Your hydro bill funds “Ontario Propaganda Authority”

Would you send your child to play in an Industrial Wind Facility?

By Antonella Artuso, Queens’ Park Bureau Chief    Toronto Sun

The cost of a $3 million advertising campaign to encourage Ontarians to use less electricity is going straight to their hydro bills.

PC energy critic John Yakubuski said the ads by Ontario Power Authority (OPA) promote the Dalton McGuinty government’s viewpoint on energy.

“With all the money that families are paying for the OPA’s Liberal spin, are you thinking of changing the name to the Ontario Propaganda Authority?” Yakabuski said in the Legislature Thursday.

Tim Butters, of the OPA, said the radio and TV spots were produced at a cost of $400,000, plus the $2.6 million media buy.

The ads will appear on television until October 11.

“We cut costs for this campaign from campaigns of this kind in previous years,” Butters said in an e-mail. “It is a part of our efforts to build a culture of conservation in Ontario.

“Ontario has a target to reduce peak-demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025,” he said. “Together with the local distribution companies, the province has achieved 1,700 MW of peak-demand reduction so far.”

The ad features a backdrop of wind turbines and solar panels, and shows individuals plugging into smart power bars and removing an old fridge.

“A cleaner Ontario is up to all of us,” the ad says.

6 thoughts on “Your hydro bill funds “Ontario Propaganda Authority”

  1. With rising costs, the reduction of
    peak-demand will be inevitable.
    New industry will choose to not set
    up shop in Ontario and some existing
    industry will leave the Province. I can’t imagine that this is the type of
    conservation that McGuinty and his
    ‘think tank’ has in mind.

  2. You would think that we have no spare capacity. We have a little bit you know…

    The adequacy reports show the forecast and the “bids to supply” or offers for capacity from the various generators of power.

    Even on July 5,2010 “The day the transformer died” in T.O. There was still an additional 5,000MW of power available.

    For some entertainment scrounge through the August reports and see how many days you can find where there was insufficient capacity.

    On hot August Days — conserve power — similarly on very cold days — conserve power. However, the rest of the time the system runs at 50% capacity.

    Your tax dollars paid for it, the incremental cost to draw the power is very low. But we are being charged double the rate of a short while ago. Does anyone know why? What’s the logic?

  3. Mr. Butters is kind of nuttters.
    The 1700MW figure he uses completely differently than Mr. Duguid did.
    Peak demand in in 2009 was around 24380MW, and that is down 1700MW from something (2005’s peak). But the average was down over 2000MW between 2005 and 2009.

    Average demand was 15886MW in 2009, and Mr. Duguid seemed to be referencing that as 1700MW down from something, which was also true (2004’s average). But 2009 peak was only 600MW down from 2004’s peak.

    Overall the peak is not dropping as quickly as the average consumption – claiming success in peak reduction programs is questionable, or maybe it just indicates even greater success in general conservation measures.

    Like making electricity unaffordable and shuttering manufacturing.

  4. If true, a 1700 MW peak-demand
    reduction would be more attributable
    to the recession than conservation

    With the propaganda program, I believe
    the Liberals are trying to sell the demented
    notion that in the face of rising costs we, the
    consumer, have control thru conservation to
    temper our billings. I do not waste electricity.
    At best any additional conservation on my
    part may result in me saving enough on my
    monthly billing to buy a cup of coffee.

  5. Peak this summer was up 600MW, and average demand this year up 500MW. Normal correlation.

    The minimum annual consumption was just under 12000MW in 2004 and 2005. The last two years it was around 10650MW.

    So we know the peak, average and minimum generally move together.
    Individually, anybody trying really hard to shift their usage is finding they can’t do that (they can find enormous savings in cutting ghost consumption, using timers, insulating … they just all tend to cut overall consumption as opposed to shifting).
    In other words, there is little doubt that reducing peak by 2025 by over 6000MW would also reduce base load (minimum) to somewhere in the 7000MW area.
    Which is going to be less than run-of-the-river hydro, A refurbished Darlington (the cheapest option for the next 30 years), and only Bruce A (maybe even only units 1 and 2).
    The GEA guarantees the purchase of more supply any time of day, when the forecast is certainly not to need it many hours, and in the immediate future, not to need any of it.

    Mr. Butters should be far less worried about being wrong than he should about being right.

  6. These ads just highlight the insanity that we can all see very clearly that has permeated the Energy sector of our Province.

    The OPA is now under complete control of a “spin doctor” trying to make people believe “black is white” and “Electricity Poverty” is good.

    OUR “tolerance” with these fake business men has reached a breaking point!

    The next step for us as Landowners of Ontario is to demand their complete and total “resignations”!

Comments are closed.