IESO curtailment update

On January 3, 2013, Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (“IESO”) published amendments to the Market Rules that authorize the IESO to dispatch certain renewable generators in Ontario. Dispatch means to turn on and off as electricity demand from consumers or ‘the grid’ requires. The Ontario Power Authority (“OPA”) is currently re-negotiating (now completed, Sept 2013) approximately 50 power purchase agreements (PPA) with certain affected renewable generators. At present, the OPA’s proposed compensation model is to compensate these renewable generators for any curtailment above specified contractual caps. This means pay wind and solar to not produce electricity. Read more here

IESO Improvements Help Transition to More Sustainable Supply Mix: 18-Month Outlook
September 3, 2013
Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) will mark a major milestone with the introduction of a new dispatch tool for all grid-connected wind resources. Previously wind and solar could only be shut off by the IESO in emergency situations. The ability to dispatch wind, scheduled to take effect September 11, 2013. 9-11? Why did the IESO choose that particular date? The dispatch will apply to 1,725 MW of existing transmission-connected wind resources as well as an estimated 3,000 MW of transmission-connected wind and 280 MW of transmission- connected solar expected to come into service over the next 18 months. They are already having problems dealing with the type of output from 1200 turbines, 1725MegaWatts and yet the provincial government is still going ahead with plans to add 1500 more turbines in the next 18 months. And then even more after that.

Transmission-connected wind is the large 10 to 100 turbines sites. Distribution-based wind is the smaller 5 turbine sites that are tied into the local power lines. Read more at IESO

57 thoughts on “IESO curtailment update

  1. any thing under 10MW is private info and not available to the public, or so I have been told

    • Windsor Star, April 15,2013
      “Enwin audit triggers more questions”
      “in submitting its ‘Internal Audit Review of EnWin” to CAO Helga Reidel last week, PwC cautions in an appendix to the report that ‘this engagement does not constitute an audit in accordance with the Canadian Auditing Standards (under the) Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.”
      THIS IS A BIG RED FLAG statement.

      • ‘[excerpt In its first assignment, PwC was tasked with taking a deeper look at four areas of the Enwin utility group’s operations — executive and board compensation, board attendance, credit card usage and the level of annual dividends Enwin pays the city.

        Without much, if any, detail, the PwC report going to city council on Monday advises that Enwin’s dividend payments to the city and its executive and board member compensation levels are consistent with those paid by other Ontario local distribution companies. Board and committee attendance records are up to date and “payments are accurate,” PwC reports, and, finally, there is no corporate credit card usage among Enwin executives.

        “We have to pay $32,000 to find that out? I’m very disappointed,” said Halberstadt,
        Ratepayers are still left guessing at the amounts that Enwin executives are actually paid, said Halberstadt. He said he still doesn’t know whether board members are paid for meetings they miss or if they’re paid the same amount if the meeting lasts mere minutes.

        “Basically, all it says is they’re following policies,” Halberstadt said of the overall report.

        Mayor Eddie Francis, who sits on all three Enwin boards — chairing two of them, including that of the umbrella company Windsor Canada Utilities Ltd. — said the audit addresses, and hopefully puts to rest, some of the “wild allegations” of improprieties levied by critics like Halberstadt.

        “From the very beginning, I’ve always said Enwin is heavily regulated,” Francis said, adding he wanted Enwin to be PwC’s first target due to “the cloud of suspicion” raised by some.

        The audit, he added, “clearly shows” there is “nothing wrong” with Enwin’s operations and that they are consistent with those of other Ontario municipal utilities companies.

        But even the board chairman questions the dearth of information and lack of detail in the PwC report.’

      • ‘[excerpt] Without much, if any, detail, the PwC report going to city council’

        It’s Windsor!

      • They can see ‘bankrupt’ Detroit – from Windsor.

      • This was NOT a financial audit but just an operations review. A complete financial audit would reveal where the money comes from and to where and to whom it goes to.
        This should not be such a big deal to do as Enwin is not a manufacturing company where for example inventory audits have to be done and etc.
        Enwin is a distribution company that buys what it sells from the government and then resells to consumers but does supply the infrastructue for this operation.

      • when I contacted to IESO, but I also knew this from when we started this fight. The under 10MW was considered small wind and they didn’t have to report. That’s why there are so many small projects including the ones with the ugly green bottoms.

      • Maybe if you can locate this in the law or regulations it might be possible to find out who put this into the regulations.
        Clever way around this situation.
        Is there any paperwork on the Enwin arrangement?
        Can also push for a complete audit of Enwin by independent outside auditors with full public disclosure of the results.

      • Here is one reference:

        Page 32:

        Throughout 2004 OSEA proposed Standard Offer Contracts for projects less than 10 MW in size. For OSEA, this size acted as a surrogate for small, locally-directed wind projects that could take full advantage of the benefits that distributed renewable generation can provide. We believe this remains true today. Other considerations
        To maximize the benefits of distributed generation, projects must be connected to distribution voltages of 44 kV or less. The Independent Market Operator considers projects less than 10 MW embedded generation and doesn’t need to register with the Independent Market Operator (IMO). Limiting project size to less than 10 MW also simplifies settlement procedures with Hydro One or Local Distribution Companies (LDCs).
        Nevertheless, a project size cap of 10 MW will restrict local developers with the capability of building projects of 20 MW or more and who have the acumen needed to apply for an
        IMO generator license. Public opinion surveys for Sustainable Energy Ireland, a state-funded agency, found that acceptance

        yadda yadda yadda

      • And here:

        Reduction in Connection Assessment Requirements for Embedded Generation
        March 5, 2009

        The IESO is modifying its approval process for Local Distribution Companies (LDC) which have significant amounts of generation connected to their distribution systems in order to continue to streamline the approvals required.

        Previously an LDC would have had to apply through the Connection Assessment and Approval Process when embedded generation would have resulted in a 10 MW or greater injection into the grid. Effective immediately, the IESO will no longer require LDCs to follow the Connection Assessment and Approval process for transformer stations with potential reversed power flow into the grid.

        In order to meet its reliability obligations, the IESO will collect relevant embedded generation data from LDCs, perform periodic assessments of the impact on reliability on a zone by zone basis, and work closely with the transmitters to identify mitigating transmission solutions. This new approach was presented on February 10 at a stakeholder meeting regarding embedded generation (SE-57). More information on the embedded generation stakeholder engagement plan can be found at:

        Youse guys are gonna halfta learn howta use Gooogle…

      • Page 5:

        onTario WinD enerGy caPaciTy
        anD ouTPuT 2006-2013
        While Ontario’s wind output capacity has increased steadily over the last number of years, the need to manage the variability of this energy resource has also grown.
        While the highest hourly output for 2009 was 989 MW on October 31, the lowest was just 1 MW on August 13. Ontario wind output data is updated hourly on the IESO
        website at
        Chart does not include wind capacity embedded in distribution
        systems (currently 68 MW).

        • Actual data as of October 31, 2009

        That’s the way it copied out…

      • And a complete Enwin financial audit would reveal how much renewable energy they are getting, who gets paid for this and how much is paid.

      • Will, I sort of remember all that, but it was a long time ago, you know around these less than 10MW, there are now lots of outages and Hydro one blames them on birds and squirrels!

      • Yep! Clear day with no wind and the power goes off. Like a 3rd world country.

      • It’s possible that this less than 10MW was the work of ministry employees but much more likely the work of lobbyists.
        Much easier to spot this in tax laws as often it only needs a sentence or even a phrase inserted in tax codes to favour a single company.

      • Barbara:

        It seems to have been done in the belief that there really would be a community uprising of people just ready to take on Wind Power. Instead it became the back door for huge multinational banks and power companies.

        Then they found the front door had been left wide open anyway — so they made bigger deals.

