News   Apr 19, 2024
45 and 61-Storey Towers Proposed near Oakville GO
 1.8K     1 
News   Apr 19, 2024
DRP Reviews Innovative Affordable Housing at Kennedy Station
 861     3 
News   Apr 19, 2024
Lifetime Helping Craft the Future of Toronto's Neighbourhoods
 1.3K     3 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

Doug Ford’s electrification plan is actually a gas-powered climate nightmare​

From link.

It being election season (and Earth Day), the Ontario government news releases are arriving a dime a dozen right now, and many seem to feature the electrification of mobility, a future that’s apparently due to arrive in the early 2030s.

In the past month, Premier Doug Ford has made sure to showcase himself at pressers for massive new investments in Ontario’s EV supply chain — a $4.9 billion battery factory for Windsor, $91 million in provincial dollars for EV chargers at parks and rest stops, almost $260 million to help GM retool two plants to prepare for EV production, and yet another announcement about the Ring of Fire, the perennially-delayed mineral strike in Northern Ontario that is now being re-positioned as a source of battery raw materials.

Then, earlier this week, CityNews reported that Infrastructure Ontario has finally inked a $1.6 billion deal to begin the long-awaited electrification of the GO rail network, a plan that dates back to the Kathleen Wynne era and has morphed into a triple-p project awarded to a consortium led by Aecon and ALSTOM, the French manufacturing giant.

All this activity adds up to what looks to be a sustained ramping up of pressure on the province’s electricity system, which encompasses generation (hydro, nuclear, natural gas plants, renewables), transmission networks, and local distribution utilities, many of which are in need of major re-investment.

The transition from fossil fuel to electricity — “electrify everything!” — is a critical but immensely difficult step in the fight against climate change. What’s more, the electrification agenda only makes sense if the grid isn’t using hydrocarbons to produce current. At the moment, 72% of Ontario’s electricity comes from hydro (23 per cent), nuclear (34), wind (15), solar (1) and biofuels (<1), while the balance — 28 per cent — is generated by natural gas peaker plants.

There’s mounting evidence, however, that the gas component will grow, which is not only ridiculous by every measure, but also doubles down on a whole other set of counter-productive moves by the provincial energy regulator to allow the expansion of natural gas pipelines and distribution networks that provide energy to heat buildings.

Earlier this week, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance released documents obtained through freedom of information (FOI) requests showing that the Independent Energy System Operator, which administers the provincial electricity system, rejected feasible plans to scale back the use of natural gas. (The Globe and Mail first reported on the findings.)

After more than 30 municipalities asked the province to phase out the use of natural gas for electricity generation, the IESO said publicly last fall that such a move would hike hydro rates by 60% by the end of the decade, according to a summary of the FOI documents. But the IESO’s internal evaluation showed the rate hike would be more like 17 to 20 percent, and that’s not accounting for rising carbon prices, which would sharply cut natural gas emissions, thus lower the increase to just 3 percent, the documents state. “Subjecting Ontario’s gas plants to full carbon taxation would lead to a dramatic reduction in Ontario’s gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S. and a dramatic increase in Ontario’s import of Quebec waterpower.”

“If Ontario meets its need for new capacity by investing in energy efficiency, energy storage and 5,500 megawatts (MW) of new wind generation,” the Alliance observed, “Ontario’s electricity costs will fall by 8 percent by 2030 relative to the IESO’s business as usual scenario. These investments in clean electricity supply would also reduce gas plant pollution.” (The additional wind is 800 MW more than what’s been installed in Ontario since the late-2000s.)

The take-away cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Ford’s guns-a-blazin’ electrification plan for mobility is utterly pointless if the additional required power comes from gas.

The insidious nature of our deepening dependence on natural gas is a function of the way this energy market works. Companies willing to bid on large gas-fired generating plants insist on long-term supply contracts to mitigate capital risk. These deals are prohibitively expensive to terminate, so lock-in becomes an intractable feature of the supply system.

As for gas distribution for heating, monopolies like Enbridge have billions tied up in sunk costs for infrastructure that demands to be used. Customers — home owners, landlords, etc. — will use gas because it’s cheaper than electricity, for now, and because the province, unlike B.C., offers no financial incentives to switch to electric heating.

Indeed, even if Queen’s Park does concoct some kind of fuel switching subsidy for homeowners, it seems likely that the gas companies will make up for those lost downstream revenues by selling more gas upstream to run Ontario’s electricity grid. How’s that for a sneaky bit of three-card monte?

The IESO claims that its hands are tied because some of OPG’s nuclear fleet is aging out, and the much-touted construction of a small-scale reactor at Darlington will take time, and probably more time than has been budgeted (six years), given that no one’s ever commissioned one before. In the meantime, the power for our electrifying mobility sector will have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere seems to be gas.

The opportunity cost — both financially and from an emissions reduction perspective — is bewildering. In other jurisdictions, local and state governments are making it extremely easy, or in some cases obligatory, for building owners to put solar panels on roof tops (California mandates this for new home construction, for example).

Some U.S. cities have outright banned natural gas hook-ups for new buildings, a move that stokes investment in not only renewables like solar, but also adjacent technologies, like heat pumps, geo-exchange infrastructure, stationary batteries or other emerging electricity storage systems designed to provide back-up power when the sun isn’t shining.

Since it’s election season, voters should recall that one of the Ford government’s first moves — upon taking office in 2018 after an election in which the Tories used hydro rates as a cudgel to clobber the Liberals — was cancelling incentives for hundreds of small-scale renewable electricity projects, a ridiculously short-sighted move.

The Ontario Energy Board last December released a study on the potential for distributed energy resources (DERs), such as solar panels or micro-grids. It concluded that if the province adopts policies to stoke a high-growth scenario for both solar and energy storage, it could add about 5,000 MW by 2030, which is roughly the same time frame that OPG will require to build a mini-reactor that will produce just 300 MW and cost who knows how much.

For the record, I have no trouble with nuclear power per se. But in Ontario, its use has long come at the expense of promoting other low-carbon, distributed energy technologies that are now indisputably less expensive.

The point is that the Ford government’s showy enthusiasm for all things electric turns on political and policy decisions that will commit us to decades of fossil fuel dependence and under-investment in the energy technologies of the future — a choice that couldn’t possibly be more misguided, given what we’re all learning about the relationship between the horrors in the Ukraine and the global appetite for natural gas.

The irony is, well, shocking.
Click to expand...
 
The Ford gov't announced, earlier today, the move of WSIB HQ to London, ON.

I reported on that in the election thread given the timing.

****

But another annoucement for London today is money already out the door, so I'll stick it here.

A subsidy for a medical-grade, PPE, glove-manufacturing facility for London, that will employ 145 when it begins operation in 2024.

https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/...rting-glove-manufacturing-facility-in-ontario
 
Northern Light said:
The Ford gov't announced, earlier today, the move of WSIB HQ to London, ON.

I reported on that in the election thread given the timing.
Click to expand...
They are in Simcoe Place on Front Street, right?
That may be an effective cost cutting to lower the office space with many able to work remotely from home; or a way to dump employees who don't want to move. Either way they take up a lot of space in that building and that's a big loss of workers around there.
 
From the Ontario 2022 budget, at this link.

It's the detail in the fine print that makes the "goodies" suspect.

Helping Seniors (insert laugh track here)

The government is proposing a new refundable Personal Income Tax credit to help seniors with eligible medical expenses, including expenses that support aging at home. Eligible recipients of the new Ontario Seniors Care at Home Tax Credit would receive up to 25 per cent of their claimable medical expenses up to $6,000, for a maximum credit of $1,500.

Starting with the 2022 tax year, the proposed credit would support a wide range of medical expenses to help low- to moderate-income senior families age at home. To make it easier to claim, the new Ontario Seniors Care at Home Tax Credit would be based on the medical expenses claimed for the existing Ontario Medical Expense Tax Credit (METC).

Tax filers would be eligible for the proposed credit if they:
  • Turned 70 years of age or older in the year, or have a spouse or common-law partner who turned 70 years of age or older in the year; and
  • Are resident in Ontario at the end of the tax year.
Click to expand...
Note that it is a "tax credit". Seniors have to pay it first, then they get a 25% "rebate" at income tax time.

