Category Archives: Ottawa

Lyman: Ontario’s electricity prices continue to rise

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here from energy economist Robert Lyman, an analysis of what’s going on with the price of electricity in Ontario… and what’s to come.

The Ontario Electricity Tragedy – The Numbers for 2013

The average resident of Ontario has a difficult time even understanding his or her electricity bill, let alone comprehending all the costs borne by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the Crown Corporation that manages provincial electricity supply and demand.

Fortunately for the rest of us, one man spends a lot of time monitoring IESO’s purchases and costs. His name is Scott Luft, and he reports his analysis on a blog entitled “Cold Air.” He takes publicly available data from IESO and translates it into something meaningful. Two tables recently published by Scott Luft tell us a great deal about what has happened to the “commodity cost” of electricity in Ontario since 2006, and especially about the breakdown of costs in 2013. The commodity cost is the charges that IESO pays for the actual power that it purchases from generators plus additional costs that are added on by order of the provincial government. It excludes the cost of electricity transmission and distribution and other special charges like HST.

Read the full article here.Ontario’s Electricity Tragedy by the Numbers (revised)

The simple genius of a noise nuisance bylaw

28 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Here from last week’s Wellington Times in Prince Edward County, is Rick Conroy’s account of the presentation to Council by Warren Howard, member of the Wainfleet group of municipalities (who started the Not A Willing Host campaign). The goal is to take what powers municipalities have left after the democracy-destroying Green Energy Act, and still take steps to protect citizens from the environmental noise produced by wind turbines.*

Quiet nights

Wolfe-Island-Small

Industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island.
PHOTO: HENRI GARAND

Coalition of municipalities seek to protect health and safety of residents near industrial wind turbines

It’s a simple plan. But it may be just the thing to slow down the epidemic of industrial wind turbines spreading across rural Ontario. Warren Howard is a councillor in the municipality of North Perth and lives in Listowel. He is a retired banker and understands bureaucratic processes better than most. He thinks he has come up with a way to thwart the provinces heavy handed Green Energy Act (GEA).

Howard’s plan is to create a bulletproof municipal bylaw that prohibits industrial noise in a rural area at night. That’s it. It sounds simple—and it is—but Howard has done his homework.

He has been working with municipal lawyer Kristi Ross. Together they have discovered that while the Green Energy Act took away virtually all the municipality’s tools to manage, control and oversee the construction of these massive structures in its community—it left intact provisions municipalities use to govern nuisance noise.

Howard believes any municipality may be able use these provisions to stop industrial wind development in its jurisdiction. He is looking to form a coalition of like-minded municipalities to jointly fund the crafting of a noise bylaw that will be enforceable and effective in discouraging industrial wind energy development, but won’t capture and impede other activities that may generate noise—such as agricultural operations.

It’s a fine line. Howard knows it. But he believes it can work.

Municipal bylaws can’t overtly defy or block provincial initiatives. So the Quiet Nights plan doesn’t seek to prevent turbines from making noise—it wouldn’t withstand a legal challenge. Instead the bylaw would only prohibit the machines from making noise at night. Further, the Municipal Act states that such a bylaw, if enacted in good faith by council, is not subject to a review by a court.

Warren-Howard

Warren Howard Municipal councillor in North Perth in Southwest Ontario

Howard points to a decision in Wainfleet in the Niagara region. There, the municipality was seeking two kilometre setbacks rather than the 500-metre setbacks prescribed in the GEA.

The wind energy developer had argued that the municipality’s efforts to protect the health and safety of residents should have no force because they frustrate the purpose of the province’s GEA. But while the Superior Court justice disallowed Wainfleet’s desired setbacks, it confirmed that municipalities retain the right to regulate noise nuisance in the Municipal Act.

It is through this narrow opening that Howard is hoping to lead municipalities seeking to control or limit the industrialization of their rural communities.

Read the full story here.

*NOTE: Back in 2010, journalist Mark Sutcliffe asked Prowind sales representative Bart Geleynse on his Ottawa Rogers TV talk show whether the wind turbines make noise. “Of course they do,” Geleynse replied. “They’re power plants.”