        Some of the clowns at OSEA and E.D (Rick Smith — somehow the name seems appropriate (E.D. I mean) ) still seem to live in a fantasy world where farmers by $3.5M wind turbines… — a few even.

        Yah gotta wonder.

        The 2009 implementation of this “fantasy policy” was before my time. I really did have to do 10 minutes of digging to find out. I had heard it mentioned — but not so much is done this way — or is it? Like Solar Power the numbers are “Super Secret” — because I presume they are so embarrassingly pathetic — and would show up the bad judgment of our politicians. Just sayin’

      • Just another means of getting the developers in when individuals and small local governments discover they can’t handle IWTs and need partners with deep pockets.
        Then they lose control of ownership as the price to stay in the game or are forced to sell.

      • “Full Disclosure”?

        www dot powerauthority dot

        This is how the Ontario Power Authority perceived the situation on May 13, 2008:
        “[excerpt] Some larger projects divided up to qualify for RESOP contracts

        “Moving RESOP Forward
        • Consistent with its goals, key proposed improvements to address
        challenges moving forward
        – Ensure fair and efficient allocation by setting proponent limits:
        • No more than 10 MW of projects per proponent per Transformer

        www dot
        “[excerpt] Here are some of the things we’ve learned over the past year:
        “1. Some larger projects have divided up to qualify for RESOP contracts. That’s not the intention of this program…”

        “2. The proposed changes… are all going in the wrong direction and will create more opportunities for “gaming,” not less…”

      • Shocked and Disgusted, the RESOP was a bad idea, Moe and this group in 2008 did lots of complaints to the gov’t about it. Also there were complaints about some ground mount solar panels getting rooftop prices, the people who knew the right people, if you get my drift. Moe and out group were the ones to original point that out, mind you the NDP are taking credit for changing that

      • Brenda, what many dont know is that if a busines needs to run a continuous production line to produce a product then any power disruption can spoil the product. Even for just a monent that can stop the product processing.
        So business that require continuous power can’t operate in areas where there are power disruptions unless they have backup power for their equipment.
        But too many people don’t have brains enough to understand this including those at QP.
        Backup power supplied by business requires extra investments and adds to product costs thus making their products more expensive.

    • It’s not unusual to find exemptions to laws that were obtained by those who had or have influence.
      Tax laws are good example of this happening.

  2. Dad? – be quiet, ‘boo-boo’

    ‘[excerpt] Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) will mark a major milestone with the introduction of a new dispatch tool for all grid-connected wind resources. Previously wind and solar could only be shut off by the IESO in emergency situations. The ability to dispatch wind, scheduled to take effect September 11, 2013. 9-11? Why did the IESO choose that particular date?’
    Maybe they’re anticipating a ‘blackout’?
    – but, of course, everything is under control, and the public will be watching television –
    – on 9/11 – when the lights go out.
    It’s not like the stock market is crashing – nothing like that.

    We’ll wake up to a new dawn!

    • The less than 10MW rule hides the actual production output so the public can’t find out IWTs don’t work.
      Hide the solar production numbers as well.
      Clever ideas indeed!

      • A situation has been created here in which a vendor gets to sell a product, electricity, to the government without having to disclose how much product was sold and how much money was received for the product.
        Plenty of fancy language has been used by the government to descibe/coverup this situation so that the general public won’t know what is taking place.

      • Why should any vendor be allowed to supply any goods or services to the province when these amounts, goods and money, are not available to the public?
        Why should the government be allowed to hide the amounts of money or the goods purchased that are paid to any vendors?

  3. And, how many times did Martin Ince – come in the back door?
    Make it a MILLION DOLLARS – then the community –
    will ‘really’ believe you!!!!!

    Do we hear – 1 MILLION?

    ‘[excerpt] MILLBROOK – A company proposing a five-turbine wind farm straddling Cavan Monaghan Township and the City of Kawartha Lakes would consider terminating the project if a majority in the community is opposed, the head of the company said Tuesday.

    “I’m flexible and I am willing to look at different options, and that (termination) is one of them, too,” said Martin Ince, president of M. K. Ince and Associates Ltd., the company behind the Stoneboat Community Wind Farm.

    Ince made the comment in an interview with The Examiner following a raucous meeting of township council. More than 200 opponents of the project packed into the gymnasium and spilling into the main hallway of the former school that is now the township municipal building.

    Mayor John Fallis used his gavel repeatedly in attempts to quiet the angry crowd, some of whom barred Ince’s way into the building when he arrived.

    Ince had to be escorted into the building by Cavan Monaghan fire chief Bill Balfour.

    “This man has a right to come inside,” Balfour told the crowd.’

    ‘[excerpt] During the 90-minute session, council passed Deputy Mayor Scott McFadden’s motion to transfer $500,000 from the township’s lottery reserve – its share of the Slots at Kawartha Downs revenue – to a legal reserve. It also requires that “staff be directed to assemble a legal team of experts to defend our municipality’s position against the construction of industrial wind turbines within the township of Cavan Monaghan.”’

    Who’s kidding who?
    Oh – give me a land – where the ‘buffalo roam’ – la la la la la la la…………..

  4. Alternative Energy Magazine, Sept. 9,2013
    Electricity generation from wind and solar dropped more than 14% for the first five months of this year.
    “but there must be stronger efforts to curtail the growth of conventional energy sources,or the share from renewables will continue to drop.”
    Canadian Association For Renewable Energies

    Solution is to get rid of conventional power for renewables to gain.

    • Canadian Association For Renewable Energies/ CanREA
      There are several articles at this website:
      “Danger for Renewables in ON”, Assessment by Sustainable Energy at York University.

      “Municipality Installs Solar To Generate $80k” , Strathroy-Caradoc Financed by 10yr debenture. Rooftop.

      “Funding Provided to Wind-Co-op”, Kingston area.

      • Guess Strathroy-Caradoc hasn’t heard about the fire danger issues involving IWTs mounted on buildings?
        Or is the money more important?

  5. Plans for the future.
    Work – till you are 109 years old;
    or, if that’s not attractive enough – you can become a rafter.

    ‘[excerpt] Ontario Power Generation tops the worst funded pension fund list and Hydro One isn’t far behind. Guess who is going to pay for them

    Ontario – can’t swim, but, can breathe under water.

  6. Go Stephen Harper!
    – withdrew Canada from Kyoto –
    Now………Quit the IPCC too.

    ‘[excerpt] Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in a grand gesture with no meaning. Kyoto was going to expire officially at the end of 2012 regardless, but was terminal in Copenhagen in 2009. Canada withdrew because of the cost of continuing. If they understood the science they would know Kyoto or any other CO2 reduction plan is not required. They don’t, so they seek a Kyoto replacement. As I pointed out years ago, Kyoto was a political solution to a non-existing problem. –

    ‘[excerpt] Solution

    What should Canada do? They quit Kyoto but must quit the IPCC. It is beyond redemption and unable to “explain” climate change because of its definitions, assumptions, process, and political control.

    Canada was a leader in climate change research in the 1980s and early 1990s until Canada was instrumental in the politicizing of climate science for a political agenda. Canadian Maurice Strong used the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to involve all national weather offices led by Environment Canada (EC) to define and establish goals of the IPCC. Former EC Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Gordon McBean chaired the 1985 meeting at which the IPCC was organized. It appears his involvement killed Canada’s role as an independent apolitical leader in climate research.

    • We’re on the Milky Way – to prosperity.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

      The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

      Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

      The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

      Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

      I’ll just dance!

      • ‘[excerpt] The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.’

        Okay – three guess!

      • Oops! – my bubble gum fell on the floor.
        I believe in the 3 second rule. Yum.
        ……add ‘es’ – to make guesses.
        – thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *