06 Thursday Feb 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Blanding's Turtle, migratory birds Ontario, Ostrander Point, wind farms and birds, wind farms endangered species, wind farms environment
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.
06 Thursday Feb 2014
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, cost-benefit analysis wind power, IESO, Ontario electricity bills, OPA, Parker Gallant
Tell me again: why have Ontario’s electricity rates gone up so much?
If you live in an Ontario city and just received your first electricity bill for the year, you are probably looking at it and scratching your head! Wow, did we really use that much electricity for those lights on the Christmas tree?
The answer is, no, you didn’t, but your electricity rates and your delivery rates have climbed a lot over the past several years, even though you may have used less electricity.
Ontario’s electricity sector is very big with annual revenues of about $20 billion (approximately 4.5% of total 2012 Ontario primary household income). The sector has been undergoing massive changes over the past decade as the current Liberal government, supported by the NDP, decided we should go “green” and save the world from global warming or its current iteration, “climate change.”
So exactly what has caused the price of electricity in Ontario to rise at a level we haven’t seen in our lifetime? Here is a list of the principal changes that have affected our electricity bills during the past decade. Many will continue to push our bills even higher over the ten years. They are in no particular order and remember, they all cost you money.
§ $230 million for taxpayers and almost $900 million for ratepayers to move the gas plants.
§ $60-$70 million annually—the Ontario Power Authority or OPA’s budget. One of our “energy ministers” created the temporary (OPA) instructing them to develop a Integrated Power System Plan. It’s no longer temporary even though it has never produced an acceptable plan.
§ $300 million plus annually for the OPA to run the province’s “conservation” program, to pick up your old fridge, provide coupons for purchases of lightbulbs and thermostats.
§ Rate increases: when you actually conserve electricity the program allows your local distribution company (LDC) to apply to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for a rate increase on their delivery rates because they lost revenue.
§ More: the same program supports local municipalities to convert their street lights to LED bulbs.
§ $20 billion, now reduced to $13 billion, for the OPA to sign that Samsung contract to pay them for putting up wind turbines and solar panels and (maybe) produce power over the 20-year contract.
§ 70.2 cents per kilowatt for the OPA to develop the feed-in tariff (FIT) program which pays various school boards to put solar panels on school roofs, or for IKEA, Loblaws and Canadian Tire, etc. to put them on their stores, and then charge them 8 or 9 cents to buy back the power.
§ $11 billion because the energy minister(s) instructed Hydro One (transmission & distribution monopoly) to spend on both transmission and distribution assets, including a big chunk just to hook up solar panels and wind turbines.
§ $700.54 for each of Hydro One’s 1.1 million smart meters—a lot more than other LDCs spent. The total cost of smart meters for the province is around $2 billion .
§ Despite all that spending on smart meters Hydro One is continually messing up their distribution customer’s hydro bills due to faulty meters and a billing system that doesn’t work very well.(One radio commentator said it’s in constant “FAIL” mode.)
§ 1,700 employees at Hydro One up 39% since 2005, but they actually distribute less electricity now than they did then.
§ $4.8 billion, as of spring 2013 for pension shortfalls at OPG and Hydro One. Ratepayers are on the hook for and must pay for through their monthly bills.
§ $600 million: the amount OPG went over budget on the Big Becky tunnel under Niagara Falls.
§ $2.6 billion because OPG was directed to move forward with the Mattagami project, for run-of-river hydro which will produce power principally in the spring when we won’t really need it.
§ $6 billion, the amount the Energy Minister recently said we made in “profit” selling our excess power but ratepayers subsidize those exports at a cost of over $1 billion every year.
§ We now pay wind turbine developers to not produce power and we also pay solar farm developers for not producing power because it might put Ontario’s grid at risk for blackouts or brownouts.
§ We now pay for meteorological stations to be erected at wind developments to measure how much power they might have produced, but we can’t use, and pay for it anyway.
§ Five: the top five executives at Hydro One earned almost twice as much as Hydro One paid out under the LEAP (Low-income Energy Assistance Program) grant program which was developed to alleviate “energy poverty.”
§ $7.7 billion: in 2005 when the Global Adjustment was called the Provincial Benefit it actually was a benefit and reduced electricity bills by $53.1 million, but for 2013 it was a charge on ratepayer’s bills that exceeded $7.7 billion.
§ $1.2 billion: on July 1, 2010 the Province started collecting the provincial portion of the HST and that 8% tax increase now costs ratepayers at least $1.2 billion annually.
§ 140%: the amount the “Off-Peak” time-of-use rates have risen since they first appeared, moving them closer to “On-Peak” rates—so much for encouraging power consumption to off-peak hours as a conservation measure.
§ Discounts to big industry: because Ontario has added so much generation our Energy Minister has directed the OPA to start two new industrial incentive programs that will allow big industry to pay for electricity at huge discounts similar to what we are paid for our exports which ordinary ratepayers will subsidize.
§ 3,600 megawatts of wind and 1,200 MW of solar: what the OPA has contracted for which will all be paid for at above market prices, and will push that Global Adjustment pot up much further than it was in 2013.
§ The “renewable generation connection” charge: what we pay for Hydro One to connect wind and solar projects to the grid.