79th Unwilling Host: response to loss of democracy in Ontario

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Here from Sarnia, an opinion on last week’s vote at Lambton County to declare the municipality Not A Willing Host to wind power plants. Note that the report states wind turbines will soon be operating near Ottawa–the wind power plant at Brinston will begin operations this month, or in early March.

Unwilling host declaration born from frustration

By Peter Epp

Friday, February 14, 2014 7:09:16 EST PM

Wind turbines at the Erie Shores Wind Farm near Port Burwell generate power. Similar turbines may be popping up near Ottawa. (CRAIG GLOVER/QMI AGENCY)

Wind turbines at the Erie Shores Wind Farm near Port Burwell generate power. Similar turbines may be popping up near Ottawa. (CRAIG GLOVER/QMI AGENCY)

It’s been almost five years since the Green Energy Act received approval at Queen’s Park, and yet the public debate over the content of that legislation continues to be a sore point, especially in rural Ontario where most of the legislation’s impact has been felt.

Planning and decision-making for the location of wind turbines has been legally centralized in Toronto since 2009, and so local municipalities and their locally-elected councillors have had little to no influence in deciding whether a wind turbine or solar farm ought to be located within their political jurisdiction.

It is rare in Ontario, and in other democratic jurisdictions, when the wishes of the electorate, through their public representatives, are ignored so profoundly. Indeed, approximately 80 municipalities in this province have declared themselves to be “unwilling hosts” for wind turbine developments – a collective protest against legislation that smacks more of the Soviet than the Canadian style in getting things done.

Lambton County council joined that chorus on Wednesday. And in declaring that Lambton County was an unwilling host to wind turbines, it joined with several lower-tier local municipalities that have done the same.

Most protests are born from frustration and from the collective anger of an individual or group who have been placed in a position of futility. Removing all but a token comment on wind turbine developments has left local councils in Lambton County and elsewhere in a municipal no-man’s land. All they have left is the “unwilling host” designation.

None of this will change until there is a change in government at Queen’s Park. The Liberal government in power is loath to tinker with the legislation it crafted and supported five years ago. Even as recently as January 2013, during the heat of the Liberal leadership race, Kathleen Wynne declared that her role as premier would be to better convince the people of Southwestern Ontario that wind turbines are good for us, and that Toronto knows best.

And Wynne has been as good as her word. She’s tried to convince rural Ontario, but we’re not buying what she’s selling.

Read the full story here.

North Gower farmer still wants turbines on his land

08 Saturday Feb 2014

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Here from the current edition of Farmers Forum, a story on the differing views of farm owners on having turbines on their property. One farmer interviewed reacted to the concerns of the community, the other persists in believing that community opposition is wrong.

Farmers face off over wind turbines

Wind farm at Brinston will be test case for others

 By Tom Collins

PETERBOROUGH — As 10 new wind turbines were to start spinning at Brinston — about an hour south of urban Ottawa — the tide of public opinion about wind farms is changing, pitting farmers against one another.

The Brinston wind farm has been controversial, so much so that South Dundas council has since passed a resolution that it will not support further turbines until it sees a need for it. Some wind power supporters have seen communities turn on them.

When M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. decided to build five wind turbines in Cavan Monaghan Township near Peterborough, Don Winslow immediately jumped on board. In spring of 2013, he signed with the wind company to allow them to build a wind turbine on his 500-acre cash crop farm. Three months later, after immense public pressure and hostility, he told the company he couldn’t do it anymore.

“It relieved our stress tremendously (to cancel the contract),” said 70-year-old Winslow, who estimated that less than five per cent of the community is in favour of wind turbines. “We don’t have to sneak around the neighbours hoping to not run into them.

“There is always an element of society that is going to go overboard,” he said. “But people I respected were just as upset as the real radicals.”

Winslow is still a big believer in wind technology. But many Ontario municipalities are not. As of late January, 78 of 444 municipalities have declared themselves unwilling hosts of wind turbines — along with 33 concerned municipalities — despite the fact the designation has no teeth.

Five or six years ago, wind companies were offering farmers an agreement where they could earn $10,000 or more per year to allow a turbine to use up a half-acre of land. Now that price has almost doubled, Winslow said. A farmer signing an agreement today could make about $400,000 on a 20-year agreement.

Winslow said his neighbours were concerned about property values, health risks, and a flicker effect caused by shadows from rotating blades in the setting sun.

These wind turbine issues are still hotly debated. While the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said last April that wind turbines do reduce property values, many of the health issues have seen studies that support both sides of the argument. Health Canada has been studying the issue and expects to release the results this year.

Ed Schouten of North Gower: “I will host a couple…”

Ed Schouten has long wanted wind turbines on his dairy farm in North Gower. He doesn’t believe turbines are as much trouble as some make them out to be and would host a couple if a wind farm company decided to build in the area.

“I’m not afraid of them, let me put it that way,” he said. “I don’t think it’s going to harm the farm. I never thought in my life people would be against this.”

Schouten thinks the Brinston turbines will be a good test case for the rest of the area. If wind farms are done right — like the one in Brinston — then no one will complain, he said. The trick is to keep the wind farm small. If there are a few turbines, they look nice, but if there are hundreds, they become an issue.

Winslow said the negativity in the news media has played a big role in people shifting away from wind turbines.

“You don’t hear much except for negative publicity,” he said. “It’s hard for the average citizen to take anything but the view they keep hearing over and over in the press. There’s far too much emotion into it now.”

……….

Editor’s note: despite Mr Schouten’s claim that keeping the “wind farm small” would avoid issues with the community, the truth is, the proposal for his property and one other that is now on hold, was for eight turbines that would have been the largest in North America, and would have affected more than 1,000 homes. As for “small,” the 20-megawatt wind power generation project would have cost the citizens of Ontario $4.8 million a year, had it achieved a Feed In Tariff contract, or $96 million over the life of the contract. Prowind of Germany, the company putting that proposal forward, told Ottawa Wind Concerns that it is reviewing the requirements of the new procurement process for for large renewable power projects, and will decide to apply. The result is, North Gower-Richmond remain in “limbo” for months to come.

 

What do you think? Should wildlife be endangered by wind power plants?

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Wind Concerns Ontario is sponsoring a poll on whether at-risk species of wildlife should be harmed by wind power generation facilities.

The Ontario government believes that the “overall benefits” of wind power outweigh any other environmental damage.

What do you think?

Take the poll here.

Bob Chiarelli thinks you are stupid

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Here from energy economist Robert Lyman, a comment on recent remarks made by Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, on actions taken by his government, and whether electricity bills will rise (again).

BOB CHIARELLI THINKS YOU ARE STUPID

Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli, was recently quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying, “When the OCEB (Ontario Clean Energy Benefit) comes off the (hydro) bill, residential customers don’t face additional costs.”

The accompanying news article explained that the OCEB was a subsidy funded by taxpayers that was imposed years ago when Ontario realized that the cost of its “green” energy policies would drive electricity rates much higher. Under this subsidy, ratepayers get a 10 per cent reduction off their electricity bills. This subsidy is scheduled to be ended in July 2014. To offset the increase in electricity rates, the Ontario government apparently plans to end the debt retirement charge (DRC).

What does this mean?

When former Ontario Energy Minister Brad Duguid announced Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan in 2005, he predicted that this would increase rates by 7.9 per cent per year annually for the ensuing five years. The Provincial sales tax of 8 per cent was also added to electricity rates, and the actual increase in transmission, distribution and energy costs far exceeded 7.9 per cent per year. To “offset” this, Ontario introduced the Clean Energy Benefit, a subsidy from taxpayers to electricity ratepayers amounting to 10 per cent of residential bills.

The average ratepayer in Ontario consumes 800 kilowatts (kWh) of electricity per month. The ratepayer’s bill is now about $130.00 per month, which means that the OCEB reduces it by $13.00.

The debt retirement charge is a component of nearly every Ontario ratepayer’s electricity bill. Collection of the DRC began on May 1, 2002, at a rate of 0.7 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity and it remains at that rate today. The charge remits to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), and thus to the Ministry of Finance, about $925 million per year. The DRC was authorized by the Energy Competition Act of 1998, which included the restructuring of the former Ontario Hydro into four main successor companies. The OEFC was given the responsibility to manage the legacy debt of the old Ontario Hydro, which resulted from the fact that, at its dissolution, the former Crown Corporation had debts of $38.1 billion and assets of only $17.2 billion. The $20.9 billion difference was to be repaid partially out of the future profits of OPG and Hydro One. The rest, called the “residual stranded debt’ was to be repaid by consumers directly via the DRC.

Here’s the problem. As of March 31, 2013, the Ontario government had collected $12.9 billion from the DRC, more than enough to eliminate the original “residual stranded debt”. The government claimed, however, that the debt had not been retired because in the meantime the OEFC had incurred other costs. The Auditor General of Ontario, in his 2011 Annual Report, took the position that the Ontario government should determine what the balance of the residual stranded debt was and provide periodic reports to the public on its progress in reducing the debt.

The Ontario Minister of Finance included a report in the 2012 Ontario Economic Outlook and the 2013 Budget on the residual stranded debt. The report revealed that the debt was $4.5 billion at March 31, 2012. The report gave no explanation or commitment as to when the debt would be fully paid and the DRC charge removed.

If one considers only the average rate of reduction from 2003/2004 to 2011/2012 of $925 million per year and projects this forward, it means that the residual stranded debt will not be paid off until the end of 2016/2017. By that time, the Ontario government would have collected about $15.3 billion to repay the original $7.8 billion. This assumes that no other unexplained charges get added to consumers’ bills.

Suddenly, the Energy Minister has discovered that the government does not need to go on collecting the DRC and so will delete it from consumers’ bills. What effect would that have?

That average ratepayer consuming 800 kWh per month would pay $5.60 per month in DRC. The loss of the OCEB would increase his bill by $13.00.  The net effect would be an increase of $7.40 per month. Add the HST and the additional cost increase becomes $8.11 per month, or $97.00 per year for the average ratepayer. If Mr. Chiarelli believes that consumers will be kept whole, he either does not understand mathematics or he assumes the average resident of Ontario will not understand it either.

So who gains and who loses? Ontario electricity ratepayers are today paying rates far higher than the government predicted when it instituted it green energy policy, even with the “Clean Energy Benefit”. Now, those rates will be higher still. Ontario taxpayers will no longer have to pay the subsidy, so they will save about $1.2 billion annually. However, who will end up paying the balance of the “residual stranded debt” that, up to now, the government has claimed is owed? Could there be some creative accounting done by the Ontario government to transfer the costs to ratepayers or taxpayers in some other way? We will just have to watch and see. You can be sure that the Liberal Party of Ontario will not be paying it.

Robert Lyman, Ottawa, February 3rd, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

How will wind developers rate in new procurement process?

01 Saturday Feb 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Large (over 500 kW or 1/2 a megawatt) renewable power projects will soon be required to go through a new process in Ontario. The details are not final (yet the province is holding little dog and pony shows for “engagement”) but one of the ideas is that power developers must now “qualify” to be able to submit a bid to create a power project.

The presentation the Ontario Power Authority delivered on January 22nd via a webinar is here: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/planning/LRP-Presentation-January-22-2014.pdf

Pay close attention to the map on page 12–there appears to be “no limit” for Eastern Ontario.

“Community engagement” is a mandatory requirement in the new process but there is still “no veto,” as the OPA says clearly.

Throughout the summer there will be “ongoing engagement activities” scheduled. This is when the so-called charitable organization, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association or OSEA, at the behest of the government, and paid to do this, will travel through Ontario to tell us how wonderful wind power is. As to community concerns, if you follow our Twitter (@northgowerwind) you will have seen our conversations with OSEA Board member and Ottawa resident Chris Young. Concerned about your property values? Health? In Mr Young’s opinion, you should get out your roll of aluminum foil and refashion yourself a hat because you’re nuts. Health claims are “bogus” and concerns about property values (amply demonstrated by research studies in Ontario) are the result of a “whipped up frenzy.”

The process starts this month. We will try to keep you informed but why not sign yourself up for emails from the OPA by registering here.

We have been fighting for our community for four years; 2014 is going to be a year of dramatic events.

