Ontario has seen a lot of new and refurbished generation come online through 2012 and into 2013. This includes large new generation like a refurbished generator at Bruce Power while more renewable generators are added to the grid through the Feed-in-Tariff. While this new supply has come online, Ontario's languishing economy prevents demand from growing which is leading to an oversupply of electricity and negative pricing events.

To see how Ontario’s grid is performing, to learn about the generators that keep your lights on and understand the environmental impact of our electricity production, download Gridwatch by EnergyMobile Studios for your iOs device.

As of November 1, 2012 new Ontario Time-of-Use rates are as follows: 

• Peak - New: 12.4¢/kWh - Old: 11.8¢/kWh (+0.1)
• Mid-Peak - New: 10.4¢/kWh - Old: 9.9¢/kWh (-0.1)
• Off-Peak - New: 6.7¢/kWh - Old: 6.3¢/kWh (-0.2)

Current rates can always be found on the Pareto Energy homepage, the May 1/13 rates are shown here:

"Billing" from EnergyMobile's Powercents iOs AppFirst, some assumptions. Let’s assume that the average cost of a kWh of electricity in Ontario is $0.125/kWh - energy, distribution, regulatory charges, debt retirment, HST, etc. This is a farily safe assumption, and prices are forecasted to increase by 35% by 2016.

Now, if someone came to you and said: “Person, how would you like your own solar array with no up front costs, and you’ll buy it’s energy for $0.125/kWh over the next 20 years?” 

How might you respond?

This is the approach used by SolarCity and is the conversation that starts a relationship known as a “power purchase agreement” (PPA).

Let’s assume that some people think this is a good idea - and solar panels start popping up in your community. People with solar panels today pay the same price for power as people without solar panels. Next year, the people with solar panels are paying a little less compared to people without. A few years down the road - those with solar panels are paying a lot less.

If next year you can sign a PPA at $0.125/kWh while the utility price has gone to $0.13/kWh, more people will sign PPAs and install solar panels. Since prices for solar equipment (panels, racking, inverters) continue to decline, the PPA price may have dropped to $0.122/kWh.

Eventually, it’s materially cheaper to have your own generator on the roof and use your utility connection to meet any gaps. Over the year, you aren’t getting much energy from them, and they aren’t getting much money from you. Sure, you still have to pay the same rate for power to fill gaps that everyone else does, but the bulk of your energy will be provided by your solar array at your PPA rate, while your neighbors are paying 120% of your rate to the utility company.

Well, your utility company makes it’s money on the “Distribution Charge” on your utility bill. They have trucks, offices and executives to pay and still have hundreds of kilometers of wires to maintain.

Hypothetically, lets say the utilities budget required to distribute energy in a community was $100m, and the distribution charge covered that expense at $0.04/kWh. What happens if 20% of the gridizens decide that they’d rather save money and have solar panels instead of pay these forever increasing electricity prices?

Obviously, if 20% of the customer base no longer pays delivery charges, the utility company is out $20m. Individuals putting solar panels on the roof have not reduced the kilometers of wires the utility company is responsible for, the age of transformers that need to be replaced, the salaries of staff or other costs associated with operating a local distribution company (LDC) / utility.

So, each of Ontario’s 74 LDCs will request a rate increase from the Ontario Energy Board - fun fact on rate increase applications, 1/2 of the applied for 4-year rate increase is dedicated to legal and application associated fees according to Ontario’s Auditor General. Let’s assume the LDC is successful in securing the rate increase to cover the lost distribution revenue, the cost of application, as well as some future contingency. This will be spread over the remaining 80% of customers. Remember, the original budget was $100m, the loss was $20m, the legal fees for the application were $20m over 4 years, plus a contingency and the new rate should generate $110m from a smaller rate base.

Elsewhere in Ontario, large renewable generators are coming online providing ample supply to the grid and reducing wholesale energy prices while increasing the policy portion of energy costs known as the “global adjustment”. So, the energy component on your conventional bills continues to rise (as predicted) and the delivery charge continues to rise while the price of the alternatives continue to fall.

