OPA backs down on microFIT pricing

© AgMedia Inc.

Original 80.2 cent/kW price back in place for applications made before July 2 and deadline for hookup is extended to May 31, 2011

Comments

A pyrrhic victory is often described as a victory at a staggering cost to the victor - and implies that another such victory would eventually spell defeat for the victor.

The belief in the farm community that a return to 20 year contracts for highly-subsidized electricity, is either good public policy, or in the best interests of agriculture, shows the farm community as being vain, petty, greedy, and extremely short-sighted.

Nothing good is going to come from a flip-flop on a flip-flop on what was bad public policy in the first place.

I'm not overly enthusiastic about the micro fit program and we didn't very seriously even consider applying ourselves. However you, and frankly most other critics, are not being entirely reasonable about the cost of electrical generation. We generate electricity from a whole range of energy sources. Some of those sources were built long ago and have very small operational cost, hydro electric being a good example. If we are consider expansion of our existing generation system to meet future demand then the cost comparison to solar needs to be what is the x plus 1 unit of electricity costing to generate. It is near certain that the x plus 1 unit is going to cost more than the existing power being generated. We've plucked the low hanging fruit and there isn't another Niagara Falls that we forgot to tap into. Coal is considered too dirty/carbon intensive to expand and is slated for replacement, Nuclear is perhaps the only option with the needed scale but is in 2010 incredibly capital intensive, so we are left with chioces all of which will be more expensive than what is currently being utilized.

To be fair solar proponents are quick to point out the few occasions when we are forced to buy peak electricty at a cost over $1.00 a kwh which as a fraction of overall power consumption is rather small but if we are to make good decisions about energy issues neither extreme is particularly useful.

Your arguments might have some credibility if the price of electricity was ten cents, and we were paying an 18-month premium of twenty cents.

The entire point of the matter is that farm groups, and too many farmers, are willing to believe that paying 8 times market price for 20 years is somehow good economics and business, as well as being fair to both consumers and taxpayers - and there's no amount of mitigating factors which could ever justify that type of premium.

The entire micro-fit saga is ample proof that farmers would believe in the easter bunny if he/she promised them the same obscenely high returns for something which also defied both economic, and business logic. But then again, just look at the number of famers who are/were so easily swayed by the illogical arguments underpinning both Pigeon King and supply management.

Congratulations and many thanks to OFA for their efforts in reversing a bad decision. Thanks to OPA for manning up to their mistake and making this right. And thanks to all who protested and influenced the results.

The only bad decision was the original decision by OPA to give people 20 year contracts paying them to produce something costing many times what it is worth at retail. It's hard to determine who are the greater fools in this tragedy, the OPA for ignoring sound business priciples, or the OFA for not being able to see the economic forest for the pricing trees.

The OFA will pay a heavy price for this type of irresponsible advocacy.

---ofa seems too wantfarmers too make there money from turbines,solar,ethanol--screw the livestock guys , unless you are in supply managed commodities or grains OFA and gov't could care less about you

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that if the tables were turned, and it wasn't farmers largely on the receiving end of what can only be described as a lavish consumer and taxpayer subsidy to produce electricity, the OFA and every other farm group, would be screaming blue murder.

Farmers, and farm groups, are really good at whining about having to pay anything extra to support anyone else, but when farmers are on the receiving end, we neatly, and completely, forget all the arguments we use when the shoe is on the other foot.

Livestock farmers have a right to feel bitter about their very heavy losses. But it is all too easy to blame other sectors, farm organizations, politicians and government. If these same livestock farmers would have had their acts together over the years, perhaps they could have had helpful programs. Grain farmers have RMP because right from the start they realized CAIS wouldn't work for them, designed a program and lobbied like hell for a long time to get it done. Another example is Crop Insurance. Years ago when the governments brought out the CAIS program, they changed the name of Crop Insurance to Production Insurance in anticipation that soon production insurance would be developed for all sectors. That's never happened. Livestock guys can look in the mirror to find someone to blame. Neither OFA, nor SM5,nor governments, nor grain farmers can save the livestock guys from themselves.

It has now come out that those companies leasing the land will not be covered in this reversal. Once again the OFA sides with those with big money that can float the kind of loan it would take to pay for this fiasco. I wish I could be paid well more than the retail price for my cattle and then have the processors (consumers) eat the loss.

OFA's presidential election 2010 will it produce useful tangible results?

Quota HistoryHere is the past twelve months of quota history:

Dairy: Layer: Pullets: Broiler: Turkey: Breeders:
Mar. 2010 $25,000.00 $200.00 $9.00 $85.00 $2.80 $200.00
Jan. 2010 $25,000.00 $200.00 $9.00 $80.00 $2.80 $165.00
Oct. 2009 $25,200.00 $180.00 $9.00 $78.00 $2.80 $158.00
Jul. 2009 $25,500.00 $175.00 $8.00 $75.00 $2.80 $158.00
Mar. 2009 $30,610.00 $165.00 $8.00 $72.00 $2.50 $152.00
Jan. 2009 $30,610.00 $162.00 $8.00 $64.00 $2.50 $152.00
Nov. 2008 $30,310.00 $148.00 $9.00 $62.00 $2.50 $152.00
Sep. 2008 $30,651.00 $148.00 $9.00 $59.00 $2.50 $148.00
Aug. 2008 $33,115.00 $148.00 $9.00 $59.00 $2.50 $148.00
Jul. 2008 $33,805.00 $148.00 $9.00 $59.00 $2.65 $142.00
Jun. 2008 $33,235.00 $153.00 $9.00 $58.50 $2.65 $150.00
May. 2008 $32,405.00 $153.00 $9.00 $59.00 $2.65 $140.00

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.