How Samsung became an Ontario election flashpoint

by Karen Howlett & Renata D’Aliesio, Globe and Mail
It was supposed to end all the criticism about a “sweetheart, backroom” deal. In August, when the Liberal campaign team was calling the shots on all major decisions, the Ontario government suddenly released a cornerstone green energy deal signed 19 months earlier with South Korean industrial giant Samsung Group, slashing $327-million in taxpayer-funded incentives in one fell swoop. Read article

14 thoughts on “How Samsung became an Ontario election flashpoint

  1. I feel a lot better about this Samsung deal know that George Smitherman was involved in putting it together after he finalized the details on the E-Health portfolio disaster !!

  2. I will never buy anything labeled Samsung. Korea can keep there cheap labor to themselves. Yep. Never liked Hyundai or Kia. Only my opinion

  3. Posted on G&M:

    2 years of silence and now we have an election 1 week away with half the province not knowing about it or not being able to find out about this huge and costly scandal before they mark their ballot.

    I suppose one can say better late than never but wish the media were more on board from the beginning when the warnings were plenty from the rural residents being directly impacted by these bull headed decisions.

    This Samsung deal was made even before the Green Energy Act was SPEEDTRACKED into place to enable implementation and timed with Smitherman receiving the World Wind Energy Award in Korea after having been Energy minister for less than a year.

    Whew! “Transformational” indeed George.

    • makes you wonder doesn’t it ?
      who put these guys in office and why in the first place.
      You don’t wake up one morning and say..lets adopt cap and trade and go for IWTs.

  4. A new German study finds that solar subsidies make no sense:

    “Prof. Dr. André Schmidt has drawn a harsh conclusion on the German EEG feed-in laws for renewable energies.

    In his study of the economic and ecological impacts of the EEG Feed-in Act for favouring renewable energies for the Federal Office of Research, Prof. Dr. André Schmidt, economist at the University of Witten/Herdecke, has reached a devastating conclusion: they are counter-productive!”

  5. McGuinty’s back-pedalling downhill on his disasterous Green Energy Act is going to cost $ BILLIONS…..Wind power firm Trillium files $2.25 billion lawsuit against Liberals Government….add that to the “cancellation charges for two gas plants, the $775 million NAFTA challenge of the GEA by T. Boone Pickens, the WTO challenges from Japan and the EU, and the $20 billion Samsung contract, and pretty soon we’ll be talking real money.” (lynd57)….We can’t afford McGuinty’s Crony Crapitalism…..Vote him out of Office….

  6. Like the Toronto Star, the Globe does readers a disservice by mentioning the economic adder incentive but not the real cost to consumers — $ 800 million per YEAR.

    The other remarkable thing is the jobs number. The surest sign that the 50,000 number is total BS is that it never changes. It’s even been boiled down to a metric of about 6 1/2 jobs per MW of incremental planned renewables.

    ~ 7,800 MW (total by 2018) and 50,000 jobs = 6.4 jobs/MW

    2,500 MW (Samsung) and 16,000 jobs = 6.4 jobs/MW

    The bureaucrats and Liberal operatives involved in the energy file must all be walking around with the number 6.4 written on their palms and/or eyelids … they just have to remember to multiply or divide.

    The likelihood of the jobs-created number being real is very low, certainly on a sustained basis. Even if it’s proven to be true, they should keep in mind that given that a lot of the money flies out of the province/country, the local jobs-destroyed number will eventually surpass the jobs created.

    • Bruce, I see your point, but I thought the article did a nice job on the impetus for the contract, and noting the people involved (a provincial social democrat politician and Suzuki).
      My first reference, when posting on the Globe article as Cold Air, was to Aegent:
      but …
      I’ve argued on my blog that the NRR’s of the CCGT plants really should be accounted for as a cost of renewables. That would push your estimate up quite substantially.

      • Good points Scott about how they did position the article, though I would point out that the only numbers they used referenced the reduced incentive. I’m a bit of a numbers guy, so that’s my bias. As for the gas plant capacity costs being added to renewables, you won’t get any argument from me. Some of Aegent’s previous analyses have costed in something like 0.15 – 0.25 MW of NG for each MW of wind, while our more recent wind vs. nuclear showed that if you want to provide a base load resource, one’d better have 1 MW of NG for each MW of wind. A very conservative NG NRR of $ 100,000 per year and a wind capacity factor of 30% would add $ 38/MWh to all the wind energy.

    • There is a whole lot of talk about all the jobs the Samsung deal will produce but nothing is said about how much these jobs will pay per hour. If these are such good paying jobs then why is this information being kept secret? Don’t want this information out until after the election?

  7. they don’t say where the jobs are , do they?
    And you have to admit there are a lot of eco /advertising organizations all over the province working to sell you on McGuinty’s direction…………we can’t discount those jobs.
    So jobs have certainly been created..

  8. ABC News has an in-depth look at the links between Obama fundraisers and the green energy companies receiving federal money.

    Rush Limbaugh’s take on the matter is that the money given to some green energy ventures is a slush fund.

    “Follow the money, and it all ends up in two places: Back in the pockets of those who donated and raised money for Obama and in Democrat Party campaign coffers.”

    Time will tell if he is correct.

Comments are closed.