Why bother selling furniture? Just take our tax money

Each year, IKEA will receive $684,408 under Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green energy monster–for power that today retails for about $115,000.

by Terence Corcoran, Financial Post

The Swedish retail giant IKEA announced Thursday it will invest $4.6-million to install 3,790 solar panels on three Toronto area stores, giving IKEA the electric-power-producing capacity of 960,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. According to IKEA, that’s enough electricity to power 100 homes. Amazing development. Even more amazing is the economics of this project. Under the Ontario government’s feed-intariff solar power scheme, IKEA will receive 71.3¢ for each kilowatt of power produced, which works out to about $6,800 a year for each of the 100 hypothetical homes. Since the average Toronto home currently pays about $1,200 for the same quantity of electricity, that implies that IKEA is being overpaid by $5,400 per home equivalent.

Welcome to the wonderful world of green economics and the magical business of carbon emission reduction. Each year, IKEA will receive $684,408 under Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green energy monster–for power that today retails for about $115,000. At that rate, IKEA will recoup $4.6-million in less than seven years–not bad for an investment that can be amortized over 20.

No wonder solar power is such a hot industry. No wonder, too, that the province of Ontario is in a headlong rush into a likely economic crisis brought on skyrocketing electricity prices. To make up the money paid to IKEA to promote itself as a carbon-free zone, Ontario consumers and industries are on their way to experiencing the highest electricity rates in North America, if not most of the world.

The government’s regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, has prepared secret forecasts of how much Ontario consumers are going to have to pay for electricity over the next five years. The government won’t allow the report to be released. The next best estimate comes from Aegency Energy Advisors Inc., in a study it did for the Canadian Manufactures and Exporters group. Residential rates are expected to jump by 60% between 2010 and 2015. Industrial customers will be looking at a 55% increase. (See graphic.)

Going back to 2003, based on numbers dug up by consultant Tom Adams, the price of residential electricity in Ontario hovered around 8.5¢ a kWh in 2003 — the first year of the McGuinty Liberal regime. By 2015, Aegency Energy estimates the price will be up to 21¢, an increase of 135%. Doubling the price of electricity in a decade is no way to spur growth and investment. In this age of global economic competition IKEA may end up with fewer sales of its Billy bookshelves in Toronto because its customers will be bogged down with soaring power bills and a sliding economy.

Almost all of these increases are due to green energy activism brought on by George Smitherman, the former Ontario energy minister now running for mayor of Toronto on the claim that his Green Energy Act is not responsible for rising prices.

There are probably some holes that can be picked in the Aegency Energy numbers in the graph, but they are not likely to make that much of a difference. If the OEB has better numbers that disprove the Aegency report, then let’s see them. In the meantime, Aegency is all we have and their report was an eye-opener when it was released back in August — for everybody except Premier McGuinty, his Energy Minister, green activists and Mr. Smitherman.

Mr. Smitherman is the godfather of the Ontario Green Energy Act and the feed-intariff scheme that will transfer billions of dollars out of consumer pockets and into the hands of subsidized solar and wind power producers and government corporations. He likes to blame rising electricity prices on the province’s new HST and the failure of previous governments to maintain infrastructure. The numbers in the Aegency Energy report make it clear that Mr. Smitherman is running on a dead battery.

The full scale of Ontario’s green energy spending extravaganza is hard to convey in a few words, but here’s a list of the increases in dollar spending Ontario’s electricity consumers will have to bear during 2015, in millions of dollars:

Feed-in-tariff $3,848

Renewable energy $330

Renewables — other $96

Bruce Power $74

Bruce Power new $461

Ontario Power Generation $237

Natural gas $192

Non-utility generation $170

Conservation $267

Transmission $1,012

Distribution (non-green) $293

Distribution (green energy) $759

TOTAL 2015 COSTS $7,739

Each line item is a story in itself, although nothing beats the feed-in tariff as a cost to consumers and industry. At $3.8-billion in 2015 alone, it’s the price of keeping IKEA and the other solar and wind producers in green stuff. To get solar and wind to consumers, and fulfill other Green Energy Act requirements, will also force the province’s transmission and distribution companies to increase spending by another $1-billion.

All those costs and spending (which total more than $21-billion between 2010 and 2015) will add little to Ontario’s electricity inventory. Through that time period, total electricity demand in Ontario is expected to remain relatively flat. By 2015, in other words, Ontarians will likely be consuming the same amount of electricity as they are today but paying twice as much as they were in 2003.

There is even a prospect that Ontario will generate additional surplus electricity that will have to be exported to the United States, essentially subsidizing U.S. consumption. Tom Adams adds that the latest U.S. electricity forecasts suggest U. S prices will remain stable. Price are lower this year and are expected to increase next year by 2.4%. Ontario, meanwhile, is looking at average gains of 9.7%. “We’re heading toward European prices,” he said.

The supposed objective of all this is to reduce carbon emissions and offset the mandated closure of Ontario’s coal plants. But the Green Energy Act reaches way beyond offsetting coal. It aims to reduce Ontario carbon emissions, although no targets have been set.

According to Aegency Energy’s calculations, the cost of power produced by IKEA solar panels at 71.3¢ will reduce carbon emissions at a cost of $1,384 a tonne if there is a corresponding reduction in Ontario’s need for gas-fired electricity production. That number compares with official national and international carbon tax ideas involving maybe $25 a tonne or, at the extreme, $200 a tonne.

