Author Archives: Ottawa Wind Concerns

Parker Gallant on solar panels and school roofs in Toronto: not such a great deal

29 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

For fans of Parker Gallant, his review of the situation in Toronto where the school board thought they were going to be “green” and save money on roof repairs, and even “make” money too (albeit on the backs of already stressed electricity ratepayers but…details, details).

Lots of solar panels going up on buildings in the Ottawa area, too: are “deals” like the Toronto one being repeated here? The “wolf in green clothing” continues to hunt.

The green mirage: Toronto school board gets free roof repairs for solar panels — or do they?

Toronto School Board flunks out
Toronto School Board flunks out

Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), is getting an F on management practices.  Ontario’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Energy must also receive a failing grade.

It starts with Toronto’s public schools having leaky roofs.  The TDSB, with much fanfare May 2011, found the Holy Grail when they struck a deal with AMP Solar Limited Partnership for solar panels on school roofs.  TDSB thought the deal with AMP would result in free roof repairs on 450 schools, and, after AMP recovered the cost of the repairs, TDSB would also receive 14.5% of the solar power revenue generated from the Feed-In Tariff or FIT contracts they hoped to obtain from the OPA (Ontario Power Authority).  On paper it sounded wonderful; TDSB’s Director of Education Chris Spence said,  “This is a win-win for everyone involved.”

What he meant was, it would be a losing proposition for Ontario’s ratepayers.

What has happened since that announcement shows someone didn’t do their math homework or anticipate what might go wrong.

One year later: there were delays as the rules under the FIT program changed, creating lower prices for roof-top solar, and then McGuinty prorogued the Legislature.  The Toronto Sun quoted Chris Bolton, TDBS’s chair, confessing the Board didn’t have an alternate plan.  The story went on to say the Ontario government “encouraged” the TDSB to turn to FIT as a resolution to its roof repair backlog.   It is not clear if that suggestion came from the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Energy.  If it was, it was as a neat budget gambit to fool the taxpayers while sticking it to the ratepayers.   Three weeks prior to the Sun article the Ministry of Education froze new construction approvals, “citing concerns the TDSB was going over budget on building projects and in danger of not wiping out an existing $50 million capital deficit.”

A few “snags”

Fast forward July 25, 2014: the reporter who wrote the Toronto Sun story wrote one for the National Post  headlined  “Solar panel upgrades for public schools hit snags”.  The article infers “the costs” to repair the roofs are “higher than first pegged” and goes on to explain, “That’s because of greater-than-expected costs to the board’s private partner-School Top Solar LP-for roofing, installing the panels and fees to Toronto Hydro for hooking up to its power grid.”  It is unclear who School Top Solar LP is—the original TDSB partner was AMP Solar Limited Partnership, but perhaps they flipped the project to take a nice profit (as has happened with so many companies) that have obtained FIT contracts).

The result of this wonder story is that the most TDSB will get out of this free deal will be to replace one-sixth (720,000 sq. ft.) of the 4.3 million square feet of roofs.    They can also kiss goodbye to the 14.5% energy revenue Chris Spence thought they would get.

Let’s see where the mistakes were made. First, the math on the 66 MW that will be installed: based on the original roof-top solar prices ($700 per megawatt hour), the 66 MW could have generated in excess of $40 million annually and $806 million over the 20-year life of the contract. The developer (AMP) claimed the 66 MW would produce enough electricity to power 6,000 average homes, which means 57,600 megawatt hours (MWh) of power yearly.

Now the roof repair costs: roof replacement repairs to the 4.3 million square feet would run to $8 or $9 per sq. ft., meaning total costs would be in the $40 million range.  Capital cost of solar per MW is $5 million (approximately) as estimated by the U.S. EIA, so 66 MW would have cost $330 million making total costs (including roof repairs) about $370 million and recovery of the cost outlays (including maintenance) should have taken nine to ten years.

If it looks too good to be true, maybe…

The reduction in the FIT rates threw the “free” roof idea into jeopardy. It now looks like the TDSB will have to go cap in hand to the Minister of Education, Liz Sandals, if they want those leaking roofs fixed, without making the Board’s $50-million capital deficit disappear.

What’s funny is that now, as reality hits, a few of the education board trustees interviewed for the National Post said they actually want to blame the school principals (some of them had requested adjustments to the placement of the equipment used to hook up the panels to Toronto Hydro’s electricity grid).

