Stories

Ontario and Alberta, unplugged

Mark Milke
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

Mark Milke
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

A Mess and Minefield: Ottawa’s Clarity Act on Provincial Separation is Anything but Clear

Proponents of independence for Alberta seem to believe the federal Clarity Act provides a sure pathway to secession should they win a referendum vote. But as Jim Mason and George Koch explain, the Act is less pathway than political minefield. It demands a clear question with a clear majority vote – but offers no criteria for either. It provides no instructions on how separation negotiations should proceed, but it does allow other provinces, Indigenous groups and others to intervene. And it assigns virtually all decision-making to Ottawa. It is, Mason and Koch find in the first of this two-part series, a formula not for resolution but deadlock, virtually certain to frustrate any constitutional effort to secede. Almost like it was designed that way.

Bubble-Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure

Why were our forebears more adventurous than we are today? Was it just that they had more empty space to explore, no GPS or instant communications to keep them safe, no social welfare state to protect them? It’s all that and more, writes Murray Lytle. The derring-do of days past, he argues, sprang from a value system that admired courage and saw risk-taking as a social virtue – even a duty – that could expand knowledge and build a better world as well as protect the nation. Lytle urges our society to shake off its smothering safety culture and rediscover a sense of adventure.

Ego Over Everything: How the Progressive Fixation on Identity Perverts the Arts

Artists once understood they were serving something greater than themselves – truth, beauty, memory – things universal and transcendent. No longer. In a culture where imagination is cast as “cultural appropriation” and exploitation, what matters is not art but the artist. Ego, self-regard and “lived experience” are paramount. In this searing critique, T. G. Kelemen uses recent examples of cancellation in the arts to explain how “progressive” pieties have inverted the very foundation of the arts, fuelling not just a culture war, but a war on culture.

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.