by SUSAN MANN
Farmers who applied before noon July 2 to supply electricity through ground-mounted solar projects will get the original price of 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour even if they haven’t received a conditional offer or contract, the Ontario government announced today.
The announcement from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and the provincial Energy and Infrastructure Ministry comes after massive opposition to the Authority’s proposal earlier this summer to retroactively impose a price of 58.8 cents per kWh for ground-mounted solar projects under the micro feed-in-tariff (microFIT) program. The price for eligible ground-mounted solar applicants submitted after noon on July 2 will be 64.2 cents per kWh. For roof top solar projects in the microFIT program the price remains at 80.2 cents per kWh.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is pleased with the OPA’s announcement, says vice-president Don McCabe. “It illustrates they’ve heard the concerns raised by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in spades.”
The Federation, other farm groups, organizations and rural property owners urged the government to honour the original promised price of 80.2 cents a kWh for ground-mounted solar projects.
People submitting applications before noon on July 2 have until May 31, 2011 to install and request a connection for their projects before higher domestic content requirements come into place.
“The (64.2 cents per kWh) price strikes the right balance between providing a reasonable rate of return to electricity generators and protecting ratepayers from higher than necessary electricity prices,” says an OPA press release.
The OPA also notes the finalized price reflects input received during the consultation process and incorporates a wider variation of cost inputs and project configurations including higher operating and maintenance costs for ground-mounted tracking systems.
The OPA says it received 1,645 written submissions and 1,665 participants took part in three web-enabled teleconferences. Many people urged the government to cut the original price retroactively. Many also agreed 80.2 cents was too high for the new ground mounted category but 58.8 cents was too low, a spokesman for Energy and Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid says.
Along with the pricing announcement the OPA says it’s setting up a microFIT advisory panel to give advice on program evaluation. The OFA’s McCabe is on the advisory panel.
McCabe says all of the Federations’ 38,000 members are energy users and not all of them are energy providers. “My presence on this committee is to make sure as we move forward. We’re always finding equitable returns for folks who want to be pioneers in this industry” coupled with ensuring electricity rates are the lowest possible so farmers remain competitive.
The OPA is hosting a webinar on Aug. 18 from 2-4 p.m. to answer questions about the finalized price and advisory panel. Details are on the OPA web site at: www.powerauthority.on.ca . BF
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