Herein lies the crux. Ontario is investing in expensive generation projects - nuclear renewal, renewable energies and combined cycle enhanced natural gas cogeneration facilities - while distributed energy technologies - solar - continue to get cheaper.

First, a trickle of people will move to rooftop solar PPAs over traditional LDC connections. Prices for solar will fall, prices for energy and the delivery of it will rise.

Then, a wave of people will move to rooftop solar PPAs over traditional LDC connections and Ontario will pay generators not to generate, will pay first for expensive generation, mothball assets and scrap projects - all increasing the policy cost of energy (global adjustment). With fewer kWh’s to deliver, LDC’s will have to jack up delivery costs to service the (on average) 60 year old infrastructure. 

Sounds a bit apocalyptic - if you’re a LDC. What matters to you and me is that we get affordable, reliable power when we plug in out toasters, hair dryers or electric cars. None of us have a particular affinity for our utility company. Installing on-site generation and using the LDC as a backstop for variations will be like you sticking it to them, after years, decades, a century of them sticking it to you.

The question for ratepayers is - when will you switch? 

The question for utilities is - how will you adapt?

Ratepayers will find a solution in the market that provides cost comparable, reliable energy. As regulated rates continue to climb, the cost of alternatives continue to decline and smarter home technologies enter the market, there is, for the first time ever, competition for the bulk of your utility bill. 

Note: This post does consider the Ontario example where net-metering is not the standard practice. Ontario homeowners can apply (about once per year) to install solar panels for income generation and be compensated with a 'feed-in-tarriff'. If solar industries can survive in competition with delivered energy costs from the utility, how much longer will it make sense to pay 4x the consumption rate to support solar industries?

Power bars and dark, cold homes don’t paint a exciting future for home life going forward. This has never been part of the “new normal” I believe in. I believe in the smart home. A programmable thermostat that makes sense, and that I can manage using my smart phone. I expect a fridge that knows how energy prices change and saves ice making for over night. 

Energy efficiency isn’t a lifestyle choice these days, the implications of needless energy waste are real for all gridizens (citizens of the grid). Even for those whose budgets aren’t stressed by fluctuating energy bills; no one wants to be wasteful. With energy prices (especially electricity) rates where they are and where they are going, wasting energy is wasting dollars.

The smart home of tomorrow will keep me comfortable, be well lit and do it’s part to keep bills down. Manufacturers are creating new products that provide better services that use less energy with lower standby loads. Motion and occupancy sensors are getting forever more intelligent and using that information to save you money, or keep you safe. 

Energy use is abstract, mere numbers on a page. Soon services that (with authorization) read your energy data will translate it into something meaningful, provide insight and guide you through the month. A smart home will give you feedback and be able to change how it behaves to suit your lifestyle.

Beyond energy, the smart home will keep you safe and by engaging you before sounding an alarm will provide enhanced security. It will build on other smart services like your personal video recorders to provide on demand entertainment (and curtail this significant energy vampire). Add in your electric car and the flexibility and options go even further.

What’s great about smarter homes beyond them being more comfortable, more convenient and more energy efficient is that it’s also great for our energy grid at large. Applications of these technologies can flatten the demand for electricity through the day which is a significant priority of grid operators. When smart homes can respond to the needs of the grid (peak production, localized congestion) the home can respond - increasing stability and reducing outages.

We hear a lot about the smart grid and know it’s costing us a lot of money, but what is it? Simply, the smart grid comes down to a two way flow of information and electrons vs. the old one way flow of electricity. In Ontario that infrastructure is built, but yet to be truly utilized. The growth of electric vehicles, rooftop solar generation and responsive, smart homes are all pieces of a the smart grid. For those who want a more simple, more efficient life, it should mean the end of dark homes with power bars you never turn off and laundry that’s costing you a fortune.

