the world in absenteeism among children of university-educated parents. Yet when Ontario’s education minister announced he was getting tough on truancy, he was hammered from all sides, including “progressive” academics, conservative education reformers, sports parents and, of course, always-angry teachers’ unions. Christina Park looks into the causes of absenteeism and compares Ontario’s reforms to what various other countries are also trying to do about it. As Park explains, nothing can be fixed in Canada’s chaotic school systems until students start showing up for class.

Continental Grift: Why the Liberal Government’s Fixation with Europe Is a Sham

Market diversification is a sensible enough strategy for Canada, but Mark Carney’s fixation on closer ties with Europe is anything but. For one thing, argues business veteran Gwyn Morgan, we’ve already got comprehensive free trade deals with virtually all of Europe. Cozying up further to a dysfunctional, declining EU is pure folly. Far better for the Carney government to focus on Canada’s own self-inflicted economic problems – inflation, taxes, public debt, the disastrous drought in foreign investment. Oh, and the ongoing lack of free trade within our own borders. No need for overseas adventures, notes Morgan; there’s plenty of work to be done at home.

New Man, Same Old Plan: Mark Carney’s Net-Zero Ambitions Remain an Existential Threat to Canada’s Economy

To many Canadians, Mark Carney’s apparent transition from climate-change zealot to build-baby-build capitalist has been a surprising though welcome change. But is it real? Recent evidence suggests the prime minister has not abandoned his longstanding fixation with growth-killing net-zero commitments. Exhibit A is his government’s sustainable investment guidelines. Also known as the “green taxonomy”, this little-known effort seeks to label every development project in the country according to its perceived environmental impact, with the goal of directing where banks and investors are allowed to put their money – and punishing industries deemed unworthy. If not abandoned or watered-down soon, warns industry expert Gina Pappano, the green taxonomy will crush economic growth and cripple the current resurgence in Canada’s vital natural resources sector.

More from this author

Not So Beautiful Minds: Conspiracy Theories from JFK to Oliver Stone and Donald Trump

Shocking events that plunge a country into chaos or destroy a beloved leader are hard for anyone to process. The evil done is so towering it bends the human psyche to accept that the evildoer is utterly banal, a loner walking in ordinary shoes. The cause simply must befit the outcome; thus can a conspiracy theory be hatched. At other times, the cold hope of political or financial gain or simple mischief might be the source. There certainly is no shortage of conspiracy theories. Mark Milke revisits one of history’s most famous political assassinations and the conspiracy theories it spawned to illuminate the ongoing danger this toxic tendency poses to us all.

Picture of Thomas Hobbes frontispiece of Leviathan. A renowned pieceof political work on liberty

Future of Conservatism Series, Part VII: Memo to Politicians: We’re Not Your Pet Projects

Canadian conservatives have most of the summer to ruminate on what they want their federal party to become – as embodied by their soon-to-be elected leader, anyway. Acceptability, likability and winnability will be key criteria. Above all, however, should be crafting and advancing a compelling policy alternative to today’s managerial liberalism, which has been inflated by the pandemic almost beyond recognition. Mark Milke offers a forceful rebuttal against the Conservative “alternative” comprising little more than a massaged form of top-down management.

Leaders_debate_2019_canada_diversity_bias_free_speech_liberal_conservative

So Much for Diversity: The Monochromatic Moderators of Monday’s Debate

Canada is a big, diverse country by virtually any measure, from our no-longer-so-sparse population to our epic geography to the ethnic makeup of our people. Diverse in every way, it seems, except in our elites’ aggressively progressive official-think. Consistent with this is the otherwise bizarre decision to have Monday’s federal leaders’ debate hosted by five decidedly similar female journalists. Mark Milke briefly profiles the five and, more important, advances a positive alternative: five distinguished women diverse in background, hometown and, above all, thought.