Category Archives: Renewable energy

North Gower rally vs proposed wind power project

27 Sunday Oct 2013

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

(Dear Tom Spears: they are NOT ‘farms’)

From the Ottawa Citizen

North Gower rally opposes possible wind farm

  By Tom Spears, OTTAWA CITIZEN October 26, 2013
North Gower rally opposes possible wind farm

Nearly 300 people came to the recreation centre in North Gower Saturday morning to oppose construction of eight to 10 wind turbines north and west of the village.

NORTH GOWER — Nearly 300 people came to the recreation centre in North Gower Saturday morning to oppose construction of eight to 10 wind turbines north and west of the village.

“They’re too noisy. They are really way to close to people for an industrial power plant,” said organizer Jane Wilson, of Ottawa Wind Concerns. “Far too close to too many people.”

She estimates that 1,100 homes would be within 3.5 kilometres of the turbines.

“A number of the homes are within two kilometres, which is … where you see most of the health effects,” she said.

Her group circulated a map of where it says the turbines would be sited, “and when people start looking at the map and see how close it is, it really makes a difference to them.”

Opponents of wind farms say sound waves that are at too low a frequency for the human ear to hear can cause insomnia, dizziness, headaches and other health problems. The industry says there is no health impact.

Construction could begin in the fall of 2014, she believes.

The proposal by Prowind Canada is on hold for now, but residents expect the company to go ahead eventually. The Prowind website estimates the size of what it calls the Marlborough wind farm at eight turbines, producing up to 20 megawatts.

Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod, who is also the Conservative energy critic, attended the event to support the protest.

“Rural communities are going to be assaulted by these wind turbine developments,” she said.

She said the Conservatives want a moratorium on new wind developments, and an end to subsidies “so that we can put them put of business.”

She also accused the turbines of being costly and inefficient.

Wind farms are common in many parts of Ontario, especially along the Great Lakes, but are not yet common in Eastern Ontario. In some rural communities they have pitted neighbours against each other, with some welcoming the revenue and some saying their health and property values are at stake.

“There are obviously some health issues that need to be explored and Health Canada is doing that right now,” MacLeod said.

Wilson said the Saturday rally collected 282 signatures declaring that North Gower is “not a willing host” to a wind farm.

Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre announced on Twitter that the social costs of wind farms are too high and added, “I will continue to stand with you.”

Click here for the map by Ottawa Wind Concerns.

tspears@ottawacitizen.com

Parker Gallant on energy ministry: aiding the fortunes of … Quebec!

21 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Parker Gallant on Ontario’s Energy Ministry: aiding the fortunes of…Quebec

 chiarelli1.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo

No, no, don’t confuse me with the facts!
Endorsing fallacies, avoiding realities—Ontario’s Ministry of Energy
Global Adjustment charge jumps from $800 million to $6.5 billion in four years
Watch out Ontario, Quebec is targeting our industry!  That’s the message one gets from the announcement by Premier Pauline Marois that Quebec will use Hydro Quebec’s surplus power to attract job-creating industries to Quebec.  An article in the October 8, 2013 edition of the Financial Post states Hydro Quebec will set aside 50 terawatt (TWh) hours for that purpose.  To put that in perspective, 50 TWh represents 35% of Ontario’s total power demand (141.3 TWh) in 2012, or enough to power five million average Ontario households.
So what is Ontario doing to stave off this aggressive push from Quebec?  Well, since being named Premier, Kathleen Wynne has overseen the Ministry of Natural Resources issue renewable energy approvals for about 811 megawatts (MW) of industrial-scale wind power.  Three of those, including a Samsung contract (Armow Wind for 180 MW), occurred in just the last two weeks!  Her government also announced October 10, 2013 that they will scrap the plan to build 2,000 MW of new nuclear.  That 2,000 MW was part of the Long-Term Energy Plan issued by Brad Duguid in late 2010 when he was Energy Minister.
Here is what Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli had to say about abandoning the new nuclear build:  “We’re in a comfortable (electricity generation) surplus position at this time and it’s not advisable to make the major investments in new nuclear. Some time in the future we might be looking at it.”
To put that into perspective, it would take approximately 7,000 MW of industrial wind turbines to produce the equivalent power of the proposed 2,000 MW of nuclear.  That 7,000 MW would entail the erection of almost 3,500 turbines spread throughout the province, producing power at 29% of their rated capacity.   That same 7,000 MW of wind would produce power 80% of the time when we don’t need it—the middle of the night, during the spring freshet, and in the fall when our demand for power is the lowest.  And, when we don’t need the power we will often pay the wind companies to not produce power. We will also require other power sources to back up those turbines (now expensive gas plants, two of which were moved at a cost of over $1 billion ) so Ontario ratepayers will pay twice for any power we may need.
So what will this cost us?
A report from the Ontario Power Authority (that no longer appears on their website) pegged the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM) for the 12 months ended January 31, 2009 at $800 million.  Fast forward just four years to January 31, 2013 and the total GAM had jumped to $6.5 billion for the comparable 12 months.  The GAM looks sure to hit the $8 billion mark by the end of January 2014. That GAM pot principally reflects renewable energy costs along with money spent on getting Ontarians to conserve.
Looking at what the cost of 2,000 MW of new nuclear might be to the Ontario ratepayers and  using the original estimate of $26 billion, you get a capital cost of $43.4 million per TWh (assuming a 40-year lifespan).  That includes a fuel cost of 6.3 million per TWh.  For those who like to equate that to a kilowatt hour (kWh) the cost (without Operations, Maintenance and Administration [OMA]) would be 4.43 cents per kWh and 8.3 cents per kWh when OMA is included both less than recently announced average (8.88 cents) time-of-use (TOU) prices set for the next six months.
Now compare that to the cost of a TWh from wind turbines and assume they will produce at 29% of their rated capacity.   At 11.5 cents per kWh the cost to produce the same power jumps to $115 million per TWh (plus another 20% cost of living increases) without adding in the costs of back-up power from gas turbines, the spilling of clean hydro or “steaming off” nuclear power from Bruce.  The back-up alone adds over $80 million per TWh bringing the cost per kWh to 20 cents.
So how do Ontario’s electricity rates for large industrial customers compare with Quebec?  According to Hydro Quebec energy costs in Montreal at $100 would cost $223 in Toronto and $90 in Winnipeg.
It may be time for Premier Wynne and Minister Chiarelli to do a reality check.  Why didn’t they simply announce that Ontario doesn’t need more electricity production from wind, solar and nuclear “due to our comfortable surplus position” instead of the fallacy that we need more wind?
We certainly don’t need electricity generation that will complete the process of making Ontario the most expensive place to operate energy intensive industry in all of North America.  Stop the spin, stop the fallacy that wind can replace nuclear!
Parker Gallant,
October 21, 2013