Perhaps Ms. Sandals will solve the TDSB dilemma by getting the teachers unions to back down on their demands for raises and pension benefits until the roof leaks have been plugged!

This is another example of the many logic failures brought to Ontario by the Liberal government and its push for renewable energy on a large-scale!

Parker Gallant,

July 28, 2014

 The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

 

Wind power: a “wolf in green clothing”

28 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s clean, it’s “green,” and it wants your land and your money too

Here from The Hill, a US blog for policy-makers, a posting on wind power and the US form of subsidy, the Production Tax Credit.

July 25, 2014, 10:00 am

Wind power production tax credit: Wall St. wolf in green clothing

By Curtis Ellis, The Hill, July 25, 2014

The tax incentive for wind power expired last year, and the battle over its extension is now underway. Opponents say the wind power production tax credit, PTC, is a wasteful boondoggle while supporters say it’s crucial for renewable energy and jobs. The Sierra Club calls it “one of the best bets we’ve made on clean, domestic energy.”

But it’s a misplaced bet.  The PTC actually blocks the green energy technologies that hold the most promise.  Rather than helping an infant industry, the PTC is a handout to Wall Street.

Congress created the PTC in 1992, a tax credit of roughly 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of wind electricity, to nurture the infant wind energy industry. Government incentives to promote crucial industries are time-honored. That’s not the problem with the PTC.What’s important is that only big investors who want to offset tax liabilities on other investments need apply. The PTC can only be taken against “passive income” – income from other investments. Private equity firms put together investors who need a tax write-off courtesy of the PTC. Warren Buffett admits he uses the PTC to lower his Berkshire taxes: “we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.”

The PTC doesn’t help the average Joe who wants to put a small wind turbine on his ranch to generate electricity and reduce the taxes he pays on his farm income.

But while the PTC boosts Wall Street investment schemes in large-scale wind farms, the fact is small-scale, individually owned generation facilities hold the most promise for renewable energy.

Noted environmentalist Bill McKibben writes, “One of the great side effects of moving to renewable power is that we will replace vulnerable, brittle centralized systems that are too big to fail with spread out democratic energy sources.” Unfortunately, the PTC only encourages more “brittle centralized systems.”

California’s Local Clean Energy Alliance (which includes the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Sierra Club) concurs. It’s report, Community Power, states “local, decentralized generation of electricity offers many benefits to California’s communities relative to large central-station solar or wind power plants in remote areas.”

The Institute for Local Self Reliance, a green energy cheerleader, says renewables work best “at small scales across the country,” what’s known as distributed generation, “a network of independently-owned and widely dispersed renewable energy generators” rather than “a 20th century grid dominated by large, centralized utilities.”

In fact the Institute explicitly says the PTC is a significant barrier to greater investment in renewable energy. Removing this barrier “makes smaller projects more accessible to the local community, and draws local investors back into the process,” says John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Utilities are also taking local-scale renewable energy seriously.  A report by the Edison Electric Institute, Disruptive Challenges expects small-scale solar and wind “to challenge and transform the electric utility industry” with “adverse impacts on revenues, as well as on investor returns.”

David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, a wholesale power company that operates coal-fired plants, told Blooomberg Businessweek  “the grid will become increasingly irrelevant as customers move toward decentralized homegrown green energy.”

So, if local-scale wind and solar generated close to the end user makes the most sense, why do we have a PTC pushing large-scale wind farms? It’s a Wall Street play.

Environmentalists supporting the PTC mean well, but they fail to see the wolf of Wall Street hiding beneath the green clothes. Ironically, the national green organizations are fighting for the kind of massive generating stations and power lines their local chapters often fight against.

The PTC is an anachronism and an obstacle to developing the decentralized, independently owned power generation system appropriate for wind, solar and other renewables.

Anyone who believes in renewable energy should be happy to see the PTC expire. It’s time to replace this tax write-off for the financial services cabal with something that benefits everyone.

Ellis is executive director of the American Jobs Alliance.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/213183-wind-power-production-tax-credit-wall-st-wolf-in-green#ixzz38c15D4Uf

Brinston wind farm noise complaints lead to monitoring

28 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

And this is a SMALL one...

