23 Wednesday Oct 2013
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Wind power
There has been so much interest in what we are doing with our petition, and so much support from Greater Ottawa—Kanata especially!—we are going to do an online poll for Ottawa residents to comment on the proposed wind power project.
With the help of a wonderful volunteer, it should be ready tomorrow.
If you can’t come to either of our signing dates, please download the petition here, and return it to us at PO Box 3, North Gower ON K0A 2T0
21 Monday Oct 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, Kathleen Wynne, Ontario economy, Ontario electricity bills, Ontario's electricity system, Quebec power
No, no, don’t confuse me with the facts!
18 Friday Oct 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Auditor General gas plants Ontario, Bob Chiarelli, Bonnie Lysyk, gas plants Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, Parker Gallant, siting power plants Ontario, wind power approvals
In a letter published in The Ottawa Citizen today (but not available online) Wind Concerns Ontario vice-president Parker Gallant writes:
Ottawa Citizen, October 18, 2013
Peddling empty promises
RE: Angry Ontarians talk turkey with Wynne over $1B gas plant bill, Oct. 10
On the same day that Ontario’s new Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk, released her report on the Oakville gas plant cancellation, Ontario’s Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli tried to deflect the bad news in a news release headlined “Ontario Improving Decision-Making on Large Energy Projects.” In it was a link to 18 recommendations by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
The recommendations were fluff. Words like “outreach,” “understand,” and “enhance,” were used but nowhere was any mention of returning local planning to the communities where these large power projects are to be sited.
Minister Chiarelli declared that “We want to get these decisions right … we are committed to ensuring communities have their say right from the start.”
Sending out a news release dealing with siting power projects on the same day that the Auditor General disclosed that the cost of moving the Oakville gas plant cost the ratepayers and taxpayers of the province $675 million, is not just an admission that they got the siting process horribly wrong, it pretends it is being fixed.
The truth is, the Ministry of Energy remains firmly in charge and will decide what it wants. To tell Ontario communities that they will “have their say from the start” is insulting. In just four days in early October, approvals for three more huge wind power generation projects were announced, the largest with a capacity of 180 MW. All these were without community consultation.
Mr Chiarelli is peddling more empty promises to detract from the mess that the Ontario Liberals have made of what used to be a competitive electricity sector.
Parker Gallant, Wind Concerns Ontario
16 Wednesday Oct 2013
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
legal action North Gower, Lisa MacLeod MPP, North Gower wind farm, Not a Willing host, Pierre Poilievre
When Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne held her first interviews after being elected the Ontario Liberal Party leader, and thus, Premier, she was asked about the controversy over wind power projects in Ontario. She said, her government would not be forcing the power projects on communities that were not “willing hosts.”
Today, 72 Ontario municipalities have declared themselves to be “Not a Willing Host” ( see windconcernsontario.ca Not a Willing Host tab for the list of communities).
North Gower is not a legal municipality since amalgamation with the City of Ottawa, but residents plan to be declared Not a Willing Host by using a legal petition to the City of Ottawa.
“This petition is a legal document, signed and witnessed by members of our community,” says Ottawa Wind Concerns chair Jane Wilson. “We will take this petition to the City of Ottawa and make sure the City overall knows that there is no support here for a wind power generation utility so close to homes, and our school.”
Wilson notes that Ontario often has a surplus of power and has sold excess for a loss to neighbouring jurisdictions such as Michigan or New York State, and that the Ontario government recently announced it is paying wind power companies NOT to add power to the grid. “So why build another one?” she asks. “Why subject yet another Ontario community to the dramatic impact of a wind power project it it’s not even needed?”
The proposed 20-megawatt wind power project will be within 3.5 km of more than 1,000 homes, Wilson explained. A conservative estimate of the average property value loss is over $130 million.
MPP Lisa MacLeod, now energy critic for the opposition has often spoken against the wind power project; MP Pierre Poilievre has said it makes no sense financially, and commissioned a Library of Parliament study to show that subsidies for the project from Ontario taxpayers would be about $4.8 million per year.
The petition-signing debut for North Gower residents is Saturday October 26th at 10 a.m. at the Alfred Taylor Centre on Community Way. Special guest Parker Gallant, frequent contributor to the Financial Post series “Ontario’s Power Trip,” will deliver a presentation “What’s in your electricity bill?” by videolink at the event.
Residents who are unable to attend will be able to sign the petition when volunteer canvassers come to their door, or on a special “voting day” at the Alfred Taylor Centre on Saturday November 9 from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m.
