[Admiral Beez]

^ I would rather pay my Hydro bill now in full, than pay part of it now and pay part later or through taxation.

As to why Hydro costs are so high, there is a long sad story of reasons, all of them attributable to governments of the day
- Mike Harris drove up labour costs in the old Ontario Hydro, ironically, because a) he needed to buy peace with labour unions to support an IPO and b) because he needed to attract executives from the private sector who had the profit/loss experience to lead a company through the transition to IPO. When the IPO was cancelled, there was no easy way to reverse these changes
- The Green Energy initiative was badly implemented, with contracted wind and power operators holding the bargaining leverage in power contracts
- Coal was cheaper than gas and wind, so price was intrinsically escalated as coal was phased out
- The gas plant cancellation fiasco cost a chunk of change
- Both Harris and McGinty (and Wynne) repositioned Hydro as a revenue stream for provincial spending, similar to LCBO and soon cannabis, away from the traditional Sir Adam Beck model of 'power for the people at cost'
- To keep rates low, maintenance and capital programs were cut back, which eventually bit the province in the behind, leading to peak spending to restore state of good repair - especially as infrastructure such as nuclear plants aged
- As all of this unfolded, government attempted more and more convoluted pricing and subsidy models to moderate the impact on the customer (I'm being kind, it was actually to hide their misdeeds)

There being no free lunch, I would rather just get the full bill and put all of the above front and center.

The voter should be furious with how Ontario manages electricity. And don't blame Liberals alone, while they completely bobbled the file they inherited messes from Harris also.

- Paul

It’s the waste of wind power contracts where we bought expensive turbines, locked ourselves into costly contracts with suppliers, and guaranteed above market rates to the wind farm operators, and ensured that liberal insiders and other connrected folks get rich from the ratepayers. All the while hydro demands have dropped due to the Libs driving down industrial and commerical hydro demand through shrinking the economy. That’s where I want a special prosecutor to look, and that’s where DoFo should rip up the establishment.

 

[mdrejhon]

There's a massive problem with the logic of your otherwise very sensible post: User efficiency is almost completely irrelevant to showing a lower bill. Many of the costs don't reflect the *amount used* at all. They represent *fixed costs*. It's become so skewed that last time I was independently paying for Hydro, (my costs have been buried for the last six years or so included in rent)

I see this too, this is a problem with no easy solution for any party.

$0.02 was now added to my bill for my two cents of thought.

 

[steveintoronto]

I see this too, this is a problem with no easy solution for any party.

Instead of the fixed charges, they should be indexed to usage.

Could you imagine gasoline tax being fixed charge per volume unit?

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Not to the level of corruption and lying that Drug Fraud does. And not smart lies either - just quick and lazy ones.

nfitz is high again!

 

[crs1026]

Instead of the fixed charges, they should be indexed to usage.

Could you imagine gasoline tax being fixed charge per volume unit?

Well, Hydro has some legitimate grounds for fixed charges. eg - the cottage that needs a connection, a pole, a bimonthly meter read, and the requirement for 7/24 service response - even though the owner is only there on weekends and doesn't use many kwh of energy.

The problem is that the current fee schedule assesses fixed charges for invalid, trumped up reasons - like clearing debt or writing off the cost of gas plant cancellations.

Much like internet or cellphones - a number of solutions are reasonable, with some fixed charges and some variable charges. Rent your PVR by the month, but pay for bandwidth used only after you exceed your plan limit. That kind of thing.

- Paul

 

[syn]

Sorry but considering all the promises the Liberals made the last few weeks and the Attorney General questioning their accounting their criticism is hollow.

I think their question is fair.

If the deficit is really that bad and Ford intends to continue with the cuts and tax breaks, then how will they pay for their promises?

 

[crs1026]

Good grief. Now Doug wants to undo the Greenbelt. This is dumb because

- The greenbelt, having been planned for just that, has the lowest investment to date in infrastructure, be it sewage, water, hydro, roads, or transit. Putting new development in these areas will mean a huge investment that hasn't been planned or costed. Everything from the 25-year transit plans to the specific community transit networks will have to be adjusted. Traffic flows? Impact on existing lines some of which eg RER aren't even ready?
- How many LRT and BRT lines might that generate up there? Very little of the greenbelt will be dense enough to justify higher order ie subway construction. Gonna be roads and buses up that way. Doug dislikes surface transit in the center, but he wants this in the Greenbelt?
- There is no guarantee that developing the greenbelt will lead to affordable housing. His vision seems to be traditional low-density suburbs. If the Belt is developed as estate housing or gated communities, which is quite likely, there will be monster homes on large lots constructed. That's incredibly costly to service and does nothing to drive up affordable housing supply or drive down prices. Or enable transit services. What is his plan to force developers to build affordable transit-friendly housing rather than what they might prefer to build?
- There is no guarantee that housing elsewhere, even if impacted by new supply built on the greenbelt, will experience lower prices, especially if (as we are seeing in Toronto) previously affordable housing continues to be demolished and replaced with upscaled monster homes. Do we want housing prices to fall in other areas?
- If the greenbelt is filled with low-cost housing, what will that housing look like? To be low cost, it will have to be dense. We tear up the greenbelt to create density there instead of in existing urban areas? And we will increase commuting distances. What's the plan to create employment zones up there so there are shorter commutes and two-way commuting?

Less related to transit, but part of the overall package, is
- Doug's disrespect for the value of agricultural land ought to come back to bite him, if the competing parties structure their debate properly. Farms matter.
- Never mind environmental and urban planning impacts.
- Doug has been caught promising the moon and the stars to a powerful elite in a backroom discussion. This is Animal Farm territory. He rants against elites, but he is planning to treat the development community as the province's most important stakeholder. One elite replaced with another. And a greedy, unprincipled one at that.