§ $12 billion: what Ontario’s ratepayers have handed over to pay off the residual stranded debt of $7.8 billion but here’s the bad news—there is still $3.9 billion to be paid.
§ $1.5 billion: the cost for the Province via the IESO to develop a “smart grid,” some of which is now appearing on our bills under the “regulatory” line.
§ $200 to 400 million a year, we pay to subsidize electricity consumption for large industrial users.
§ $1 billion a year: what we pay gas generators through a “net revenue requirement,” so they can be at the ready when the wind’s not blowing or the sun is not shining.
§ $ 1 billion a year and more: what taxpayers have been paying for the past four years to provide ratepayers with a “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit” of 10%. It expires in one year, meaning electricity bills will jump by 10% more.
So, no, it wasn’t your Christmas lights that jacked up your bill. Here’s hoping a light goes on somewhere in the halls at Queen’s Park, and the government takes action to stop this madness.
©Parker Gallant
February 3, 2014
The opinions expressed are those of the author.
03 Monday Feb 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, Ontario Debt Retirement Charge, Ontario electricity bills, Ontario Energy Board
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.
01 Saturday Feb 2014
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
North Gower wind farm, OPA, OSEA, Prowind, Richmond wind farm, wind farms and health effects, wind farms and property values, wind power Eastern Ontario
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
01 Saturday Feb 2014
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Algonquin Power, Amherst Island wind farm, bird kills wind farms, James Bradley Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Prince Edward County wind projects, Rick Conroy, Wellington Times, wind farms and environment, wind farms and health effects, wind farms environmental damage, wind farms Ontario
There are very few independent newspapers left in Canada. Most are now part of chains, and as a result, their editorial content follows whatever line the ownership decrees. Here then is the refreshing view of wind power in Ontario from editor of The Wellington Times, the “must-read” tab in Prince Edward County.
The channel that separates Amherst Island from Prince Edward County is scarcely two kilometres wide. The island itself is tiny—just 20 kilometres long and seven kilometres across at its widest point. It is likely that in some ancient past Prince Edward County and Amherst Island were connected.
Now these communities share a common threat—a threat to the birds that stopover on their way north and south. To the animals that live here and make this unique habitat their own. To a pastoral way of life. And to the very health and well-being of the folks who who call these island communities home.
Earlier this month, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) deemed complete an application by a company controlled by Algonquin Power to construct as many as 37 industrial wind turbines on this small and fragile island. Thirty seven turbines. Each soaring more than 400 feet into the air— blades sweeping the sky over a span of 10,000 square metres (equal to two acres of sky for each turbine).
Once erected— there will be no escape. No place to avoid the unrelenting thrum or flicker from blades swooshing overhead. No safe passage for migrating birds seeking to avoid the treacherous minefield of turbines stretching across the island.
The playground for the only elementary school on the island lies within 550 metres of one of the proposed turbines. Hydro One won’t allow wind turbines that close to its transmission lines for fear of damage—but the Ontario government deems school children less valuable, it seems.
The simple truth is that it is impossible to cram 37 turbines onto this tiny island and avoid putting humans, animals and natural habitat at risk. It is why the developer, in a report prepared by a consultant on the threat posed by this project to more than 14 endangered or threatened species, stresses that it will work to minimize the impact of its project, but that its first obligation is to “ensure the commitments of the contract” and “ensure renewable energy is delivered to the province”. The developer has made it clear what its priorities are.
We know too, from experience in this community, what the province’s priorities are. The MOE and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is already running ahead to clear the regulatory path for the developer. Endangered species and human health concerns are merely check boxes on a form to be filled in.
Once the turbines are erected Amherst Island will be lost for at least a generation—disfigured and devastated for the duration of the developer’s guaranteed 20-year contract with the province. For species on the brink of survival, the damage may well be permanent.
Read the full article here.
29 Wednesday Jan 2014
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
CAW wind mill, RETH study, turbine noise, wind farm noise, wind farms and health effects, wind turbine syndrome
Here is a report from Sun news, which features an interview with Dr Philip Bigelow, of the University of Waterloo’s RETH health study.
26 Sunday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
American Wind Energy Association, Ben Hoen, Canadian Wind Energy Association, Green Energy Act, property value loss North Gower, property value loss wind farms, property values wind farm neighbours
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
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.
+2Homes 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.
+2Homes 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.
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.’
26 Sunday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
cost-benefit analysis renewables, electricity bills Ontario, Green Energy Act, James Bradley Ontario, job loss Ontario, Minsitry of the Environment Ontario
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.
There is audio for this story. click to open MP3 versionor click the play button to listen now. |
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.
23 Thursday Jan 2014
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
The Ontario government and the gigantic wind power lobby group have routinely pointed to Germany as the shining example of how green energy works, and especially wind power. Apparently, things aren’t so lovely in Germany where, by the way, there are community groups opposed to siting wind power projects too close to people.
Here is the story from The Telegraph.
17 Friday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, Ontario electricity bills, power costs Ontario, rising hydro bills Ontario, Scott Luft
Energy blogger Scott Luft has gone through Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s interview with the CBC the other morning, and found a few leeeetle problems with the facts…
Check out his blog here.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 