For more information, email Ottawa Wind Concerns at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
13 Sunday Oct 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Dalton McGuinty, gas plant cancellation scandal, national Post, Ontario energy policy, Rex Murphy
From the weekend edition of The National Post, Rex Murphy‘s summary of Duplicitous Dalton and the havoc wreaked up Ontario taxpayers. Who pays for all this “venality” Murphy asks: “the honest pockets of carpenters in North bay and teaching assistants and snow plow operators and store clerks and seniors…”
The horrible truth is, Ontarians are continuing to pay for the disastrous McGuinty energy policies as approvals of giant wind power projects continues, and subsidies are doled out by the million each week.
Wonder how Ottawa South voters are feeling about John Fraser this week…
The Auditor-General of Ontario has released her report on the provincial Liberal government’s brazenly political decision to cancel two gas-fired power plants. Her estimate of the ultimate cost: about $1.1-billion, potentially reaching $1.5-billion. This obscenity of mismanagement and prevarication came out of Duplicitous Dalton, Inc., a.k.a. the McGuinty government, an administration we now know was, politically, so venal as to toss perhaps as much as a billion and a half taxpayer dollars into the devouring — but politically favourable — wind.
In contemplating the disastrous consequences of the Ontario government’s two arbitrary gas plant closures, it does well to remember the performance put on by then-premier Dalton McGuinty before his abrupt resignation.
Never hesitant to play the Boy Scout, the premier prorogued the legislature rather than face questions about the gas plants, and then piously sought to blame the opposition for his troubles.
“I prorogued because the place was becoming overheated,” Mr. McGuinty insisted, citing a “spurious, phoney” suggestion that his energy minister had been in contempt of the legislature for failing to produce documents related to the scandal.
D.D., Inc. even had the brass to insist, originally, that the cost to cancel just the Oakville, Ont., plant was only $40-million. The Auditor-General this week, after a cautionary distribution of Gravol tablets to the assembled press, offered a more altitudinous range of $675-million to $810-million — 15 to 20 times as much! And from the very beginning of the noxious affair, to any question the Liberal response was delay, obfuscate, stone-wall, delete emails, deny said deletions, miraculously locate the not-so-deleted emails, and, of course, insult and hector any and all critics.
Let there be no more “used car salesmen” jokes about political leaders. Used car salesmen are pillars of candour and conscience compared to this lot.
They knew $40-million was a joke estimate from the moment they scrambled to “buy” the votes by scrapping the plant — in other words, from the moment they chose to buy a couple of ridings by ripping up contracts, costs be damned.
Read the whole article here.
09 Wednesday Oct 2013
Tags
Bonnie Lyserk, cost of power Ontario, gas plant cancellations Ontario, Ontario's electricity system, power demand Ontario, Robert Lyman
Here from Ottawa economist Bob Lyman, who specializes in energy issues, is what you need to know about the Auditor General’s report, and why the losses mounted up to over $1 billion for both the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.
ONTARIO AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON OAKVILLE POWER PLANT CANCELLATION COSTS: SUMMARY AND BRIEF COMMENTARY
Introduction
On October 8, 2013, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, released a Special Report on the costs that have been incurred and are likely to be incurred by the public as a result of the cancellation of a natural gas-fired electricity generation plant in Oakville Ontario. In the period leading up to a provincial election, the Liberal government announced the cancellation of this plant on October 7, 2010. As a result of the cancellation, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) was required to negotiate arrangements for the construction of alternative power generation facilities in Napanee, Ontario. Thus, the objective of the Auditor General Office’s review was to determine the costs of both the cancellation of the Oakville plant and the relocation of the power generation facilities to Napanee.
Background
The need for a natural gas electricity generation plant in the Southwest Greater Toronto Area was first identified by the OPA in its 2007 Integrated Power System Plan. In response to the plan, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure directed the OPA in 2008 to procure a combined–cycle natural gas generation facility in the area with a capacity of up to 850 megawatts (MWs), to begin operating no later than December 31, 2013.
In September, 2009, the OPA awarded a contract to TransCanada Energy Ltd. (TCE) to build the facility in Oakville. There followed significant local opposition from groups in the Oakville area, including the Town of Oakville. The government cancelled the project. Soon after, OPA and TCE began to negotiate a settlement on a replacement project. TCE had already incurred significant costs and was facing the loss of revenues it would have received if the original contract had been honoured. The negotiations were difficult. The Premier’s Office intervened, without consulting OPA, to assure TCE that it would be compensated for the financial value of its contract for the Oakville plant. The Minister of Energy instructed OPA to contract with TCE to build a new plant in Napanee. Finally, the Province and OPA agreed to an arbitration framework (for determining damages to be paid to TCE if no settlement was reached) that favoured TCE and waived the protections that OPA had under the original Oakville contract. In December, a deal was reached to relocate the plant to Napanee.
Cancellation Costs
The Special Report lists two types of costs that resulted from the plant cancellation -the costs already incurred and the estimated future costs.
The costs already incurred include reimbursing TCE for its initial purchases of gas turbines for the Oakville plant and the modifications made to them ($210 million), sunk operating costs relating to the Oakville plant ($40 million) and legal fees ($3 million).
The estimated future costs essentially relate to the cost of constructing the Napanee plant, of increased gas connections to get natural gas to the Napanee plant, the costs of new gas pipelines to move gas to Napanee and new electricity lines to move electricity from Napanee to the GTA, the penalty associated with the use of less efficient gas turbines, and the cost of replacement power to make up for the non-availability of the Oakville plant’s power for some time. The Auditor General’s Office estimates these costs to be $859 million.
The total costs incurred plus estimated future costs are thus $1,112 million (i.e. $1.1 billion).
Estimated Future Savings
In return for taking on a portion of the costs that TCE would have incurred, OPA was able to negotiate a lower price for the power from the Napanee plant than it would have had to pay for the power from the Oakville plant. This results in an expected savings of $275 million. There is also a delay in the commencement of payments to TCE compared to what would have occurred under the Oakville contract because the Napanee plant will come into operation later. The OPA and Auditor General disagree on both the dates when the Oakville plant would have come into operation and when the Napanee plant will come into production. As a result of these disagreements, the Auditor General estimates the present value of the savings to be $162 million, and OPA estimates it to be $539 million.
Using the Auditor General’s figures, the net cost to the public will be $675 million.
Impact of Potential Toll Increase
TCE’s parent company will also benefit from the fact that under the Napanee agreement a section of the pipeline route owned by TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) effectively must be used to transport gas to Napanee. This section does not now have the capacity to transport the amount of gas that will be needed by the Napanee plant. Accordingly, TCPL will need to make additional capital investments and recover these costs through increased toll charges, which will get passed on to electricity ratepayers. Tolls could increase by up to 50% in the first three years; if so, over the 20-year term of the contract for the Napanee plant, the cost of gas delivery would increase by $140 million.
Special Observations
The Special Report makes some observations that raise concerns about the way the Ontario government managed this issue.
I would also observe that the need for additional natural gas generating plants is closely linked with the Ontario government’s commitment to add significant additional generating capacity from “green” energy sources, mainly wind turbines and solar power equipment. These intermittent sources of power require much more conventional energy sources to back them up for periods when they produce little or no electricity.
In reality, Ontario already has significant surplus electrical generating capacity, a situation that seems likely to continue until 2018 at the earliest. The problem seems to be one that is entirely of the government’s own making.
Robert Lyman
Ottawa
07 Monday Oct 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
cost benefit wind power, cost-benefit renewable power, Dalton McGuinty, Feed In Tariff Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, Ontario electricity bills, OPA, Parker Gallant
30 Monday Sep 2013
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
electricity bills Ontario, energy Ontario, Lisa MacLeod, Randy Pettapiece, wind farm North Gower
Just announced: Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod has been named the Energy Critic in the Progressive Conservative “shadow” cabinet.
MacLeod has been critical of the proposed 20-megawatt wind power project on farmland in North Gower and Richmond which will be too close to hundreds of people, and which will be financed with subsidies from Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers.
Perth-Wellington MPP Randy Pettapiece has been named Rural Affairs critic; Pettapiece’s family first came to North Gower in the 1800s from England, and has appeared at several events in the Ottawa area speaking on energy and wind power issues.
Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
16 Monday Sep 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
North Gower wind farm, property values wind farm neighbours, property values wind farms, Richmond wind farm, wind power Ottawa
Here from Wind Wise Massachusetts:
FALMOUTH, Mass., Sept. 16, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A national study that claims there is “no statistical evidence” that real estate prices near wind turbines are negatively impacted is misleading because it lumps homes close to the turbines with those miles away, according to Wind Wise Massachusetts (WWMA).
“The report’s own data found that homes located within one mile to the turbines decreased in value by 28 percent compared to homes located within 3 to 10 miles from the turbines,” according to Virginia Irvine, president of WWMA (windwisema.org), a statewide alliance of grassroots environmental groups and individuals.
“The study’s authors are just perpetuating the myth that wind turbines are not responsible for significant property losses,” she said.
“The report is also comparing apples with oranges as less than 2.5 percent of the more than 50,000 home sales analyzed in recently released Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study were within one mile of the turbines and some were as far as 10 miles away,” Irvine said.
In the widely publicized report, the authors stated in the abstract that “…we find no statistical evidence that home values near turbines were affected in the post-construction or post-announcement/pre-construction periods.”
The report -– A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States –- was published by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in August.
Irvine said independent, comprehensive appraisals have found that land-based wind turbines can cause property values to plummet within two miles by 15 percent to 40 percent.
“There is a major difference between turbines in a power plant 10 miles from homes in the country to those that are less than one mile from homes in residential communities,” Irvine said.
“But the sad fact is that whether a wind turbine is near a solo home in the country or in a more heavily populated area, the homeowner is going to see a significant loss in the value of his home,” she added.
“Wind turbines near residential areas are devastating to home values,” according to Michael McCann, president of McCann Appraisal of Chicago.
He said his paired study analysis of homes near wind turbines in more than two dozen communities throughout the country “consistently have found homes losing 25 to 40 per cent of their value.
Contact: Barry Wanger for Wind Wise Massachusetts, Wanger Associates, 617-965-6469, Barry@WangerAssociates.com
SOURCE Wind Wise Massachusetts
11 Wednesday Sep 2013
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, conservation power Ontario, cost-benefit analysis wind power, electricity rates Ontario, Ontario's smart grid, smart meters, wind power Ontario
Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario today:
On November 23, 2010, Ontario’s then Minister of Energy, Brad Duguid, issued a directive via an Order In Council to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), with instructions on the “smart grid”:
“… it is desirable that the Province and the Ontario Energy Board move forward together with a plan to implement the advanced information exchange systems and equipment that together comprise the Smart Grid (“Smart Grid”), as defined in the amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998 made by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009…”
The Duguid directive was a direct result of the Dwight Duncan directive of 2004 to the OEB instructing them to arrange the installation of “smart meters” throughout the province.
Co-incidentally (noted by Tom Adams), the Duguid directive is dated the same day as the e-mail exchange between Alicia Johnston (formerly a senior political staffer for Energy Minister Brad Duguid, later promoted to the Premier’s Office) and Ben Chin (a senior Ontario Power Authority executive). That e-mail exchange contained Ms Johnston’s suggestion to engage Tyler Hamilton, a contributor to Toronto Star, as an “expert” to counter the Adams and Gallant duo who “are killing me” ; Chin agreed. Shortly after, Hamilton received a contract from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) for a report on the smart grid.
The fact is, the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO had already started work on the “smart grid” as noted in the Financial Post article on July 6, 2010 — costs of development were estimated at $1.6 billion. IESO had awarded a contract to IBM according to a January 15, 2007 press release; the purpose of the contract was defined as: “the development and operation of Ontario’s Meter Data Management/Repository (MDM/R).”
A culture of conservation
The MDM/R is explained as: “a core part of Ontario’s Smart Metering Initiative to drive a culture of conservation, enabling the billing of Time-of-Use rates and encouraging consumers to shift more of their energy use to off-peak periods.” The initiative would apply to 4.7 million customers of local distribution companies, involving more than “100 million transactions every day.”
More than six years later, that “Repository” has yet to generate reports on either shifting consumer habits or “imbedded generation.” (Embedded or distributed generation is usually a small scale production of power connected within the distribution network and not having direct access to the transmission network. These generators are typically located close to the electricity consumer.)
But that hasn’t stopped IESO from awarding IBM yet another five-year contract for $68.5 million for the same “repository” with an option to extend the contract seven to ten years. With an estimated 100 million data feeds daily from “smart meters” one would expect that data to be accessible to determine what production comes from embedded generators such as rooftop or ground-mounted solar, to reinforce the “culture of conservation” and identify shifts in consumer habits.
Is this a missed opportunity for a cost/benefit analysis?
On July 16 of this year, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli arranged a press release about conservation and claimed that “Ontario has saved billions of dollars through conservation, and we have a clear opportunity to do more. By investing in conservation before new generation, where cost-effective, we can save ratepayers money and give consumers new technology to track and control energy use.”