And this is a SMALL one…

The South Branch wind “farm” has been operating since mid-March, but it didn’t take long for the first noise complaints to be registered. This wind power generation facility is the first of the 3-megawatt machines to operate in Ontario; many more, mostly in southwestern Ontario, are to follow. The increased capacity is a concern to people who have done research on wind turbines, as they are more likely to produce infrasound or sound pressure, which disturbs some people.

Noise complaints lead to monitoring

by Sandy Casselman
Press staff

BRINSTON – It has been more than six months since the blades of the South Branch Wind Farm turbines began to spin, leaving more than one nearby resident with some sleepless nights.

“I call when it gets to the point I can’t tolerate it anymore and I go to the basement [to sleep],” Brinston resident Leslie Disheau, former president of the South Branch Wind Opposition Group, said. “It is an issue and I’m not the only person in town with the issue.”

Disheau, who is running for the Municipality of South Dundas’ deputy-mayor seat in this fall’s municipal election, has been staying close to home since the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) installed noise-monitoring equipment at her Brinston Road property last week.

“MOE contacted me and asked if they could put this noise monitoring equipment up,” Disheau said.

The two pieces of equipment measure wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, rainfall, and more, she said.

She has submitted three separate noise complaints so far. Every complaint must be filed with EDP Renewables’ project leader Ken Little and local MOE representative Terry Forrester to be officially registered.

During EDP’s first open community liaison meeting in March, a Brinston man spoke out about his own sleep disturbances, suggesting the turbines be shut off for a period during the early hours of the morning, beginning around midnight. At that time, Little confirmed that there had been one official complaint already registered. He also said an acoustic audit had been ordered, which he expected to get underway within two months of the meeting.

“EDP has not released their post-construction noise audit report,” Disheau said during an interview with the Winchester Press Fri., July 18.

In conversation with one of the MOE officials who installed the equipment, Disheau said she learned that the provincial authority also had not seen a report from EDP.

“They can take a long as they want,” she said, crediting the Green Energy Act with the responsibility for not specifying a deadline. “There is a 40-decibel limit [on the noise the turbines can make], and we have no idea if they’re in the threshold or not.”

To describe what the sound is like, she used Highway 401 versus airplane noise as an example, pointing out that the highway noise is more of a hum, and when she lived near it, the sounds did not bother her at all.
However, the turbines produce something more in line with the “drone of an airplane that goes into your head,” she said. “It’s a deeper tone, and that’s where you get the disturbance of sleep.”

Explaining the noise and its effects on her is not easy, she said, but it is similar to the sensation people get in their chest when listening to bass guitar.

Disheau said she explained her experiences to MOE’s acoustical engineer, adding that the sensations are at their worst when the blade tips of the turbine across the road (south of Brinston) and the one to the north behind her home (west of Brinston) are facing one another.

“The acoustical engineer said ‘yes, that it all makes sense,’ ” Disheau added. “This is not normal. You should not be in sleep disturbance in your own house.”

Meanwhile, Disheau is the only one in her home experiencing the effects of the rotating blades, as her husband, who shares the second storey bedroom on the home’s vinyl-sided addition, is tone deaf, and her children sleep on the first floor of the brick-sided main house.

The noise-monitoring equipment is controlled by a switch, which has been placed inside Disheau’s home. When she notices the noise, she flips the switch and the machinery calculates and documents the findings.

“Once everything is taken down, the ministry guy goes through [the recordings] and writes his report,” she said, which will list the decibel readings for various weather conditions (wind speed and direction).

When asked what she hopes to accomplish through this procedure, Disheau said the findings could require that EDP shut down operations during specific times of the day or during specific wind conditions should they prove the decibel levels exceed the regulated amount.

Read the full story here.

People with complaints about excessive noise from the turbines at Brinston must call both the developer, EDP Renewables (1-877-910-3377 ext 3) AND the Ministry of the Environment (1-800-860-2760). 

 

CanWEA execs venture down to Brinston wind ‘farm’

17 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

Not from around here: just visiting for the brainwashing

The executives at the wind power developers’ lobby group, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, took a trip down the road from their offices on Carling Avenue in Ottawa to see the wind power project in Brinston, just south and east of Ottawa.

Here’s a report on the visit:

CanWEA Staff Tours South Branch Wind Farm

On June 25, several EDPR employees led a tour of the South Branch wind farm for staff members of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) , including CanWEA’s president, Robert Hornung, who had this to say about the visit: The siting characteristics of South Branch and how well the wind farm blends with the natural landscape are truly impressive, said Mr. Hornung. We were equally impressed by the care and attention that EDPR has taken in building a high level of enduring community acceptance. 
The tour of the wind farm, located near Brinston, Ontario, included stops in the O&M building as well as the inside of the base of a tower and the substation building. After an informative tour, CanWEA expressed interest in working with EDPR to improve its information packages for farmers.  Several CanWEA representatives also said they planned to stop by the upcoming South Branch Kid Wind Day, which will be held on Thursday, July 24, and attended by 150 kids.

The claim that EDP has “enduring community acceptance” would be laughable, were it not for the truth about this community: once the wind project was publicly announced by the original developer, Germany-based Prowind, the community became divided between the few farm owners leasing their land for turbines, and others in the community who had no choice but to watch this happen to them. A community group was organized and held several information meetings…but of course, with the Green Energy Act, there are no solutions through elected representatives. South Dundas Council voted on a resolution to say there would be no support for further wind power development as Ontario doesn’t need any more power generation.

The so-called South Branch Kid Wind Day is NOT for local families (hard for them to miss the huge, 3-megawatt turbines) but it will be for kids being bused in from elsewhere. The community has not even been informed of this PR event.

Of greater concern, though, is the news that an “information package” is being developed for farmers: this is being worked on because Eastern Ontario has a green light from the province for wind power development…it is rumoured that 5,000 more acres in North Dundas have been optioned for future wind power development.

Our question: will EDP and CanWEA provide full disclosure on noise, health problems, sleep disturbance, property value loss, and the potential for lawsuits from neighbouring landowners?

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Brinston residents: call toll-free number to complain about turbine noise

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

168191.jpg

The South Branch wind “farm” has only been in operation for two and a half months, but already people are talking about the noise and vibration from the turbines. Last week’s super-windy days were especially troublesome. The turbines are 3-megawatt capacity, the first of the powerful turbines to be operational in Ontario … for now.

From contacts we have, it appears that some residents are completely unaware that they can–and should–alert the Ministry of the Environment’s “spills action” line and notify them about the excessive noise.
Complaints have to be Registered with BOTH EDP Renewables and Ministry of Environment. You need to provide your Name, Civic number Address, date and time of the noise and be specific with your complaint information.

Contact:
Ken Little, EDP Renewables 1-877-910-3377 ext.3 or southbranchwindfarmcomments@edpr.com

Ministry of Environment – spills action line 1-800-860-2760 request the Cornwall Office and speak with Terry Forrester.

We should add that we know from experiences with contacts in Harrow, Norfolk, and Grand Valley, that callers must be polite, and have details about the noise experienced, and the time of day and duration.

More information on the Ministry of the Environment Spills Action line may be found here.

South Branch was originally developed by Prowind of Germany, and sold to EDP Renewables, a firm with headquarters in Portugal.

Brinston residents may also wish to contact your MPP, Jim McDonell.

At-risk Golden Eagles to die if Prince Edward Cty wind farm built

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Prince Edward County community group has received documents via Freedom of Information that show Golden Eagles, an at-risk species of bird, would almost certainly die in significant numbers, if a 49-turbine wind “farm” is built as planned in Prince Edward County. The County is about two hours south-west of Ottawa, near Kingston, and is in the North American eastern flyway for migratory birds.

The County Coalition for Safe Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE) says the documents it obtained show that even with the limited number of days the wind power developer wpd Canada surveyed for the birds (just three days), substantial numbers of the birds would fly through at the height of the turbine blades, and die.

CCSAGE is also deeply concerned that this information was not made available to the public by either the developer or the Ontario government and, in addition, their request for this specific information was answered only AFTER the comment period closed. This information calls for questions about the scientific veracity of the so-called “technical review” done by the government of developer documentation.