When I was growing up, the father of a friend of mine used to spend winter Sundays baking fresh bread. I'd go over to play Excitebike on old school Nintendo, or come over after some outdoor pick-up hockey, or otherwise get up to no good. Decades later, I can still remember the inviting scent of fresh baked bread. It's a smell that makes me feel all warm and cozy on a blustery February night in 2013.

But, it probably wasn't the bread that made me feel so warm and cozy, it was probably the oven. The oven was on for hours at a time for successive batches of fresh bread to be made. Foggy windows, warm temperatures and bread so fresh it would almost melt in your mouth when you'd finally get a slice in the early evening.

Cooking requires energy, energy produces heat, this is why kitchens are magnets for people in homes. Less of a place to end up for a good meal on a cold day, more of a place to find warmth on a cold day with the off chance of a bite to eat. Sure, the better cook would have more people to feed and more cooking to do and a whole house that was warm.

Today we strive not to even hear our furnaces or boilers engage, the hum of the fan keeps some people up at night. Gone are the days of coal pitches and many quilts. Heat and comfort that we all have access to today was a luxury only a generation ago.

We make heat for the sake of making heat, while my fond bread baking memory made heat for the sake of making bread. Today our processes that make heat pay big bucks to manage the "waste heat", while many homes sit at a constant state of comfort, waiting for occupants to return from work, wasting heat.

It's no coincidence that Ontario's steel mills are located so close to the energy source of Niagara Falls, and it's the same non-coincidence that helps explain why kitchens are such important places in the home. 

Successful completion of the course will require a handful of "breifing notes", designed to teach the student how to frame, evaluate and advise an executive / minister on a specific topic; in our case within the energy sphere. Where appropriate, I'll share them here.

The first assignment was to be a critical evaluation of President Obama's State of the Union address delivered on Febrary 12, 2013, how the President's energy and climate priorities may affect Canada and what advice I might give to the Harper Government.

Here is the enhanced version of the speech. The President begins his comments on energy, climate change and the economy just before minute 19. 

Issue:

President Obama delivered his first SOTU address of his second term on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 and devoted 8 paragraphs to a climate change agenda leading off at minute 19 with a plea for a “bipartisan, market based solution to climate change.”

Following the SOTU speech, David Jacobson, the US ambassador to Canada, suggested that Canada’s progress toward climate ‘obligations’ is noted, Canada needs to do more. He implied that action along those lines could influence decision makers struggling with the State Departments approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.[1]

Context:

Implications for Canada’s energy dominated economy are significant. The Alberta oil patch is responsible for much of the nations marginal job and economic growth, along with being a significant attraction for foreign capital. The Harper Government has indicated they support a North American approach to carbon reduction initiatives, recently evidenced by adopting new US targets for vehicle fuel efficiency.

A specific concern is the pending Presidential decision on TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, an initiative which faces vocal environmental opposition in America, yet a February 2013 Harris Interactive poll shows 69% of US voters support the pipeline and 83% feel it would strengthen US energy security[2]. Canadian private sector lobbying of US officials and consular efforts from federal and provincial governments have taken place and continue in an attempt at highlighting mutual economic benefits and improving environmental performance of the oil sands.

Recent discoveries in the Bakken oil field centered in North Dakota have created a US domestic oil boom and the IEA estimates the US could be energy self sufficient by 2035. Due to increased extraction activity, heavy oil products are flooding the US market driving down prices for this commodity. Adding supply via Keystone XL could exacerbate this problem in the short term, while long term refinery and US pipeline infrastructure will evolve to accommodate sensible production estimates.

Climate change is a matter of science fact, and market strategies around the pricing of emissions are widely supported by economists, Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and industry. Political resistance toward climate change has clearly compromised the reputation of Canada resulting in the threat of trade sanctions due to world lagging environmental performance.

Options:

The Harper Government’s management of Canada’s economy has seen a stabilization of carbon emissions and reductions in other smog causing pollutants. Meanwhile, the federal government continues it’s sector-by-sector review of industries in an attempt to set binding emission control standards. Given the apparent success of this approach, Canada could continue to present it’s position as one that is in fact moving to meet its global “obligations” and try to defeat the negative reputation with facts. A strategy that until now, as been unsuccessful.