Eligible medical expenses would be the same as those claimed for the Ontario METC, which can include:
  • Attendant care (certification required);
  • Care of a provincially authorized medical practitioner (e.g., nurse, occupational therapist);
  • Dental, vision and hearing care (e.g., glasses, dentures, hearing aids);
  • Walking aids (e.g., walkers, canes);
  • Wheelchairs and electric scooters;
  • Bathroom aids (e.g., grab bars, grips, rails);
  • Diapers and disposable briefs;
  • Hospital beds;
  • Oxygen and assisted breathing devices; and
  • Renovation or construction that improves a person’s mobility, access or functioning within the home because of severe and prolonged impairment.
For detailed rules, including which medical expenses are eligible, tax filers can consult relevant Canada Revenue Agency publications or federal and provincial legislation.

The Ontario METC allows Ontario tax filers to claim medical expenses over a certain threshold. For low- to moderate-income seniors, the threshold for the eligible amount is three per cent of a tax filer’s net income.
Click to expand...
The proposed credit would be 25 per cent of claimed medical expenses, up to a maximum credit of $1,500. This amount would be reduced by five per cent of family net income over $35,000 and be fully phased out by at most $65,000. This family net income test is the same for singles and couples, recognizing that single seniors incur higher medical expenses on average compared to senior couples.

The proposed credit could be claimed in addition to the non-refundable federal and Ontario medical expense tax credits for the same eligible expenses. The proposed credit would be refundable, supporting low- to moderate-income senior families, even if they do not owe any Personal Income Tax (PIT). Therefore, the proposed credit would fill a gap by supporting low- to moderate-income senior families who cannot fully benefit from the existing non-refundable medical expense tax credits, because they owe little to no PIT. In 2022, it is expected that the new credit would provide an estimated $110 million in support to about 200,000 low- to moderate-income senior families.
Click to expand...
 
W. K. Lis said:
From the Ontario 2022 budget, at this link.

It's the detail in the fine print that makes the "goodies" suspect.

Helping Seniors (insert laugh track here)


Note that it is a "tax credit". Seniors have to pay it first, then they get a 25% "rebate" at income tax time.

Eligible medical expenses would be the same as those claimed for the Ontario METC, which can include:
  • Attendant care (certification required);
  • Care of a provincially authorized medical practitioner (e.g., nurse, occupational therapist);
  • Dental, vision and hearing care (e.g., glasses, dentures, hearing aids);
  • Walking aids (e.g., walkers, canes);
  • Wheelchairs and electric scooters;
  • Bathroom aids (e.g., grab bars, grips, rails);
  • Diapers and disposable briefs;
  • Hospital beds;
  • Oxygen and assisted breathing devices; and
  • Renovation or construction that improves a person’s mobility, access or functioning within the home because of severe and prolonged impairment.
Click to expand...
Ummm Yeah... a budget to vote for, Look at all those goodies "we" seniors are going to get. Yeah NO, it ain't happening, most of them goodies will never come to fruition. Increase in medical deductions smells more like privatized medical services. Once re-elected the grifting will continue, things need to change and honestly the NDP & Libs better not attack each other like they did in the last election. Let's focus on the Con Government and their miserable record of waste and hand outs to friends and families.
For profit is for profit, remember those who suffered abuse and died because of "profit".
 
W. K. Lis said:
From the Ontario 2022 budget, at this link.

It's the detail in the fine print that makes the "goodies" suspect.

Helping Seniors (insert laugh track here)


Note that it is a "tax credit". Seniors have to pay it first, then they get a 25% "rebate" at income tax time.

Eligible medical expenses would be the same as those claimed for the Ontario METC, which can include:
  • Attendant care (certification required);
  • Care of a provincially authorized medical practitioner (e.g., nurse, occupational therapist);
  • Dental, vision and hearing care (e.g., glasses, dentures, hearing aids);
  • Walking aids (e.g., walkers, canes);
  • Wheelchairs and electric scooters;
  • Bathroom aids (e.g., grab bars, grips, rails);
  • Diapers and disposable briefs;
  • Hospital beds;
  • Oxygen and assisted breathing devices; and
  • Renovation or construction that improves a person’s mobility, access or functioning within the home because of severe and prolonged impairment.
Click to expand...

It isn't a particularly good credit from a public policy perspective, in part for the reason you outline.

If someone is of modest means and can't afford to install grab bars in their shower, or install a ramp to their front door etc; then this credit does nothing to fix their lack of funds upfront.