I was on the fence about Doug until now, figuring that correction of the Liberal excesses had some merit. But this is outright stupidity.

This guy is dangerous. For transit, and more.

- Paul

 

[Leo_Chan]

Good grief. Now Doug wants to undo the Greenbelt. This is dumb because

- The greenbelt, having been planned for just that, has the lowest investment to date in infrastructure, be it sewage, water, hydro, roads, or transit. Putting new development in these areas will mean a huge investment that hasn't been planned or costed. Everything from the 25-year transit plans to the specific community transit networks will have to be adjusted. Traffic flows? Impact on existing lines some of which eg RER aren't even ready?
- How many LRT and BRT lines might that generate up there? Very little of the greenbelt will be dense enough to justify higher order ie subway construction. Gonna be roads and buses up that way. Doug dislikes surface transit in the center, but he wants this in the Greenbelt?
- There is no guarantee that developing the greenbelt will lead to affordable housing. His vision seems to be traditional low-density suburbs. If the Belt is developed as estate housing or gated communities, which is quite likely, there will be monster homes on large lots constructed. That's incredibly costly to service and does nothing to drive up affordable housing supply or drive down prices. Or enable transit services. What is his plan to force developers to build affordable transit-friendly housing rather than what they might prefer to build?
- There is no guarantee that housing elsewhere, even if impacted by new supply built on the greenbelt, will experience lower prices, especially is (as we are seeing in Toronto) previously affordable housing continues to be demolished and replaced with upscaled monster homes. Do we want housing prices to fall in other areas?
- If the greenbelt is filled with low-cost housing, what will that housing look like? It will have to be dense. We tear up the greenbelt to create density there instead of in existing urban areas? And we will increase commuting distances. What's the plan to create employment zones up there so there are shorter commutes and two-way commuting?

Less related to transit, but part of the overall package, is
- Doug's disrespect for the value of agricultural land ought to come back to bite him, if the competing parties structure their debate properly
- Never mind environmental and urban planning impacts.
- Doug has been caught promising the moon and the stars to a powerful elite in a backroom discussion. This is Animal Farm territory. He rants against elites, but he is planning to treat the development community as the province's most important stakeholder. One elite replaced with another. And a greedy, unprincipled one at that.

I was on the fence about Doug until now, figuring that correction of the Liberal excesses had some merit. But this is outright stupidity.

This guy is dangerous. For transit, and more.

- Paul

Well, one positive with creating new developments is that they can be transit oriented suburbs with dedicated BRT lanes on all arterial/minor arterial roads. Have developers be required to build the necessary infrastructure to support the developments (roads, hydro, cable, other utilities). Of course, this is all very theoretical and building up while out is definitely not a substitute to building up only. If there aren't the necessary arrangements to maintain the neighbourhoods, then this plan is completely garbage.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Well, one positive with creating new developments is that they can be transit oriented suburbs with dedicated BRT lanes on all arterial/minor arterial roads. Have developers be required to build the necessary infrastructure to support the developments (roads, hydro, cable, other utilities). Of course, this is all very theoretical and building up while out is definitely not a substitute to building up only. If there aren't the necessary arrangements to maintain the neighbourhoods, then this plan is completely garbage.

Do you really believe this will happen?

 

[Leo_Chan]

Do you really believe this will happen?

No.

 

[muller877]

So big day for transit promises

1. Wynne has re-announced the re-announcement of the DRL, Richmond Hill Extension and the Waterfront LRT
2. Ford has promised bringing back the Northlander (Toronto to Cochrane), twinning the Trans-Canada (Kenora to Manitoba), the Ring of Fire Road and cutting Aviation fuel tax in the North

He's going to the North a lot. Must mean internal polls are saying he has a chance to win 1/2 the seats (NDP the other 1/2). Will the Liberals be shut out of the region?

 

[Hopkins123]

So big day for transit promises

1. Wynne has re-announced the re-announcement of the DRL, Richmond Hill Extension and the Waterfront LRT
2. Ford has promised bringing back the Northlander (Toronto to Cochrane), twinning the Trans-Canada (Kenora to Manitoba), the Ring of Fire Road and cutting Aviation fuel tax in the North

He's going to the North a lot. Must mean internal polls are saying he has a chance to win 1/2 the seats (NDP the other 1/2). Will the Liberals be shut out of the region?

It's truly a tale of two campaigns: Wynne's almost exclusively pitching to just the City of Toronto; Ford's even going after regions the Conservatives haven't won in ages.

And as an aside, it's a national embarrassment that the TransCanada isn't a full highway right across the country like America's Interstate system. I've been hearing from the early McGuinty days that they'd upgrade the highway from Ottawa to the Manitoba border yet here we are.

 

[syn]

Great news today. I can't help but feel the Conservatives would renege on this funding if they were elected.

 

[DopeyFish]

Great news today. I can't help but feel the Conservatives would renege on this funding if they were elected.

Can they, though? It's all been budgeted under this year so going forward, these projects will be taking money already spent in the eyes of the government, no?

Like... Unlike the Crosstown, it appears the waterfront LRT is going to be a municipal project, not a provincial project as originally announced.

 

[rbt]

Can they, though? It's all been budgeted under this year so going forward...

That would depend on the exact wording of the tripartite agreement; inter-government partnerships such as these are implemented via basic contract law.

Normally the way these are worded, any party may make a change to the plan (including pulling out) but needs to make the other parties whole again for expenses on that project. That is, if the province unilaterally changes the plan they would need to pay for all costs on the project made by any party up to that date.

This is why the city wrote Metrolinx a cheque for something like $80M for the Scarborough LRT plan; the city changed the plan and absorbed the full cost of the work on the project up to the time of that change.