What caught my eye in that press release were the endorsements: they were not from the usual climate change chorus such as Environmental Defence, CAPE,or the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. The last one was “Sheldon Levy, President, Ryerson University.” What would possess the President of Ryerson University to jump on this band wagon?
A month later, we have the answer: on August 26, 2013 a news release announced that Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Energy (CUE) “will build an innovative smart grid laboratory” with support from the province. The press release doesn’t say how much the province is coughing up but does say “Building a smarter grid is an important part of the Ontario government’s plan to modernize the electricity system in the province and provide clean, reliable and affordable power to consumers.” One can assume President levy’s endorsement of the July conservation announcement was sought by the Ministry as a condition of support for the smart grid laboratory. CUE was launched in 2010 with $7 million in grants from taxpayer-owned Hydro One, Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Power Authority.
A Globe and Mail article dated October 17, 2012, called “The tricky business of funding a university” carried the following comments about Ryerson’s CUE:
“Some schools have tiptoed the line successfully. Toronto’s Ryerson University launched its Centre for Urban Energy (CUE) two years ago using $7-million in contributions from three partners – Hydro One, Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Power Authority – and is now hoping to enlist new collaborators such as Siemens and General Electric.”
It appears that President Levy knows exactly how to “tiptoe the line.” CUE’s intentions to collaborate with GE and Siemens are also interesting. An announcement by Minister Chiarelli on July 2, 2013 indicates that the $50-million “Smart Grid” fund has already provided grants to GE, Siemens and IBM.
Just asking: did the grants to GE and Siemens carry a proviso that they collaborate with CUE and did they both seek those grants? It is not clear why IBM would need a grant as they have been awarded two long-term, multi-million dollar contracts from IESO. The press release indicates the IBM grant was to create a centre “that will use and analyze smart meter data” which is what they are already supposed to be doing for IESO under the terms of the contract(s)!
Government grants to huge corporations
So, we hand out grants to multi-billion dollar corporations such as GE, Siemens and IBM and award them government contracts. The first two entities are entrenched in the renewable energy business (turbines and blade manufacturing) so, to an extent they are dependent on commitments to more wind power by the Ministry of Energy. And, IBM won two contracts related to the data analysis of 4.7 million smart meters installed throughout the province.
(I checked the Ontario Lobbyist Registry and could only find GE with registered lobbyists.)
As noted above, the original estimate to create the smart grid was $1.6 billion, to be paid by Ontario’s ratepayers. IESO stick-handled the first smart grid rate application through the OEB and ratepayers have paid for it since May 1, 2013. It is included, but hidden, with the delivery costs charged by your local distribution company (LDC). It is a charge of .79 cents per month and referred to as a “Smart Metering Entity charge.” Your LDC will collect this for the next five and a half years. Doing the math on this rate hike indicates that it will cover $245 million of that $1.6 billion —so be prepared for further “hidden” increases as spending is ramped up.
As noted, the MDM/R definition it is really all about conservation and enabling those 72 LDCs to bill on a Time-of-Use basis. Those “smart meters” and “smart grid” will cost ratepayers $4 billion and will not produce one kilowatt of new power. I suspect that Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller doesn’t consider the above costs or the costs of the smart meters, when he presents his annual report to the Minister of the Environment. The Commissioner’s cost/benefit study uses only the annual spending of the Ontario Power Authority (media advertising, free fridge pickup, coupons to purchase CFL bulbs, etc.) which paints the cost of “conservation” as only three cents per kilowatt hour.
In addition, a posting on Scott Luft’s website indicates that time-of use pricing has shifted consumers’ energy use to what used to be “off-peak” periods (noted as an objective of the MDT/R). As a result, those periods have now become “peak” demand periods for ordinary consumers, beginning at 7 PM, rather than mid-day. Ontario’s ratepayers are now trained to eat our supper and wash our clothes later, not because we want to, but because electricity has become so costly we only use it during the off-peak hours!
Perhaps the Dalton McGuinty government should have simply doubled the price of electricity when they came to power in 2003 and we would have immediately started to conserve. Think of the money we could have saved, the countryside we would not have despoiled with industrial wind turbines, the harm to health not caused, the birds and bats not killed, and the property values that would not have fallen!
Too bad politicians don’t grasp the simple law of supply and demand.
Parker Gallant.
September 11, 2013
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 