undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrow0101c6d ago0 comments

Ontario Hydro did not go bankrupt.

It was broken up into "constituent" components in 1998, and the a lot of the nuclear plant construction financing debt didn't fit neatly into any one of them, so a separate legal entity was created: Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC).

Ratepayers pay their electrical bills, the money goes to local utilities and entities like OPG and Hydro One, which in turn pay OEFC.

The claim that it was bankrupt was a line used by Mike Harris et co to justify privatization.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ViewTrick10026d ago· 2 in thread

It was a government owned utility, it couldn’t go bankrupt in the traditional sense since it has taxpayer backing.

But its finances were completely underwater with no way out due to the debt from nuclear construction.

After the breakup the public were left with $38B in debt from nuclear construction. Which the subsequent nuclear company was unable to pay off, or it would of course not have been restructured.

throw0101cOP6d ago

> But its finances were completely underwater with no way out due to the debt from nuclear construction.

The debt from nuclear construction was being paid off then, just like it is being paid off right now: OEFC holds the debt and has revenue to pay it off. An article from someone who is not a fan of nuclear, but is also not a fan of Harris's non-sense:

> Harris claimed Hydro was so badly in debt as to be bankrupt. This claim was proven false by the final Ontario Hydro financial report in March of 1999 which showed that $1 billion of Hydro’s debt had been paid down and was on track to be paid off in 20 years. At the time critics said: “wouldn’t we all like to have a 20-year mortgage on our home because then you have an asset that serves you well!”

* https://rabble.ca/environment/the-nuclear-power-lie/

ViewTrick10026d ago

That’s an extremely rosy picture not aligned with reality.

You can’t compare it with a house mortgage.

They had X in earning potential in a set time frame.

The debt accumulated was X + Y.

After the restructuring the public were left as bagholders of the ”+ Y” since it would be impossible to pay it off reasonably under the current framework.

A new framework was created where this stranded debt was paid off as a forced separate line item on everyone’s bills.

In other words. They were bankrupt, if the state hadn’t stepped in then they would not have been able to amortize the debt in the expected timeframe.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse