Do you believe additional…

Do you believe additional investment in clean energy resources should be made in the short term to reduce the energy production of natural gas plants, even if this will increase costs to the electricity system and ratepayers?

Yes. The costs of climate change far outweigh the costs to the electricity system of reducing emissions. Even with best efforts all around, it will be difficult for Ontario to meet its emission reduction target for 2030. Grid emissions negate reductions in all sectors relying on electrification. The electricity system is largely a public asset and should be managed in the best, broad public interest, including pursuit of emission reduction goals across the whole economy. Therefore, everything that can be done should be done to contain emissions in the short term and eliminate them across the whole economy in the long term. The cost of investments in clean energy resources that are possible in the short term are not going to have a major impact on hydro rates.

What are your expectations for the total cost of energy to customers (i.e., electricity and other fuels) as a result of electrification and fuel switching?

It will probably increase, though it’s impossible to say in total for everyone because future energy prices cannot be accurately forecasted. Certainly, the costs to low-income rate payers would be disastrous if electrification is relied on to decarbonize building heating. They won’t save on transportation fuel because they can’t afford EV’s. Electricity bills are a significant portion of their income and electricity delivery charges make up a large percentage of their monthly hydro bills because they are the same for everyone and the poor do not consume much electricity. Whereas Toronto Hydro states that delivery charges are 40% of a typical bill, in my case they are 70% because I am thrifty. Delivery charges would become especially onerous for low-income rate payers if more transmission and distribution capital expenditures were loaded on the rate base to deal with the very high heating peaks. Heating is an inappropriate use of inherently costly electricity system assets. It’s like using a chain-saw to cut butter, an expensive chain-saw. Before the climate emergency, we have not had to think too much about it in Ontario. Now we must choose between electricity and local, lower quality energy delivered through hot water pipes. The latter would be a lot more affordable.
Air source heat pumps may reduce energy consumption but still severely impact peak demand, which dictates system and distribution capacity requirements. Future electricity costs will be driven mostly by capacity requirements. On the coldest days, when most heat is required, their efficiency is very low and they need supplemental resistance heating (for zero emissions), resulting in an overall effective efficiency not much, if any, better than electric resistance heaters. Therefore, the very high heating peak in Ontario, around 60 Gigawatts (GW) would become an incremental electrical demand. Pathways erroneously assumed technology improvements would result in air source heat pumps maintaining efficiency at the coldest temperatures. That defies thermodynamics. It is wishful thinking, not planning, more like “wishing and hoping and dreaming and praying.” A more realistic, proven, down-to-earth, strategy is needed to decarbonize building heating, as introduced below.

Are you concerned with potential cost impacts associated with the investments needed?

Yes, because: (1) Pathways estimates it to be $400 billion, resulting in increased unit costs of electricity of 20-30% in real terms, (2) this is probably under-estimated due to the under-estimation of infrastructure that would be needed to serve building heating, (3) it has probably under-estimated the volume of hydrogen that would be consumed because it seems to not take into account that whereas electrical peaks are for a few hours, heating peaks can last days, and (4) the part driven by heating could be largely avoided. See answer to next question.