Supporting a North American wide approach to environmental regulation, the Harper Government could work in partnership with US legislators since any possible decision will have explicit implications for Canada. Our representatives can work in support of what the Senate committee on Energy and the Environment believe is the least efficient and most costly approach – regulation - and manipulate drafts with poison pills to ensure no Congress lead solution is adopted; thus, avoiding a market price on carbon emissions.

The Harper Government could of course take a leadership roll and respond to industry, think tanks, and their own committees by leading a carbon-pricing regime domestically thereby rebuilding Canada’s compromised international environmental reputation. A carbon price would serve to validate CCS investments that do not make economic sense without a price on carbon and would give other regions of the country the opportunity to benefit from their environmental advantages in energy (BC, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and the Maritimes).

Recommendation:

The free-market Conservative government should move to support or at the very least tolerate the concept of a market driven solution to address the perils of climate change through carbon pricing. This should be done as a vocal participant in the development of US legislation to create a North American framework. Canadian policy would be trumped by any US legislation and implanting a Canadian policy alongside a US policy creates risk for market failure.

The government should consider moving energy revenues from royalties to carbon pricing to protect public budgets from the medium-term impacts of a over supplied domestic heavy crude energy market. Production rates and associated emissions vary less then market prices, adding stability to provincial and federal budgeting.

Canada should make it clear that our energy economy can thrive in a carbon-pricing environment and that Canada will willingly participate in a continental, market based abatement framework. To the extent that the Harper Government does not want a price on carbon, adding another voice to a hostile Congressional process could introduce enough interference to ensure that created legislation would not pass through a divided and hostile House of Representatives.

---

[1] Globe and Mail - US Ambassador Warns Canada to Heed Obama on Energy.

[2] Harris Interactive Reports – Keystone XL Interview Schedule for API

I've increasingly been thinking that Ontario's electricity market is broken, that we have anything but a deregulated market. When you look at markets like Texas which truly is deregulated, that provides engaging consumer choices and has more wind energy than any other jurisdiction in North America it's hard not to be upset at the mess we are in here at home.

Now, this is no fault of the IESO's, they create a market for electricity based on market rules, political whims that change those rules and available resources. It's these political whims that are so much trouble. I had a few questions about how the market for electricity was made and why we have such high energy prices that are driving away manufacturing jobs.

First, here's what I know about market prices:

• HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) - this is the cost of electricity in Ontario. Generators offer the IESO a quantity of energy at a given price per MW and operators meet market demand by accepting offers and utilizing available energy. Periods with higher demand require the IESO to pay generators higher prices for their generation and the HOEP changes accordingly.
• Market-Clearing Price - on 5 minute intervals the IESO meets demands by accepting generator offers and all generators that provided energy for that period are paid the market clearing price. So, even if you've offered energy at $10/MW, if the market clearing price is $28/MW you would be paid $28/MW, not $10/MW.
• Offer Prices - referenced above is what the generator offers to the market. These values could depend on the cost of the fuel being burned, or in some cases based on political decisions, in the future they may also incorporate carbon taxes making fossil fuel generators relatively more expensive to low carbon alternatives in the pursuit of a low carbon economy.
• Renewable Energy Credits - a tradable commodity created for every MWh of renewable energy generated. These serve as the basis of Bullfrog Power's business - they buy REC's to match the amount of power used by their subscribed users.

Ontario is supposed to have a deregulated market. Which would mean to me that generators offer power at prices that cover their costs and margins and that when demand requires more energy at higher prices more generation is made available. What is actually the case is that Ontario's grid is anything but deregulated. In fact, it's become hyper-political to the point that political initiatives are distorting the market leading to higher rates and contributing to Ontario's declining manufacturing industries and associated lost jobs.

The feed-in-tariff for wind is around $0.14/kWh or $140/MW while the average HOEP price in 2012 was $24.1/MW. So, wind energy is costing Ontario rate/tax payers $140/MW less the value of the REC.

One last piece of market info you need, something that's become the bain of my existence, and a massive barrier to innovation and economic growth in Ontario:

• Global Adjustment - essentially a electricity tax to make up for political obligations not supported by the market. This, per unit of energy tax, includes but is not limited to contracted generation and paying feed in tariffs. Right not it runs at about TWICE the wholesale price of electricity.

My problem here is this, wind power with it's $140/MW cost to Ontario provides an offer to the IESO at ($2000)/MW in order to always be chosen when available. Now, the market never clears near that ($2000)/MW price, but it does affect the market clearing price.

Think about it. If you were a teacher of 100 students and needed to provide them apples, and each apple cost $0.25, you would expect to pay $25 to meet the demand for apples at the effective rate of $0.25/apple. If you were a real keener you could buy Granny Smith apples for $0.60/apple, but why would you - in an open market?

Now the government comes along and offers you shiny green Granny Smith apples, 5 of them for no cost. Now to get 100 apples you have to pay $23.75 and the effective cost per apple is $0.2375. The Granny Smiths still cost $0.60/apple but that $3 is set aside.

Granny Smith apples are better for the environment and create local jobs, so the government now offers you 20 free shiny, low carbon apples and of course you take them - fragile economic recovery and all. Now your 100 apples cost $20, an effective cost of $0.20/apple. The 20 Granny Smith have a unallocated cost of $12.

What's happened here is that the overall value for all apples has gone down while the total cost of supplying the 100 apples has gone up. This is the problem with our electricity grid. The additional costs not absorbed by those buying apples is like the global adjustment that sits like a wet, thickening blanket over our electricity grid.

Without the global adjustment Ontario would have variable prices that would introduce new options to the market. Our grid needs storage solutions to flatten the demand curve, the province spends millions each year to pay our neighbours to take our energy showcasing the massive need for storage technologies. But if a storage entrepreneur wanted to buy electricity when prices are low, they'll buy the wholesale price and this fat layer of global adjustment, then sell at the market clearing price during the day when demand and prices are high. The spread isn't big enough to make economic sense and those innovations go elsewhere.

What I learned today at the IESO is that they do a great job matching the lowest cost generation with the needs of the provinces and our neighbours and keep the lights on. What I also learned is that politicized energy decisions are even more challenging than I had thought and that the ISEO just has to play by the rule book drafted by people who don't always make the most prudent planning decisions, that can have significant downstream implications.

A common criticism of energy geeks on all sides of the issue revolves around utilization. Wind opponents love to monitor services like Gridwatch (Ontario / UK) and cause a big fuss when the wind isn't blowing. Supporters of renewables point out under utilized low carbon sources of energy (i.e. hydroelectric) to support their opposition to new builds of natural gas or new nuclear developments.

The biggest problem here, is that an electricity grid is designed with a capacity to meet 110%+ of the demand on the single highest demand day - which typically occurs in the midst of many of the highest demand days. In fact, something like 40% of annual grid operating costs occur within the last 10% of demand up to that peak across those few days. So, under almost any circumstance there's going to be lots of capacity left on the table.

For generators like hydroelectric, there's so much generating capability most of the time, because most of the time those generators are deliberately restrained. If they generated all the time, the reservoir would shrink and the capability would diminish, there could also be dangerous downstream implications. The capability is there at a given time, but not at all times.

Meanwhile, few people complain about under utilized hydro electric generators - most of this type of backlash is directed at wind generating assets. It's still tough to figure out what kind of generating wind critics would prefer to see. It seems that most energy critics seem to be generalists in their condemnation, preferring not to have the energy they depend on generated anywhere near them.

Alas, today there was a converstaion from a wind critic on this very issue. Digging into the (then) pre-release version of EnergyMobile Studios' Gridwatch iOs app - now featuring totals for generation and capability for Ontario generators by fuel type - it was clear how silly this whole argument is (utilization at a given time). The wind critics weren't at work today, and here's why:

Ontario Grid Mix 6-7pm Jan 4/13Hydro @ 68% Utilization & 23.8% of Grid MixNatural Gas @ 34% Utilization & 12% of Grid MixWind @ 95% Utilization & 7.6% of Grid Mix

Considering that wind represents 4.2% of total installed capacity in Ontario, it's hard - during this period - to say that wind isn't doing it's share.

Power generated and carbon by hour in Jan 4/13 (until 7pm)

Balancing the grid is anything but simple - geographic concerns, input costs, demands from adjacent jurisdictions, intermittent generators and politicization of energy are just a few complicating factors. Making the case for or against a fuel type based on instantaneous snapshots are nothing more than a distraction to the complexity of our reliable, safe and dependable electricity grid.

The irony is noted.

Each fuel type has advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of wind is that the fuel is free and it produces no carbon emissions but it is intermittent and the wind can't be scheduled (but it can be predicted). Fossil fuel generated electricity can be controlled and scheduled, the fuel is not free and it does create pollution. It makes sense to Pareto that when the blows, we make use of it - when it's not enough at least we have the capacity to meet our demand.

Pareto Energy owner Patrick dove right in and after 1 semester is 2/3s of the way through the certificate program and has had an idea tentatively accepted to the i-CUE, the business incubator inside CUE.

Through the headline course offering - CKEI 100 - Energy Innovation and Entrepreneurship - an assignment was to build a textbook for the course. It’s tough to imagine what a textbook on this subject could look like given the dynamic nature of the subject matter and the dated platform textbooks represent.

So, having been introduced to a presentation platform through a tech meetup in Waterloo, Patrick decided to make a “Prezi” covering some of the aspects of what he feels are important to understanding the opportunities in the green economy.

If you’d like to see some of the material being covered in the course and some of insights on what makes Patrick so passionate about the energy economy, have a look at this “learning resource”.

Pareto owner Patrick set out to the retail location before it marked it's first week anniversary and, pardon the pun, but the atmosphere was electric. Patrick is a huge fan, and small time investor in Tesla Motors and is well versed on the opportunities and characteristics of the Model S. It was interesting to overhear questions from people who were brand new to the awesomeness that is the Model S:

• How will range be affected by cold winter temperatures?
• What kind of range can I expect?
• What happens to the battery after the warranty?
• Is this your first car to market?

It was also great to hear the answers to these questions from the casually approachable Tesla product specialists in futuristically comfortable clothes.

The vehicle is spectacular. The lines are so smooth, the vehicle is substantial and guests had no shortage things to manipulate through the large 17" touch screen - the panoramic sunroof must have opened and closed 8 times in the few minutes I wandered around the store overwhelmed by how precisely Tesla is executing it's retail experience. I wanted to see for myself some of the unique design features associated with the electronic platform - a hood was open to show the "frunk" and the absence of the mid cabin ridge was something great to see gone. I couldn't however figure out where the charge port was hidden - well played Tesla.

What gets me most excited about the Model S is the value. This might cause some to groan considering the only option package currently being produced at their Freemont California plant is the 85kW edition starting at $85,900 in Canada (in Canadian dollars). The least well appointed option (40kW battery) starting at $65,500 won't begin production for months yet. Comparing performance and appointments to peers, the Model S is priced right in line - think Mercedes, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus, Maserati? - which makes it a fairly apples to apples comparison on price, performance, comfort and style.

Reviews of the Model S has it winning in most if not all of the previously mentioned aspects, but if price becomes a factor, the value really starts to add up when you're off the lot as an owner. Think of the costs you won't incur driving a electric car:

• Oil changes
• Timing belts
• Many mechanical issues
• Brake work (regenerative braking does most of the work so they last much longer)
• Oh, and fillups

Filling up the 85kW battery, which gets a driver 480 or more km's will cost about $8 in Ontario - including all variable chrages and HST. Comparable vehicles with 70l tanks getting about 780km before chilly, annoying fillups will cost $80 at todays gas prices - which the National Energy Board expects will rise 16% over the winter.