See the posting on the Wind Concerns Ontario website here. Wind Concerns Ontario has filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario regarding the technical review process. Ottawa Wind Concerns followed suit with a letter to the Ombudsman with details on the lack of openness and transparency regarding the Prowind proposal for North Gower and Richmond.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Transport Canada demands removal of airport turbines for safety

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

CTV Windsor
Published Sunday, July 6, 2014 6:14PM EDT 
Last Updated Monday, July 7, 2014 9:03AM EDT

Pro-wind power Mayor says “there is no safety issue”

Transport Canada has issued an order requiring the eight wind turbines near Cedar Springs be removed by the end of this year.

The organization originally issued a letter requesting “voluntary compliance” last year.

In a release sent out by the municipality, Chatham-Kent mayor Randy Hope, says,“there is no safety issue so we need to change the regulation rather than force the removal of the turbines.”

RELATED STORIES

PHOTOS

CTV Windsor: Pilot voices Chatham airport concerns

The municipality had been waiting for a reply from Transport Canada on this proposal and was surprised this week to learn that Transport Canada had taken this new step of issuing letters demanding that the turbines be removed by Dec. 31.

The affected wind turbines are in a “no fly zone” south of the airport.

It is expected that GDF SUEZ, the owner of the affected turbines, will formally object to the order from Transport Canada and seek a hearing before the Minister of Transport through the process laid out in the Aeronautics Act.

Read more: http://windsor.ctvnews.ca/transport-canada-demanding-wind-turbines-be-removed-near-chatham-airport-1.1901446#ixzz36n9X6XXM

Read the full story and see photos here.

The Toronto wind turbine: green energy symbol

05 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Not as advertised?

It’s hard to visit Toronto and NOT see the single wind turbine at Exhibition Place. Today, at about 600 kW and 90 meters tall, that turbine is very small compared to what is being built and approved all over Ontario—and yet, the people of Toronto and visitors to that city, believe it is a symbol of all that is good about “green” power developed from wind energy.

The truth is a little more complicated.

Former bank vice-president Parker Gallant has written an examination of the Exhibition Place turbine: all is not what it seems. His article is in two parts.

Part 1: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/torontos-ex-place-wind-turbine-icon-or-mirage/

Part 2: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/the-ex-place-toronto-turbine-disappointing-investment/

A note: whenever wind power developer executives are asked by small town residents whether THEY live anywhere near a turbine, many of them (including Prowind’s president for 5 minutes, Jeffrey Segal, speaking in South Dundas) respond, yes. They mean they live in downtown Toronto, and can see the Ex Place turbine. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Gunn’s Hill wind farm proposal incomplete, should be denied: community group

02 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The proposal by Germany-based Prowind to build a wind “farm” near Woodstock Ontario is the subject of a complaint to the Ministry of the Environment, and the Office of the Ombudsman. While the application process is supposed to be “transparent” and open to the public, the truth is, documentation is not complete, and the Ministry and the proponent engage in correspondence that is not available to the public.

Joan Morris, Chair of the group East Oxford Community Alliance, wrote a letter to the Ministry of the Environment, both to the Minister and staff, demanding that approval not be granted to Prowind for the project, due to the failure to follow process. The letter follows:

Dear Minister,
I am writing to draw to your attention serious process issues at the Ministry of Environment with respect to renewable energy project reviews.  The public is being denied the opportunity to receive complete and accurate information regarding a project, and also to participate in the “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE reportedly occurring following the EBR comment period.
I trust you will investigate these issues in which Ontario citizens’ rights are being denied.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
From: Joan Morris
Sent: June-23-14 11:15 AM
To: Garcia-Wright, Agatha (ENE)
Cc: ‘Eric Gillespie’
Subject: Environmental Approval Process – Gunn’s Hill Wind Project – “Iterative Process”
Dear Ms. Garcia-Wright,
In your letter dated April 25, 2014 you have indicated the following:
·         The MOE may require “additional information or clarification from the proponent”
·         The review process may be an “iterative process”
These points raise significant concern for reasons as follows:
·         The proponent has reportedly already deemed its application for the project to be complete and accurate (although our FOI request of April 13, 2014 has not yet been fulfilled to confirm this information)
·         MOE staff have deemed the application to be complete (again, results of FOI request pending at this time)
·         The iterative process conducted solely between the MOE and the proponent (without public disclosure or participation) is an admission that the application did not contain sufficient and accurate information for approval and therefore should not have been deemed complete and accurate by the proponent nor by the MOE.  This is also an admission that the information available for public review during the EBR comment period was not complete and accurate.
If the MOE has adopted practices such that the proponent’s REA documents are no longer required to be complete and accurate, and an “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE is accepted practice, then posting to the EBR is a sham and is misleading and deceptive to Ontario citizens.
In your letter of April 15, 2014, you state that projects are planned in a transparent manner, yet, the public appears to have no timely access to the ongoing communication between the MOE, proponent and other ministries.  It appears the only manner in which the public may obtain information is to submit FOI requests on an ongoing basis, to obtain information retrospectively and to incur costs.  Despite my submission of three FOI requests to the Ministry of Environment April 13, April 15 and May 27, 2014 with all applicable fees, as of June 23, I have received no documents whatsoever.  My rights as a citizen to obtain information regarding a project that directly impacts me are being violated due to your ministry’s failure to provide disclosure via either direct request to your agency or via the FOI process.  This, coupled with the “iterative process” between proponent and MOE leads me to reject your claim that projects are planned in a transparent manner, and in fact is reflective of a process designed to facilitate and “remove barriers” for the proponent to gain approval,  rather than to involve and protect the public.
Any iterative process should require that the public be involved at each stage and have the opportunity to participate in a transparent manner. I am not aware that the MOE has disclosed that the process is iterative until now.
I request that the MOE disclose:
·         The date when the iterative process was established between MOE and the proponent and its consultants. In particular please clarify whether the iterative process between MOE and the proponent and its consultants been in effect in the past; AND
·         The process by which the public will be advised of the iterative process;  AND
·         The process by which the public will be full participants in the iterative process;  AND
·         Whether the iterative process will replace the FOI process for obtaining disclosure.
I request that your agency deny the application of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm until such time as your Ministry discloses complete and accurate information to the public regarding all communication relating to this project, and the public has adequate opportunity to participate fully in the “iterative process” in an open and transparent manner.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
Copy:    Eric Gillespie (lawyer)

 

See related story here.

Ontario’s massive debt: what voters didn’t want to hear

02 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Here from Ottawa economist Robert Lyman, a review of Ontario’s debt situation: it isn’t pretty.

ONTARIO’S DEBT – THE STORY ONTARIO VOTERS REFUSED TO BELIEVE 

Several pundits have commented on the reasons for the major victory by the Liberal Party in the Ontario provincial elections held on June 12. Many have judged that voters were simply unwilling to believe the Progressive Conservative message that fiscal responsibility required reductions in spending, including where necessary reductions in the number of public service positions and programs. Voters said that the debt was not a problem that they wanted to worry about.

Even after the event, it is may be a good idea to examine exactly what the facts are with respect to the financial situation of the provincial government and what this may mean to the people who live in Ontario in future.

  • According to the Ontario Financing Authority, the consolidated provincial debt as of June 14, 2014 is $295.8 billion.
  • The debt has grown significantly over the past generation. In 1990, Ontario’s debt was $38.4 billion. It grew to $115 billion by 1998, and has almost doubled again since then.
  • Ontario has only been able to sustain this increase in debt because of interest rates that are at all-time historic lows. Even so, in 2013-2014, annual debt service costs to the provincial treasury were about $10.6 billion, the fourth largest expenditure item after health, education and social services.
  • The 2014 budget that was defeated projected that debt service costs would rise to $12 billion by 2015-16 and $13.3 billion by 2016-17. This is by far the fastest growing item in the provincial budget, growing twice as fast as the health budget.
  • The Liberals are committed to increasing program spending for at least the next four years. This year the $3 billion increase in program spending will increase the annual deficit to $12.5 billion from $11.3 billion last year. The deficit will be much higher if the Liberals’ projection of a 4 % annual economic growth rate turns out to be too optimistic.
  • There are very few reasons to believe the optimistic growth forecasts. Ontario’s productivity growth lags behind that of the United States, as does business investment. The province’s cost competitiveness has eroded, due to higher taxes and fees and much higher energy costs.
  • In the short term, the debt service cost could be increased further if the various investors’ services downgrade the province’s credit rating. Ontario has $250 billion worth of bonds rated by Moody’s Investor Services. The province’s ability to pay back those bonds, known as the debt-to-revenue ratio, is 237.7 %, the worst rating among all Canadian provinces.

Read the full paper here: ONTARIO’S DEBT

Email us at Ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com