Liberals pressured to recoup power-plant costs

Provincial agency refuses to name eight of nine firms that filed ineligible expenses

Pressure is building on Ontario’s Liberal government to recoup millions more from nine power plants caught filing up to $260 million in ineligible expenses, including staff car washes, parkas, scuba gear and raccoon traps.

With only $168 million in repayment orders issued by the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), opposition parties insist the remaining $92 million must be recovered.

“This has to go further,” Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith said Thursday in the wake of a damning auditor general’s report into lax oversight and weak investigative capacity. “These are the types of things that drive people crazy when they’re struggling to pay their own hydro bills.” New Democrat MPP John Vanthof accused the government of allowing the electricity suppliers in question “to defraud hard-working families” through rates they pay for power.

Adding to the angst is a refusal by the IESO, which arranges day-to-day electricity supplies to keep the lights on across the province, to name eight of the nine offending companies, the critics said.

Only one, the Goreway power plant in Brampton that was fined $10 million and hit with a $100-million repayment order, has been identified because it was named in an investigation by the Ontario Energy Board.

Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said the repayments ordered were subject to settlement negotiations and told reporters “I don’t have a problem” with the names of offending companies being made public.

But Duguid, standing in for Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault, who had a death in the family, said those decisions are up to the IESO.

Factors in the settlement negotiations included disputes between the agency and companies as to how many expenses were ineligible, he added. “There may not be certainty to that.”

IESO vice-president Terry Young told the Star the agency believes the ineligible costs are closer to $200 million, meaning about 85 per cent of the monies have been recovered.

“We thought the $260 million was extreme,” he said, referring to the figure in auditor general Bonnie Lysyk’s annual report issued Wednesday.

The IESO decided the costs of litigation to recover more funds was not worth the financial risks, Young added. “We aren’t going to be taking any further action.”

Names of the other eight companies facing repayment orders cannot be released under the rules established for participants in Ontario’s energy market, Young said.

That needs to be changed, Vanthof said. “The system should be much more transparent.”

Thibeault’s office issued a statement Thursday saying the repayment orders hinge on the definitions of eligible and ineligible expenses that could be claimed by power producers in a program that has since been changed.

“Since IESO now pre-approves eligible costs, this risk has been corrected,” said Thibeault spokesperson Colin Nekolaichuk.

In her report, the auditor general also faulted IESO for having executives from some of the companies on a panel of 23 members studying ways to modernize Ontario’s electricity market and no consumer representation.

Goreway executive Rob Coulbeck and Paul Dottori of Rayonier Advanced Materials resigned as cochairs last week. Consumer advocate Francesca Dobbyn, executive director of the Bruce Grey United Way in the Owen Sound area, has since been appointed to the panel.

WALKOM: A damning indictment of the Ontario government’s private power strategy,

The debate about drug prices has been roiling for years in Canada and has reached a fever pitch of late.

On Saturday, Ottawa proposed changes to drug price regulations in Canada that it estimates will deliver $12.6 billion in savings over 10 years through lower drug costs.

Sure, Canadians spend too much on drugs, but not just for the reasons you think. Pharmaceutical companies should not shoulder sole blame for the increase. There are several factors at work here. We need to broaden the discussion to one of drug “spend,” not just drug prices.

Drug prices typically increase on an annual basis, and the prices of some drugs are much higher in Canada than in other countries. Generics, for example, are costlier in Canada than in the U.S., while brand name drug prices are often lower in Canada. Price disparity from country to country can be attributed to several factors, including supply and demand, direct-to-consumer advertising, litigation, the number of suppliers, and economic policies to incentivize pharma R&D.

However, the amount we spend on drugs has a strong behavioural component for consumers, physicians, pharmacists, employers, unions, politicians and legislators.

Here’s an analogy to illustrate the role consumers play. The price of groceries increases marginally from year to year, but my grocery bill increases dramatically one year. Perhaps because I chose to buy more organic fruits and vegetables, locally raised meats and other specialty products. I made a conscious decision to purchase these higherend products.

However, a higher price tag does not always indicate a superior prescription drug. For example, the current standard of care for a rare congenital condition called Neonatalonset Multisystem Inflammatory Disease (NOMID) is a $96,000 specialty drug. Recently, a $17,000 specialty drug received approval to treat NOMID; our expert panel recommended that it is a good alternative, since it can be used to treat infants earlier, patients have a rapid response and it is significantly less expensive.

Many companies, and most public-sector employers and unions have drug plans with 100-per-cent coverage of virtually every drug on the market. This means that they will cover any drug at any price. This has an adverse effect on the market. It can create an environment of complacency, with virtually no incentive for people to consider less expensive but equally effective alternatives.

Plans should only cover a more expensive drug if it is the most effective option is backed by research.

Otherwise, people should be empowered to consider the less expensive alternative if it carries equal effectiveness. Generic drugs have the same active ingredients as brand name drugs and work the same way in the body, and save Canadians a huge amount of money.

Consumers can change their behaviour by becoming informed and empowered and by taking ownership over the sustainability of our system. The incentive is a system that can continue to afford to fund drugs for the population.

Other parties can contribute to sustainability as well. For example, prescribers can and should recognize that there may be less expensive alternatives. Employers and unions should take a more collaborative position (some already have). They are often deaf to the position that having a drug plan that recommends less expensive drugs can improve health and financial outcomes.

The dilemma around pharmacare is that some people have 100-per-cent coverage of every drug (such as government employees and public-sector unions) while others have nothing and no insurance. A national pharmacare plan would mean that every Canadian would be on one single, national drug formulary (list of drugs). It means that every Canadian would be covered by one drug plan, and that the plan would cover those drugs that work most effectively, backed by evidence, and whereby clinical benefit justifies the cost.

In other words, any such formulary should dictate which drugs would be paid for — not doctors, pharmacists, unions or even consumers. The plan could be administered by one organization and have enough leverage ($30 billion worth) with pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies to address drug prices. Consumers would still be able to get access to higher priced drugs not on the formulary, but they would have to pay out of pocket. The question is, are we ready for that?