This is always a problem w/tax credits, and a reason I lack enthusiasm for them as a way of achieving anything.

Additionally, however, the 25% rebate is too low to close an affordability gap for someone making 33k per year or less.

Lets take a root canal at the dentist as our example, much cheaper than many home renos, but if its out-of-pocket, the cost is ~$2,000
So a 25% rebate, in real-time, would still only lower the price point to $1,500, which most people at that income level simply don't have in free cashflow.
Never mind the problem if this is a larger scale expense.

That the credit is reduced as income grows is fine in principle, but being functionally zero by 65k in household income would still leave couples at that income level hard-pressed to foot a serious reno to make a home accessible
Or eat the cost weekly physiotherapy etc.

The items intended to be covered by the credit are typically things that either cannot or should not wait, yet, they would be dependent, to the extent the credit is useful, on timing that could be up to 12 months away.

The credit also doesn't help with a prospective expense, only an incurred one. So you have to find someone willing to deliver the service and bill you, and potentially wait for payment assuming you are short the necessary funds.

****

Overall, its ill-suited to its supposed mission and is meant to appear far more generous than it really is.
 
Last edited:
This comes across to me as a desperation move by the NDP.

www.cp24.com

Ontario NDP promise to remove tolls for truckers on Highway 407

Ontario's New Democrats say they won't make truckers pony up if they drive on a private toll highway in the Toronto area, if the party is elected in June.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

The New Democrats say the move would help relieve traffic on the provincially owned 400-series highways in southern Ontario by diverting truck traffic to the 407 Express Toll Route.
The party says commercial drivers would not have to pay the fare for the underused highway that runs from Burlington, Ont., in the west to Clarington, Ont., in the east.
The promise is not included in the NDP's costed platform, but the party says it would pay for it by pursuing penalty fees from the company that owns the highway.
The NDP says the Progressive Conservative government didn't go after the payment, which it estimates at between $1 billion and $2 billion.
The party says the 407 “failed to meet a minimum standard of traffic for two years, that traffic didn't return to pre-pandemic levels in 2021, nor this year, nor is it expected to due to more people working remotely.”
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure any such recovery attempt will be easily beaten down in court over some kind of "act of God" clause in the contract, and even if it can be recovered that way, wow, that's one hell of a precedent that would cause shit everywhere in the country if "you must operate at pre-pandemic levels" for anything is enforcable. It's not happening, and it's hysterical they are trying to pretend it will.

In any case, CP24 needs to learn how to write without starting every single sentence with "the".
 
Last edited:
She was on Metro Morning today and didn't unequivocally say no. In fact, she said it in a way that made me suspect it is indeed "a go." I've never cared for her much, truth be told, but this may be a good spot for her. And Hamilton doesn't exactly have a history of great Mayors, so she's already better than most recent examples.
 
The Feds and the Province both showing up today to a site just east of Napanee to announce support for a massive new EV Battery-related facility that will sit on a stupendous 350 acres of land.

www.thewhig.com

$1.5B EV battery materials plant to create ‘hundreds’ of jobs in Loyalist Township

A $1.5-billion industrial electric vehicle materials plant, the first of its kind in North America, is coming to Loyalist Township, creating a minimum of 700…
www.thewhig.com www.thewhig.com

1000+ construction jobs

'hundreds' of jobs once the plant is up and running.

The plan is for Umicore, a Belgian company and will:

"manufacture cathode active materials (CAM) and precursor cathode active materials (pCAM). The components are critical in the production of EV batteries."

"At full production, the plant will produce annual cathode material volumes sufficient to manufacture batteries for one million battery-electric vehicles – almost 20 per cent of all North American EV production at the end of the decade."

The above, from this news release:

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca news.ontario.ca

Edit to add: I have the location, of the new plant, its listed as the corner of County Road 4 and Taylor Kidd Blvd:

1657745585649.png
 
Last edited:
Quite a few jobs for little Napanee, Industrial land in the GTA is getting prohibitively expensive.

Putting NA EV production at 5M by 2020 might be low-balling things. Tesla plans to produce 20M vehicles by then, and probably a quarter of those will be for the NA market. Surely companies other than Tesla will manufacture EVs in North America.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top