2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

[christiesplits]

...Nothing to stand on except the strongest economy in a decade, more investment in transit and infrastructure than at any point in Ontario history, etc.

I think the U.S. experience last November shows that strong economic indicators can't win an election if people still feel like they're struggling. GDP is irrelevant if people are concerned that their job could be shipped overseas or their company downsized by a private equity firm. The unemployment rate is irrelevant if people are working in short-term, precarious jobs, living check-to-check.

I think there is considerable economic anxiety that makes it difficult to be an incumbent, particularly at a provincial/state or federal level. Add in Liberal Party fatigue (four terms - longer than the Rae years and Common Sense Revolution combined), an endless list of scandals, high energy costs, and a PC party that finally seems to have its act together, and I think Wynne is in deep trouble.

 

[SkyGod]

The Libs *ARE NOT* "looking for financing! They are looking for shared investment.

The investors aren't paid by taxpayers, they are paid by users.

In case you don't understand what "backstop" means, it's the same as "underwrite".

I feel like I'm arguing with Patrick Brown...

I can only think of one P3 in Canada where investors are paid by users: the 407 ETR. That's one model of P3s, but certainly not one used often in Canada. Even in that model, the investors are paid a return (that would otherwise go to the government) in exchange for capital. The return on their capital that they require is GREATER than the cost of financing the project through the government. The government borrows at a risk-free rate. The private sector is only going to lend money to these risky projects at a higher rate of return. More risk = More return.

Most P3s don't involve user fees at all. Most of the major hospitals built in Ontario over the past decade were P3s. There aren't user fees at hospitals. The government simply pays the private sector in installments rather than paying the full price up front. The private sector finances the project which costs more money because they represent a higher credit risk.

Painting this as a political issue is also wrong. It's a procurement method that BOTH Conservatives and Liberals have pushed. The idea of involving the private sector is predicated on the thesis that the private sector can manage risk better than the public sector. That is a right-wing view far more than a left-wing view.

 

[jje1000]

I think the U.S. experience last November shows that strong economic indicators can't win an election if people still feel like they're struggling. GDP is irrelevant if people are concerned that their job could be shipped overseas or their company downsized by a private equity firm. The unemployment rate is irrelevant if people are working in short-term, precarious jobs, living check-to-check.

I think there is considerable economic anxiety that makes it difficult to be an incumbent, particularly at a provincial/state or federal level. Add in Liberal Party fatigue (four terms - longer than the Rae years and Common Sense Revolution combined), an endless list of scandals, high energy costs, and a PC party that finally seems to have its act together, and I think Wynne is in deep trouble.

And in this case, the prevailing issue is hydro prices, above even health and the economy.

I posted earlier a link that showed that even the Liberals knew this from 2013- and yet nothing was done until this year.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3336335/o...as-no-1-concern-long-before-relief-announced/

 

[ADRM]

And in this case, the prevailing issue is hydro prices, above even health and the economy.

I posted earlier a link that showed that even the Liberals knew this from 2013- and yet nothing was done until this year.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3336335/o...as-no-1-concern-long-before-relief-announced/

That's not the smoking gun you seem to think it is: governing strictly by polling is something we should certainly not want our governments to do by default.

 

[jje1000]

That's a bit of a strawman- you should never use one source of information to govern- but polls, like experts, are useful tools for the government if used properly.

 

[ADRM]

That's a bit of a strawman- you should never use one source of information to govern- but polls, like experts, are useful tools for the government if used properly.

How is it a strawman? Are you not claiming that the government should have acted differently because it had polling to suggest that people were unhappy with its policy?

 

[jje1000]

I pointed out that hydro prices are of a high concern to Ontarians, and you constructed a strawman claiming that governments should not govern by polls- which isn't something I argue for.

 

[torontologist]

I pointed out that hydro prices are of a high concern to Ontarians, and you constructed a strawman claiming that governments should not govern by polls- which isn't something I argue for.

But.... you shared a link to an article saying that the Liberals knew Hydro was an issue from polling, and then said they should have done something about it. Isn't that governing by polls?

Even that article points out that the economy and health surpassed Hydro as the number one issue for a time between 2013-2016.

 

[jje1000]

But.... you shared a link to an article saying that the Liberals knew Hydro was an issue from polling, and then said they should have done something about it. Isn't that governing by polls?

Even that article points out that the economy and health surpassed Hydro as the number one issue for a time between 2013-2016.

That's not what I said:

And in this case, the prevailing issue is hydro prices, above even health and the economy.

I posted earlier a link that showed that even the Liberals knew this from 2013- and yet nothing was done until this year.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3336335/o...as-no-1-concern-long-before-relief-announced/

I said that nothing was done about it- not that they should have done something about it.

 

[ADRM]

That's not what I said:



I said that nothing was done about it- not that they should have done something about it.

Okay, then correct us: what was your point? What is the relevance of there being polling showing that folks were unhappy about hydro prices other than to state the obvious? What should the government have done differently?

 

[SkyGod]

Okay, then correct us: what was your point? What is the relevance of there being polling showing that folks were unhappy about hydro prices other than to state the obvious? What should the government have done differently?

The Green Energy Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation I can remember in my lifetime. Even the Liberals know that now. Even if you're 100% onside with pushing green energy, this was the absolute worst possible implementation of that.

Thank god Smitherman didn't become Mayor of Toronto too, he already did enough damage to Ontario.

 

[ADRM]

The Green Energy Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation I can remember in my lifetime. Even the Liberals know that now. Even if you're 100% onside with pushing green energy, this was the absolute worst possible implementation of that.

Thank god Smitherman didn't become Mayor of Toronto too, he already did enough damage to Ontario.

What does that have to do with public polling?

 

[SkyGod]

What does that have to do with public polling?

