Category Archives: Ottawa

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.

 

Big Becky cost overruns: how come nobody got fired?

28 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Parker gallant on Big Becky: what is THAT going to cost you?

BigBecky

The big hole where your money goes

 

In February 2010 an article penned for the Financial Post I disclosed that the Ontario Power Generation’s OPG) new Niagara tunnel (“Big Becky”) was not only running late but had incurred substantial cost overruns—in excess of $600 million, in fact.
The effects of that overrun have not affected our electricity prices yet, but the writing is now on the wall based on the OPG application of September 27, 2013.  The increases requested in that rate application by OPG, if approved, will increase electricity rates by at least $6-7.00 per month ($72-84.00 annually) for the average 800-kilowatt (per month) consumer.   According to the submissions to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), all of OPG’s “regulated” hydro rates will increase from 3.9 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 4.4 cents per kWh due to the costs of the tunnel.  One-half a cent doesn’t sound like much, but when you consider that in 2012, OPG produced 18.5 billion kWh of unregulated hydro, it is time to bring out the calculators.
That overrun effectively means OPG is seeking to recover about $96 million annually for the cost of “Big Becky” for the next 50 years (amortization period), which equates to $4.6 billion for a tunnel originally estimated by OPG in the business case presented to their Board of Directors in 2005, to cost $873 million. It has cost 70% over that amount.
OPG is seeking approval for the foregoing as a rate increase for their “regulated” hydro as Big Becky is classified; that means it is considered “baseload” generation and its cost of production will be close to 10 cents a kWh.  At the same time they are also seeking approval for an even larger increase in their “unregulated” hydro which could generate as much as $300 million and was the cause of the media focus when they discovered the application.  The “anti-nuclear” lobby painted it as a rate increase related to OPG’s nuclear refurbishment plans, which was a false premise.
What the cost overrun on “Big Becky” demonstrates is that oversight at Queens Park is sadly lacking in the energy portfolio.   It is disconcerting to realize that this project was $600 million over budget, yet to the best of the writer’s knowledge no OPG employee or Board member was castigated or lost their job. A private sector firm would investigate and allocate “cause” to one or several individuals in the event a project of this size exceeded budget by a factor of 70%.
Perhaps it is time to privatize the electricity sector as the private, but regulated, natural gas sector has demonstrated they can do a much better job.
©Parker Gallant                                                                                                                                           January 25, 2014
The views expressed here are those of the author.
Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario windconcernsontario.ca

London School of Economics study finds property value loss near wind power

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Research in Ontario on values of properties neighbouring wind power projects show a a range of loss on the order of 20-48%, as has been reported here.

The London School of Economics is about to publish a study based on transaction for properties near 150 wind “farms” studied over a 12-year period, which finds significant value loss.

Property value loss has been a hot-button issue for the wind power lobby, probably because it is proveable, and is a negative side effect of wind power projects, which can be very invasive in communities. The study is a sharp contrast to studies done by Ben Hoen in the United States, usually at the behest of and with funding from the wind power lobby. Mr Hoen famously produced a study claiming to have looked at over 7,000 properties—that was roundly criticized by people who know something about real property (Sunak & Madlener, Wilson, more).

This is just a preliminary news story; we look forward to reading the whole study on its release.

Property value loss in North Gower due to the proximity of the huge wind turbines (over 500 feet in height) to 1,000 homes, is estimated to be $134 million.

Donations to help us with legal advice are welcome; send to PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Proof wind turbines take thousands off your home: Value of houses within 1.2 miles of large wind farms slashed by 11%, study finds

  • Study by LSE found value of homes close to wind farms slashed by 11%
  • Home that costs £250,000 would lose £27,000 in value
  • Homes as far at two-and-a-half miles away could be reduced by 3%

By Sanchez Manning

PUBLISHED: 23:59 GMT, 25 January 2014 | UPDATED: 15:45 GMT, 26 January 2014

The presence of wind turbines  near homes has wiped tens of thousands of pounds off their value, according to the first major study into the impact the eyesore structures have on house prices.

The study by the London School  of Economics (LSE) – which looked at more than a million sales of properties close to wind farm sites over a 12-year period – found that values of homes within 1.2  miles of large wind farms were being slashed by about 11 per cent.

This means that if such a wind farm were near an average house  in Britain, which now costs almost £250,000, it would lose more than £27,000 in value.

Homes located within 1.2miles of wind farms can decrease in value by up to 11 per cent, a study has discovered

+2

Homes located within 1.2miles of wind farms can decrease in value by up to 11 per cent, a study has discovered

In sought-after rural idylls where property prices are higher, the financial damage is even more substantial. In villages around one of Southern England’s largest onshore developments – Little Cheyne Court Wind Farm in Romney Marsh,  Kent, where homes can cost close to £1 million – house values could drop by more than £100,000.

The study further discovered that even a small wind farm that blighted views would hit house values.

Homes within half a mile of such visible turbines could be reduced in value by about seven per cent.

Even those in a two-and-a-half-mile radius experienced price reductions of around three per cent.

Homes within a two-and-a-half mile radius could see reductions of up to three per cent

+2

Homes within a two-and-a-half mile radius could see reductions of up to three per cent

The report’s author, Professor Steve Gibbons, said his research was the first strong evidence that wind farms are harmful to house prices.

MORE ‘GREEN C**P’ TO BE CUT AS CARBON TAX IS SLASHED

Green taxes are set to be frozen to reduce soaring energy bills.

Whitehall sources say the Government is preparing to put the brakes on the ‘carbon tax’ on greenhouse-gas emissions, with an announcement expected in the Budget in March.

Prime Minister David Cameron has reportedly instructed aides to ‘get rid of all this green c**p’ to reduce energy bills, which currently average £1,350 a year.

Prof Gibbons, director of the LSE’s Spatial Economics Research Centre, said: ‘Property prices are going up in places where they’re not visible and down in the places where they are.’

The study, which is still in draft form but is due to be published  next month, focused on 150 wind-farm sites across England and Wales. It compared house-price changes in areas that had wind farms, were about to see one built  or had seen one rejected by the  local authority.

Last night Chris-Heaton Harris, MP for Daventry, said: ‘There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence – especially in my constituency – of house-price reductions near wind turbines. The question is, will anybody be liable for these losses in future?’

And Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the LSE, said: ‘These results are not really surprising as it is already known that people place a value on countryside views.’

A Department for Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: ‘Developments will only get permission where impacts are acceptable.’

A spokesman for Renewables UK, which represents the wind industry, said: ‘We will be analysing the conclusions closely when the final report is issued.’

Green Energy Act the most important issue for rural, small town Ontario

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

With a possible provincial election in the spring, and a municipal election in October, this story will be of interest to political hopefuls: the Green Energy Act has been a disaster for rural/small-town Ontario.  While concerns about the GEA were at number one, worries about jobs came in second–we propose that the two are closely linked, as Ontario’s soaring power bills drive businesses away, and make it difficult for businesses to compete. Jobs are being lost, not created.

Wind Turbines a Concern for Rural Ontario

Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:41 PM by Fadi Didi
Bayshore Broadcasting poll reveals listeners and readers worried about Green Energy Act

There is audio for this story.
MP3 - click to open click to open MP3 version
or click the play button to listen now.
Bayshore Broadcasting News asked you what you think the biggest concern is for rural Ontario in 2014, and the Green Energy Act spun out at number one.

Thirty-six percent of respondents feel the Green Energy Act or environmental sustainability is a major worry for those living in the province’s country lands.

The poll results follow a year rich with wind turbine controversy, including 78 towns, municipalities, and counties declaring themselves unwilling to host turbines.

Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives refused to support the act, stating they would not support the GEA until a Health Canada study ruled winds turbine do not negatively effect health.

Just trailing the concern over Green Energy at thirty-three percent is the worry of employment opportunities in rural Ontario.

Respondents worried that the few jobs in country areas do not pay very well, and that even those jobs are scarce.

Farm revitalization and transportation improvement were of the least concern to respondents, each coming in at six percent.

Minister Chiarelli: you need “better control” of your power costs

16 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

As per our post on Monday, a panel consisting of a local business representative, a social assistance agency, and a farm owner were guests on CBC’s Ottawa Morning show, to discuss the impact of rising electricity bills. They all said that time-of-use had affected them significantly, and the increase in electricity rates was just going to be worse. The farm owner, Peter Ruiter of Black Rapids Farm, said his cows need to be milked at the appropriate times every day, and there was no time-of-use flexibility for his operation. He invited Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli to come and see for himself.

Mr Chiarelli was interviewed on the show yesterday: his appearance was, in our view, a shocking demonstration of partisan politics but worse, one of complete ignorance of the power situation in Ontario. His claim that Ontario Power Generation made $7B for the taxpayers of Ontario is false, for example. And his claim that power bill increases are just a “blip” is insulting. While interviewer Hallie Cotnam caught him out on that, there was no question as to why the province continues to approve multi-million-dollar deals with wind power developers, for power we don’t need.

The link to the entire interview is here.

The rumour is that Mr Chiarelli is going to retire and not run in the next provincial election. Given his performance in this all-important portfolio, we think that is a “smart” decision.

Ontario’s electricity bills: rising costs for everyone

13 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Ottawa Morning

Here from today’s CBC show Ottawa Morning, is a panel discussion on the impact of Ontario’s rising electricity bills. The panelists include a representative from the Preston Street BIA, a representative of an agency trying to help people in need, and an Ottawa area dairy farmer.

The message is a powerful one: rising electricity bills will result in increased costs for everyone including for food, as well as job losses as business try to cope.

Dairy farmer Peter Ruiter of Black Rapids Farm says the province ought to have figured out how it was going to pay for its renewables progarm. He invited Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli to come to his farm.

Listen to the program here.

 

 

Smart meters not “smart” enough for Ottawa Hydro

07 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Frequent contributor to the Financial Post, energy commentator Parker Gallant noticed the story in the Ottawa Citizen on Hydro Ottawa and its struggle with “smart” meters, and sent this along.

Smart Meters not smart enough to suit Hydro Ottawa

The people who run Hydro Ottawa exhibit the same traits as our teens when Apple or Samsung announce the launch of a new i Pad or smart phone–they want the latest gadget. So, Hydro Ottawa trotted off to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) with a request that they be allowed to accumulate the costs associated with replacing 96,000 smart meters because the newer models had a few new apps.

Once they completed the conversion they would then seek a rate increase.

The OEB declined to approve the conversion concept however, so any of those costs will have to be absorbed by Hydro Ottawa or by their only shareholder, the City of Ottawa. That may result in reduced dividends ($18.6 million in 2012) being paid to the city, and in a mill rate increase depending on how well Hydro Ottawa manage their costs.

The OEB did grant a rate increase of 1.4% which will add an average of $8.28 annually to the delivery line of Hydro Ottawa’s bills or, as Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli might say, the cost of five Tim Horton’s coffees.

It is disconcerting to learn however that, while the OEB declined the smart grid upgrade, the OEB did allow Hydro Ottawa the right to collect 50% of legislated tax changes (capital tax related) from ratepayers as noted from the OEB’s decision on that issue:

EB-2013-0143 In its Supplemental Report of the Board on 3rd Generation Incentive Regulation for Ontario’s Electricity Distributors, issued September 17, 2008, the Board determined that a 50/50 sharing of the impact of legislated tax changes between shareholders and ratepayers is appropriate.

The Application identified a total tax change of $142,451, resulting in a shared amount of $71,225 to be collected from rate payers. Hydro Ottawa requested the Board authorize the recording of this amount in Account 1595 for disposition in a future application given that the associated rate riders are negligible. The Board agrees with Hydro Ottawa’s request and directs Hydro Ottawa to record the tax sharing debit of $71,225 in variance Account 1595 by March 31, 2014 for disposition at a future date.

While the cost of the tax sharing will be negligible, it is worth remembering back to when the province lowered the corporate tax rate. That considerably reduced the tax allocations, referred to as “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” (PIL), that the local distribution companies (LDC) were directing to repayment of the “Stranded Debt”. What happened then was the extension of the time required to pay out the “residual stranded debt” via the Debt Retirement Charge (DRC) we find on our electricity bills. The drop in PIL payments did not reflect itself in reduced distribution charges or reduced electricity charges at that time. 

Now, with local distribution companies (LDCs) suddenly facing new or increased taxes, the poor ratepayers are expected to simply cough up more money. The people running the LDCs and the OEB must believe the Ontario ratepayers have bottomless wallets.

Parker Gallant,

January 7, 2013

Special to Ottawa Wind Concerns

Donations welcome: PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com