5 days til our petition event!

21 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

North Gower launches our Not a Willing Host legal petition on Saturday October 26th at the Alfred Taylor Centre on Community Way.

Can’t make it on the 26th?

email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and we will get a petition to you, RIGHT NOW if you wish

OR

come to the Alfred Taylor Centre on November 9 between 11 and 1, to “vote” and sign the petition.

Your friends and neighbours are signing already—let’s get the message out to Ottawa and the provincial government:

North Gower is NOT A WILLING HOST to a huge wind power project!

Print

 

Minister Chiarelli: pretending things are fixed

18 Friday Oct 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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

 

 

North Gower plans to be “Not a Willing Host”

16 Wednesday Oct 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

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

South Branch wind project footprint visible

16 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

From the October edition of The AgriNews, an update on the South branch wind power project. You recall that Prowind, the same developer as for the Marlborough project in North Gower, began this project by leasing land from local farm owners, and then sold it to Portuguese energy giant EDP. Construction is ongoing now.

Here is an excerpt of the story by Lois Ann Baker.

BRINSTON–Now that the wet weather is out of the way, construction on the South Branch Wind Farm* is well underway. The sites of the 10 turbines that will be scattered throughout the Brinston area have been excavated and access roads have been created to allow the many trucks and equipment to access the sites.

Within the next week or two the foundations for the turbines will be poured, paving the way for installation of the turbines.

The main site located on Brinston Road just south of the hamlet, will also be home to the substation that will be used to maintain the turbines. A building consisting of meeting rooms and storage space will also be located on that site.

Project manager Ken Little said … the turbines [will] be installed in November and they should be producing power for Hydro One by the new year.

The controversial wind farm has sparked interest among the locals, said Little and EDP Renewables has tried to keep up “fairly regular communication” with both supporters of the project and those that oppose the turbines.

Ralph Butler of Williamsburg expressed his concerns over the wind farm by saying that the area of farm land being wasted is unbelievable.

BrinstonAerialSB“I think it’s the biggest waste of money since the gas plant,” said Butler. “I’ve been complaining about this ever since it started.”

Butler added that with new regulations brought in by the Ontario government stopping the turbines from producing power when there is an abundance of power on the grid, it’s possible these turbines will never turn a blade to produce power. He also added that the municipal government should have done something to stop the project.

[EDP’s] Little didn’t seem overly concerned with the regulations saying that…they will be compensated. “If we are asked to shut them down, after a certain amount of time we will be paid,” said Little.

In light of these new regulations, South Dundas council passed a resolution at the first regular council meeting held after the groundbreaking of the turbine sites to not support any future proposals until the supply and demand for electricity demonstrates a need. Council had previously turned down a resolution by Councillor Evonne Delagarde requesting that the municipality become known as “Not a Willing Host” to industrial wind turbines.

At the same council meeting, council felt the need to defend themselves when long-time Brinston resident Robbie Giles gave a presentation on how he felt council had no been open and acted in the best interests of residents of South Dundas, with regards to the South Branch project. Giles claimed too many informal meetings with a lack of follow-up was a big issue.