You asked what the government should have done differently regarding the energy file...?

 

[ADRM]

You asked what the government should have done differently regarding the energy file...?

I was asking the poster to whom I replied what he or she was intimating in his or her previous post regarding polling.

 

[jje1000]

Okay, then correct us: what was your point? What is the relevance of there being polling showing that folks were unhappy about hydro prices other than to state the obvious? What should the government have done differently?

Apparently it was so obvious that the Liberals chose to not reassure the public until they were nipped in the bum in the September 2016 byelection.

“We heard at the door that hydro rates are increasingly challenging for people,” Premier Kathleen Wynne said in a statement that night. “I understand, as do my ministers, that the government needs to focus on helping people with their everyday expenses.”

[...]

But the premier has acknowledged she should have acted sooner, a spokeswoman said.

Literally the response from Wynne afterwards, followed finally by some follow-up. The solution would have been to not do these things in the years leading up to 2016:

Ontario’s electricity consumers are being zapped for tens of billions of dollars due to overpriced green energy, poor government planning, and shoddy service from Hydro One, says auditor general Bonnie Lysyk.

[...]

But much of the auditor’s scorn was reserved for the energy ministry, which is overseeing the 60 per cent sell-off of Hydro One, the provincial electricity transmitter.

“Hydro One’s customers have a power system for which reliability appears to be worsening while costs are increasing,” said Lysyk, echoing Ed Clark, Premier Kathleen Wynne’s privatization czar, who has argued Hydro One should be run more professionally.

The comments appeared to rattle investors. Hydro One’s shares dipped 3.9 per cent to $21.95 on the Toronto Stock Exchange after debuting last month at $20.50.

Lysyk cited “more frequent power outages, mostly because assets aren’t being fully maintained” and infrequent tree trimming around power lines in her last audit of the company.

She found Ontario’s push to promote wind and solar energy is unnecessarily costly and the government ignored warnings from the now-defunct Ontario Power Authority that some power plants, like a biomass-fuelled station near Thunder Bay, were prohibitively expensive.

“People are paying more for hydro because this government arrogantly chose to ignore the advice of experts,” said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

Lysyk estimated consumers could end up paying $9.2 billion more for renewable energy over 20-year contracts issued under the Green Energy Act with guaranteed prices set at double the U.S. market price for wind and at 3.5 times the going rate for solar last year.

“With wind and solar prices around the world beginning to decline around 2008, a competitive process would have meant much lower costs,” she wrote, noting the government ignored advice from the Ontario Power Authority to seek bids for large renewable energy projects.

Chiarelli countered that the green energy measures were “ahead of the wave” in helping with climate change and a new competitive process for large renewable energy projects will be announced early in the new year.

“Prices are going to be down very dramatically.”

The auditor also noted energy conservation efforts slated to cost $4.9 billion from 2006 to 2020 do “not necessarily” lead to savings because Ontario’s surplus electricity must be exported at a loss.

“Investing in conservation at a time of surplus actually costs us more.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...-for-hydro-one-decisions-auditor-general.html

Of course, since Chiarelli left, the Liberals have completely given up on the procurement of new renewable energy, instead choosing to buy energy from Quebec.

Same here:

Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says. The Liberal government has repeatedly overruled expert advice – and even tore up two long-term plans from the Ontario Power Authority for the electricity system – in favour of political decisions that drove up power costs for consumers, the report says.

[...]

But it all paled compared to her criticisms of the government’s management of the electricity system.

By law, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), which has now merged into the Independent Electricity System Operator, was supposed to provide a long-term plan for electricity that independent regulators would vet. But Ms. Lysyk found that in 2007 and 2011, OPA produced such a plan only to have the Liberals overrule it and make ad-hoc decisions on the system by fiat.

As a result, electricity prices for consumers and small businesses jumped by 70 per cent – from 5.32 cents per kilowatt hour to 9.06 cents – between 2006 and 2014, she found. The largest part of the reason for that is an increase to Global Adjustment Fees, which for the past decade have paid power-generating companies more than market price for their power as an incentive to set up in Ontario. Those fees amounted to $37-billion between 2006 and 2014, and are projected to add $133-billion from 2015 to 2032.

[...]

But Ms. Lysyk said Ontario pays more for green power than other jurisdictions. Compared to U.S. prices, the cost of wind power in Ontario is double and solar power is more than triple. The 2010 Green Energy Act, Ms. Lysyk said, failed to take advantage of low electricity prices and instead mandated higher prices for wind and solar power companies than they had received previously. This added up to $9.2-billion more in renewables costs.

In another case, when the government closed a coal-fired power plant in Thunder Bay in 2013, it decided to convert the plant to biomass to keep it going. Energy experts at the OPA told the government the conversion was not cost-effective, but the government went ahead anyway. Power from the plant now costs $1,600/megawatts per hour, which is 25 times the cost at other Ontario biomass plants, Ms. Lysyk found. Some of the biomass burned at the plant is imported from Europe, which undercuts part of the rationale for keeping it going, which was to help Ontario’s forestry industry.

In a third situation, in January, 2010, the OPA warned the province that the Lower Mattagami hydroelectric project was $1-billion over budget, but the government allowed it to proceed. As a result, power from that plant costs $135/megawatts per hour, compared to an average cost of $46/megawatts per hour for two other recent hydro projects, Ms. Lysyk found.

The province also produces enough extra electricity to power the province of Manitoba, an excess that costs consumers, Ms. Lysyk found. For instance, the province paid $3.1-billion to power generators between 2009 and 2014 for power that was not needed, plus another $339-million not to produce power. The province also paid $32.6-million to exporters to distribute the excess power to other jurisdictions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ctricity-over-eight-years-ag/article27560753/