Doing some math comparing the Model S (40kW base) to the BMW 528i (base model), the Model S is $3000 more after the $8500 Ontario EV rebate, but driving 20,000km per year saves around $2000 in avoided fuel expense (assuming the S is charged off peak and gas stays at $1.2/l) and the BMW requires 2, $125 oil changes. In 3 years the Tesla owner has saved almost $6000 in operating costs and avoided emitting 13 tons of carbon. But, this isn't even a fair compaison since the Model S is better performing, better appointed and more stylish than the base BMW to begin with - huge value.

Clearly I'm biased, how can you not be in love with a vehicle that is so sexy, so powerful, showcases exquisite attention to detail, presents spectacular economic value and in Ontario is truly a carbon neutral transportation solution?

If you have the chance, go see for yourself. Ask lots of questions, the answers will pleasantly surprise you.

Other reviews:

• Automobile Magazine's 2012 Car of the Year - Tesla Model S
• Yahoo! Autos 2012 Car of the Year - Tesla Model S -
• Car and Driver - Driven - Tesla Model S (YouTube Video)

In Ontario - home of EnergyMobile Studios Inc. - the grid is heavily dependent on nuclear baseload generation. Ontario’s grid is in a state of change; in 2008 the Liberal government decided to phase out all coal generation by 2014 - the single largest GHG reduction initiative in all of North America - and they are very close to accomplishing this goal. While coal plants are being shuttered or converted to biomass or natural gas generation, wind and solar generation are coming online through a very generous feed-in-tariff program.

But what does this mean to residents? The investments being made across North America in lower carbon intense generating assets, smart infrastructure and education are leading to more aware citizens. For our environment, a grid mix that changes through the day makes electricity generated near peak demand more carbon intense because grid operators need to rely on more flexible generators like coal and natural gas.

Many jurisdictions require large carbon emitters to disclose their emissions profiles; such emitters typically include power generators and industrial facilities. Organizations that calculate their carbon footprints use carbon associated with the generation of electricity to estimate their footprint from electricity use (Scope 2 - indirect emissions). In conventional GHG accounting, all kWh’s have the same carbon weighting since the total emissions are divided by the total power generated for a period. That single value is then used in carbon accounting, but that just doesn’t make much sense, especially when we know that the carbon profile of the day changes as demand changes through the day.

In conventional GHG accounting, organizations worried about their carbon impact willl see the same carbon reduction by improving the efficiency of overnight parking garage lighting as they would by shaving peak demand through the day when the grid is maxed and the carbon intensity is higher. Eliminating carbon emissions when the grid is maxed is the best way to target an organizations carbon profile and relieve stresses on the grid.

Seeing the flaw in this single value approach, Niagara College of Canada researcher Kurt Frommann in partnership with E3 Solutions Inc. of Toronto created a framework to determine the hourly carbon intensity of electricity in the province of Ontario based on individual plants carbon profiles. Then, EnergyMobile turned it into a beautiful iOs app - Gridwatch. This provides insight for any Ontarioan to look deep into the grid, see where their electricity is coming from and see that peak pricing periods correspond to peak demand, and peak intensity.

So, the most expensive energy is also the dirtiest and using less energy at those times really does save money, and contributes to a cleaner environment.

It’s expected that this approach can increase the accuracy of carbon accounting from electricity by 10 - 15% and correctly incentivizes organizations to invest in technologies that conserve electricity at peak times.

Not all kWh’s are the same, Gridwatch gives great insight for Ontarioans into how electricity changes during the day and is a stepping stone to improve carbon accounting standards the world over. It is made in Ontario innovation, using big data to drive big changes and enhance energy literacy.

EnergyMobile Studios Inc. is made of subject matter experts in energy that create digital products to drive energy literacy and provide a platform for utility companies to engage with their customers. Their consumer facing app platform is Powercents which includes easy to understand Time of Use pricing animations, explanations and calculators along with great energy saving tips and price change alerts.