Donations welcome for our post office box, communications, public meetings, and legal advice. PO Box 3 North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Coalition forming to create new nuisance noise bylaw

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Several Ontario municipalities have been discussing the possibility of creating a bylaw for the benefit of all communities with wind power generation projects, so their residents may be protected against the environmental noise and low frequency vibration produced by the turbines.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is supposed to be monitoring the noise from wind power projects, but as was disclosed to the Environmental Review Tribunal hearing the appeal of the Samsung-Pattern Armow project, the Ministry’s position is that the wind power developers’ computer modelling for the turbines must be correct, so if they receive complaints for a project that therefore incapable of producing noise over the regulated limits, they don’t even investigate.

Worse, noise complaints go to the “Spills Line” which was really set up for ordinary environmental spills into air and water and on land, and the complaints are kept at the district level—they NEVER go to head office in Toronto for analysis and action.

So, while the municipalities are fighting to regain local land use planning control, they are also seeking ways to protect. Kincardine Council voted this week to begin the coalition of municipalities.

Question: do you think Ottawa should join? Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Kincardine backs plan to form coalition, create noise nuisance bylaw

Municipality seeking legal advice on how to move forward
Section:

29/01/2014, 04:42

By Barb McKay

Kincardine will support forming a coalition with other municipalities to develop a noise nuisance bylaw and plans to contribute $30,000 over two years to help make it happen.

It was the third time in as many weeks that council debated the idea of joining forces with other municipalities to come up with a bylaw that regulate industrial noise, including that from wind turbines, in rural areas. Last Wednesday council finally reached a concensus and approved two motions to support the plan, first presented by Warren Howard on behalf of Huron-Kinloss Against Lakeshore Turbines (HALT) on Jan. 8. That group indicated it will cost an estimated $300,000 to develop the bylaw and defend it in court.

The first motion, introduced by councillor Ken Craig, called on municipal staff to get legal advice on joining the coalition and developing the noise nuisance bylaw.

“If it’s a great idea you wonder why it hasn’t been done one hundred times before, and maybe it has,” said Craig.

He said before council agrees to join the coalition he would like to understand if there are any liabilities associated with doing so.

Councillor Jacqeline Faubert said coalitions have been formed many times in Ontario to deal with different issues. She pointed to Kincardine’s plans to form a municipal services corporation with Huron-Kinloss Township and Arran-Elderslie Township for the natural gas project as a prime example.

Deputy mayor Anne Eadie questioned if council would be putting the cart before the horse by seeking legal advice before it was determined if a coalition would even before formed.

“I agree that we need to consult a lawyer, but without an agreement from other municipalities we don’t have anything to take to a lawyer,” she said.

Councillor Randy Roppel said he supported the municipality seeking legal advice, but that it might be more make sense to do so as a coalition, rather than having 20 municipalities individually talk to a lawyer.

“I think we will need our own legal advice either way,” Kraemer said, and council agreed.

The second motion, introduced by Faubert, directs council to strongly support forming a coalition to draft a generic noise nuisance bylaw and to pledge $15,000 annually for two years to fund the coalition, which will include legal costs to test the bylaw out in court. The funds are conditional on other municipalities committing funds to the endeavor; the creation of a memorandum of understanding signed by other coalition members; and a plan to move the process forward.

“The courts have ruled in Ontario that noise and nuisance are legitimate municipal matters,” Faubert said. “I’ve been empowered by the ratepayers and this is a chance to do something. I feel very optimistic about this.”

Councillor Ron Coristine asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to add a communication protocol for participating municipalities to the memorandum of understanding, and council agreed.

Councillor Maureen Couture said by Kincardine putting its money where its mouth is, it may encourage other municipalities to join the coalition. But, she added, she would be more comfortable pledging funds for one year to avoid committing the next council to providing the money. Roppel said the next council could choose not to allocate the funds if it didn’t want to.

Councillor Candy Hewitt said the process to create the bylaw and have it go through the court system will in all likelihood take more than a year and it would be appropriate to commit funds for two years.

“It’s something at the ground level that shows that we really are trying to do something with the little power that we have to effect change,” she said.

Mayor Larry Kraemer said he was concerned that pledging $15,000 per year would scare off smaller municipalities who would like to participate but may assume they would have to contribute the same amount. He said he believes it will take at least 100 municipalities to have an impact.

Council voted in favour of both motions. Municipal staff is expected to bring a report back to council with legal advice regarding joining the coalition by Feb. 19.