Power Hungry

Twenty-two years ago this week (July 1988) I built a deck. I remember it vividly because it was an extremely hot and humid July week, even hotter than we are experiencing this week in the GTA. When I showed the deck to one of my work friends he commented that it was "overbuilt". I had used three nails where two would have sufficed, two bolts where one was adequate. The deck was solid, it still is. Now twenty-years later the pressure-treated wood has held up, and there are no squeaks, no weak areas, not yet anyway. I mention this because I'm certain their must be an engineering principle that requires infrastructure to be built beyond adequate tolerances, to be able to withstand unusual loads, stresses and demands.
Yesterday afternoon on the hottest day in more than two years a transformer fire caused a major  blackout in a large portion of downtown and western Toronto. Yet another disruption in the life of Canada's biggest city that has economic ramifications for the entire region.
It took hours to get everything back up to normal but my first thoughts turned to Ontario's electrical production and is it able to cope with the unforeseen stresses that are inevitable? Is the grid "overbuilt" like any well engineered system should be? I don't think it is.
The lead editorial in today's Globe and Mail implies there is a problem with Ontario's electrical grid and production but it doesn't go far enough in pointing to a solution. Should the planning and production of electricity be left to the central planners at Queen's Park? Can central planners keep up with consumer demand for electricity? Should we trust central planners with the production of electricity? My simple answers are no, no, and no.
There are no truly free markets in the production of any form of consumable energy. There are onerous governmental regulations in oil, natural gas and electrical production, but while oil and gas production and distribution is taxed heavily, consumer prices do fluctuate based on supply and demand. Supply will be there when demand occurs. Not true with electricity, government sets the price and lately has made some questionable and uncompetitive deals with producers based on a slew of false assumptions. The problem is none of those assumptions involve your future demand for electricity and you should be concerned.

Going Green and paying for it

In recent weeks many of the residents of Markham and Unionville that subscribe to the equal payment plan (EPP) to pay their electric bill have received notice of increases to monthly bills from the electricity provider PowerStream.  Increases for most households will be 25 to 100% starting June 2010. Naturally the notice did not give reasons but a subsequent letter explained the increases after PowerStream was inundated with complaints. A story in the Markham Economist at the end of May (Energy Bills Skyrocket) explained some of the reasons. One of the reasons was a scheduled 12% hike in the regulated electricity costs set by the Ontario Energy Board. That is just the beginning, those rates will continue to go up as Ontario closes cheap coal fired electric power plants and replaces them with new "green" solar and wind power electric plants. This recent article in MACLEAN'S outlines Ontario's rush to be green.
Below is a letter to the editor of the Markham Economist from June 19, 2010, (click to enlarge) stating my views on the rush to be green and beside it the letter as sent in easier to read format.

Re: Perfect storm hikes bills, May 29

To the Editor,

It has been fascinating to read the differences in equal billing charges levied by our electric utility PowerStream in Markham to some residents.

When I received notice from PowerStream that my monthly equal billings payments were going up 23% I was incensed, and called then emailed the utility. But my rates are going from $111 to $136; a far cry from the EBP rates some of your readers (even though I’m in a 4 bedroom two story house). The difference in rates is instructive; residents do have some control over their EBP rates, simply cut back on usage.  The utility charges according to usage, and that will be even more important when Smart Meter time-of-use rates are implemented soon.

PowerStream is not the villain in this story; it simply distributes electricity for its three municipal shareholders Vaughan, Markham and Barrie. The real villain is the McGuinty government and its rush to be green at all costs – mostly yours.

Over 100 years ago competitive cheap hydroelectric power became widely available here and Ontario became the industrial dynamo of Canada. We still benefit from that very good start but today rather than encourage a competitive market in the production of cheap electricity the McGuinty Liberals are doing the opposite. They have made long-term deals with various companies to purchase power at rates far in excess of the 4.5-cent per kilowatt-hour market rate (a 100 watt light bulb could run for 10 hours for 4.5 cents). In fact Ontario will be forced to buy electricity at between 13.5 and 44.3-cents per kilowatt-hour for the next twenty years from various solar and wind power companies. Remember, each of these are intermittent power sources (no sun/wind no power), so “back-up” fossil fuel sources will be standing by (at additional cost because McGuinty is closing the cheap coal burning plants). Is it possible to find a more expensive way to produce electricity than McGuinty has? Imagine what kind of competitive position this creates for Ontario businesses for the next 100 years.

Oh, I forgot, the new HST will add an additional 8% to your electric bill in two weeks. So it is no wonder PowerStream is increasing our rates, that is just the beginning. Don’t waste your time calling PowerStream, call or write Michael Chan your Liberal MPP and let him know your thoughts.

Allen Small

Markham is at a crossroads

The column below appeared in the Markham Economist and Sun opinion page on Thursday, April 29, 2010. 

Markham has been one of the fastest growing municipalities in North America and some politicians and residents have decided that this growth and prosperity is somehow detrimental to residents and their way of life. So lobby groups have formed and they have recruited politicians and environmentalists (see below) to force their views on the rest of us.  (click to see entire article)

I sent a letter to the editor of the Economist and Sun and it was published (below left) on May 8, 2010. The actual letter as written is clearer below right.