Average per-capita carbon emissions in Ontario are said to be about 15 tonnes. The government’s schemes suggest that reducing Ontario carbon emissions by say 20% to 12 tonnes would cost $5,000 per person or upwards of $15,000 per household per year. That’s a lot of Billy shelving.

9 thoughts on “Why bother selling furniture? Just take our tax money

  1. Signed contract to sell at 71 what you buy at 7

    START THE CAR
    START THE CAR
    START ….

  2. I wonder who will be able to afford to buy IKEA Furniture for a pup tent?….because that’s where Rural Ontario will be living after this idiotic scheme is completed!………maybe IKEA will rent out their display rooms at night for “homeless Citizens Of Ontario”

  3. Isn’t the capacity issue important (and ignored) again? IKEA says 960,000kw of power which will serve 100 homes, but we know solar at best can do 25%. So, doesn’t that mean the Ontario government is paying $600,000+ a year for electricity for just 25 homes? That’s $24,000 a house!

  4. NGWT:

    Here is the formula…

    960,000 = # of Panels X Watts per panel * days per year X hours per day…

    Assuming it is the SANYO HIT Panel which provides 215 Watts, then you get…

    96,000KWH = 297,420,250watts X Hours Production Per day

    Which is about 3.23 hours (Full Power Equivalent)

    And that is how they get 960,000 KWH

    So it is a reasonable guestimate.

    And the system will provide most of that power on sunny days, less on cloudy days and none at night.

    http://www.solarelectricsupply.com/Solar_Panels/Sanyo/HIP-215NKHA5.html

    “HIP-215NKHA5 Photovoltaic Module
    (OR the HIT module)
    Features:
    215 Watt Peak Output
    Cell Efficiency: 19.3%
    Module Efficiency: 17.1%
    5 Year Workmanship Warranty, 20 Year Power Output
    Hybrid mono crystalline silicon with amorphous silicon layers
    Perfect for high-power grid-tie and high-power battery charging
    using a MPPT charge controller.”

    hth

  5. NGWT:

    Of course then I found this release…

    http://ca.sanyo.com/News/SANYO-Solar-Modules-Provide-Renewable-Power-to-Select-IKEA-Stores-in-Canada

    Which says it is the 210A Panels…

    And that would mean they are counting on 3.3 hours of Full Output per day — equivalent.

    The project will support the use of industry-leading conversion efficiency SANYO HIT® Power 210A solar PV modules. The SANYO rooftop PV systems at IKEA stores in Etobicoke, North York and Vaughan together will have a capacity of 750kW, which is the approximate equivalent of what is needed to power 100 average Ontario homes.

    That is at odds with the calculation…
    3790 X 210Watts = 795,900. But it is always better to claim less and maybe the first installation used a lower power panel.

  6. If this nonsense keeps going it won’t only be the Ontario businesses that will be heading for the exits but anyone else who can get out too!!!!

  7. Somebody explain please!!! Is IKEA putting up solar panels to power homes or power their own stores? This article gives one the impression that Ikea is going to sell 100% of their solar power to the grid at 71.3 cents per KWH, yet buy power for their stores at traditional commercial power rates (5-7 cents per KWH plus delivery charges) making a tidy profit. I doubt that this is the case. In reality, Ikea will use most if not all of the solar power generated and very little of the power will be sold to the grid. Ikea will end up paying a huge up front capital cost for this power essentially paying for their power 20 years in advance (the expected life of the solar panels). Then, in 20 years, Ikea will have to pay a large ecco fee to dispose of solar panel toxic waste. The economics and “Greenness” of this project is very questionable.

  8. Wellll…. It’s probably worse than you thought.

    Industrial customers typically pay about 50% of the consumer rate for electrical power — so that would be my first question — what is their rate…

    Now you will be paying in other ways. Since it is an income stream it is easy to finance — at a preferred rate. So they can spread the payments out over ten or fifteen years and start to pocket an income stream immediately. So a bank will be loaning your savings — at a low rate — so that you can be tortured with the noise. That loan will be an expense against income of course, plus they can charge any service contract against income. Now they also likely carry umbrella insurance and maybe even business interruption insurance — in case their little money-make starts to hiccup. Should these beats act up — then everybody will pay additional premiums in the long run.

    Now if you were a banker — would you prefer to lend to IKEA at a low rate — but at low risk — or a bunch of small business who can’t afford their power bills. To me it’s an easy call.

    There is of course another issue which is far from obvious unless you have worked for big companies. Typically managers are paid a bonus based on profitability. Certainly the shareholders reap the benefits. The ownership of IKEA can best be summed up this quote from Wikipedia:

    “Despite its Swedish roots, IKEA is owned and operated by a complicated array of not-for-profit and for-profit corporations.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA

    I admit I have not researched IKEA as much as I would like — for example, I have not looked in detail at any of their business structure — but I will when I find the time.

    As far as “What type of company? Perhaps the charitable giving quote from Wikipedia sums it up:

    “Despite its enormous wealth, the Ingka Foundation does very little charitable giving. Detailed information about its grantmaking is unavailable, as foundations in the Netherlands are not required to publish their records. But IKEA has reported that in 2004–2005, the Ingka Foundation’s donations were concentrated on the Lund Institute of Technology in Sweden, and the Lund Institute reported the receipt of $1.7 million grants from the foundation during both of those years.”

    I’m moving to the Dutch Antilles — lot’s of cheap furniture — lots of sun!

    Heck of a deal!

Comments are closed.