 Re: Markham at crossroads: to sprawl or protect, Apr. 29

I carefully read and re-read the column by David Suzuki and Faisal Moola of the Suzuki Foundation. Nowhere in the piece was there mention of concepts like property rights and private ownership and freedom to dispose of property.

There was a blanket statement in the article that described “an extraordinary new path…..limiting all future growth to further development in areas already built up”. This was followed by:

“This visionary proposal is aimed at protecting the town’s remaining farms, fields and forests, known as the white belt, as a foodbelt that would be out of reach of future development.” Does this mean that those farmers who own this property, in some families for generations, will not be able to sell the property on the open market for a fair price? That is exactly what it means; they are out of luck, too bad for them.

Like many in Markham, my family enjoys locally grown food when it is briefly available, but the bulk of our food, produce and meat come from far off shores and at lower prices. I doubt that local farmers can sustain a living for their efforts why would they? Their chance to escape the farm and reap profits from the sale of their valuable land is about to be thwarted by environmental and political bullies.

What alternatives do Suzuki and our politicians offer? Densification, the creation of urban high-rise ghettos and massive townhouse complexes “preventing urban sprawl onto agricultural lands….using the principles of smart growth” a concept that has already been dismissed in large parts of the United States where much better agricultural conditions exist. “Smart growth” is a euphemism for coerced growth. If land use is restricted in Markham, what happens to available property values? Of course property values increase, good for me, maybe good for you but what about our children, will they be able to escape the expensive high-rise ghettos?

Suzuki and Moola offer that “critical ecological services” will be provided if Markham preserves its green spaces. Habitat for wildlife, songbirds, wildflowers and the economically important “flying $50 bills” called bees will have freedom to grow and roam in Markham, but not people. Is it possible that these benefits may still exist in an urban or suburban environment? I think they can, I’m prepared to tell Suzuki and those politicians where to get off. Are you? 

The Ward 3 By-Election

I was at an All Candidates meeting on November 13th for the Ward 3 By-Election. Either there was a huge turnout or the room was way too small at the Varley Art Gallery on Main Street in Unionville. It was a large crowd and that left me with the impression people are becoming more concerned than ever with local government. My wife commented that eight candidates each with their own supporters would cause the crowd to swell, maybe. Just over a year ago during the most recent federal election the All-Candidates meetings in Markham-Unionville drew far smaller crowds, so something is going on. It may be the hated “traffic-calming” bumps on Carlton Road and Village Parkway, the proposed new development for Highway 7 and Warden or the traffic gridlock faced by many residents each day. Whatever the reason, this was not an apathetic crowd.


When the Ward 3 By-Election was announced in September, I briefly thought about becoming a candidate. Soon I realized how complex the issues are at the local level, far more complex than either the federal or provincial level. Municipal politics are impacted by each of the government layers above it; the Region, the Province and the Feds. Add to that a $100 deposit to register, only returned if the candidate garners 2% of the vote, plus the additional cost of signs, literature and effort, and I changed my view after I saw that 9 candidates had registered by the October 9th deadline. Elections are expensive and candidates had better have deep pockets or have lots of generous supporters. That became an issue at this All-Candidates meeting. Accusations flew back and forth about who was accepting money from developers and how that might influence their decisions if elected to council. The truth is, the $750 maximum donation from any given donor, is not a huge sum and probably not enough to sway an elected councilor with a smidgeon of integrity. But I do wonder why the developers donate this money; I doubt that they are suffering from altruism.

The problem of course is that politics at any level is too much about influence and money and the money trail is easiest to follow at the municipal level where there are no obvious party entanglements, just the single candidate. Many of the candidate’s promises tossed back and forth during this meeting involved securing financial support from other levels of government, the Province and the Feds to improve services for residents of Ward 3. I guess people forget that they are also the taxpayers for each of the other layers of government, either that or they are eager to have someone else pay for their desired project or service. One of the candidates promised he would create a homeless pet shelter within the Ward. Just what I need, I don’t have or want a pet, I’m generally annoyed by the dog and cat owners in my neighbourhood and someone wants my taxes to pay for irresponsible people who create homeless animals. Give me a break. This issue like many others should be handled by voluntary charity and is not a function of government at any level. Many candidates were annoyed with developers wanting to capitalize on their land holdings within the ward. These candidates, supported by many of the local special interest groups (like URA that sponsored this meeting), promised to restrict the height of buildings and scrutinize the architecture against some arbitrary vision of what’s proper for Unionville. Why would anyone want to be a developer in this Ward? Imagine if several developers simultaneously sold their properties to relocate to other more competitive towns and cities. What would that do to property values here?

My family has lived in Ward 3 for 34 years, since Ward 3 and environs was semi-rural. Local shopping was virtually nonexistent, the nearest secondary school was Markham Secondary, and there were no malls in Markham, no Community Centres nearby, just a small neighbourhoods, people and pastures. The developers came, the infrastructure came, business people came, the town grew and my property values went up. Unionville became one of the most desirable communities in Canada, maybe North America. That was no accident; we should be welcoming growth, renewal and development not choking it off with arbitrary by-laws, red tape and bureaucracy. A town is like an organism, if it stops growing and renewing itself it starts dying.