Giles said he felt the biggest lesson learned from the South Branch project was that revealed a lack of public contact or consultation and urged council to take responsibility for “access, transparency, honesty, respect for all voices, and courage to change position and challenge authority, if it is the right thing to do.”

Mayor Steven Byvelds** responded with “I think we are an open council. We do not have informal meetings and do not discuss council issues away from the council table.” ***

 

*They are not “farms”

**Remember that name, especially in the next municipal election, October 2014

***Because that would be ILLEGAL under the Municipal Act, wouldn’t it?

Aerial photo of South Branch wind power plant by Ralph Butler

New map shows potential impact of North Gower wind power project

13 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

turbine and houseCloseWith new research on both health impacts and property value loss surfacing, we decided to update our maps on the sphere of influence of the proposed wind power generation project in North Gower and Richmond.

It is staggering. With health problems due to the environmental noise being reported as far away as 5 km in other jurisdictions (10 km reported in Australia) and property value loss substantial within 2 miles (US study from Clarkson University), our map depicts the influence on residents living within 3.5 km.

See the map HERE NG wind turbines – 3500m- 20131012

Where is YOUR home?

And what can you do? Tell the City of Ottawa that the residents of the North Gower area are NOT a “willing host” to this wind power project.

Come sign the legal petition Saturday October 26th at 10 AM at the Alfred Taylor Centre, and help get the word out to your North Gower friends and neighbours.

Alternate signing day will be Saturday November 9th from 11 AM to 1 PM. Volunteers will also be going door-to-door in the weeks after the petition launch; you may also email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com to have a copy brought to you.

Each signature will be witnessed: this is a LEGAL DOCUMENT that will go to Ottawa City Council.

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

Ottawa Wind Concerns

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Algoma residents consider action on wind power plant approval

13 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Goulais Bay wind power generation plant was approved October 4th, despite objections from all over Canada about placing an industrial power generation project in the landscape celebrated by Canada’s Group of Seven painters.

From SooToday:

Goulais wind farm approved, opponents consider next steps

Saturday, October 12, 2013   by: Darren Taylor

 

The Save Ontario’s Algoma Region (SOAR) group is clearly disappointed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) October 4, 2013 decision to approve construction of the Goulais Wind Farm project.

A Renewable Energy Approval (REA) has been given to SP Development Limited Partnership to build, install, operate and eventually retire a renewable energy facility, consisting of 11 wind turbines , with a total capacity of 25 MW, in the unorganized Townships of Pennefather and Aweres.

The wind facility will be connected to Great Lakes Power’s distribution system.

The REA comes with a long list of conditions, which include requiring SP Development Limited to construct and install the facility within three years of the date of approval, compliance with the MOE’s noise emission limits,  keep an eye on storm water management, sediment and erosion during and after construction, the effect of the project on wildlife (such as birds and bats), establish a community liaison committee with members of the public, and properly decommissioning of the facility upon its retirement.

SOAR’s Executive Member and spokesperson Gillan Richards, in an e-mail to SooToday.com, stated: “SOAR and Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) will now consider what action to take in response to the Goulais Project Approval.”

The group, if it decides to file an application to appeal the MOE’s Goulais Wind Farm project approval, must do so within 15 days.

SOAR has long been opposed to the project, and has maintained that the whirring of wind turbines, for example, is detrimental to human health, and that the presence of more wind farms in Algoma would be an all-round disruption to the environment and wildlife in the area.

Also ranking high among the group’s concerns is that, in its view, the project will create an eyesore on the area’s famous Group of Seven landscape, disturbing “the natural beauty of Algoma from industrial intrusion.”

SOAR states the public in general has never been keen on wind turbine developments, claiming  “Algoma residents and visitors are already annoyed and dismayed by the intrusion of the Prince Wind Farm turbines.”

SOAR has also long insisted not enough public input has been gathered from the province and the developer regarding the Goulais Wind Farm project (along with other wind projects, proposed by other developers, for the Algoma region).

The group agrees with criticism from The Fraser Institute (a Canadian think tank based in Vancouver) that forecasts Ontario’s energy prices will increase dramatically (40 to 50 percent) in coming years, putting the blame for that on the use of wind and solar farms, and insisting that wind turbines are simply inefficient in producing electricity.

SOAR agrees with critics who state Ontario could have gone with cheaper alternatives, such as natural gas or nuclear power, when it sought to move away from coal-fired plants and brought in the Green Energy Act in 2009.

The Ontario government has said the Green Energy Act, despite higher costs for electricity, will ensure “cleaner” electricity for future generations.

Rex Murphy on “duplicitous Dalton”

13 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

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…

Rex Murphy: Duplicitous Dalton, Inc.

Rex Murphy | 12/10/13 | Last Updated: 11/10/13 1:58 PM ET
More from Rex Murphy
Where is McGuinty now that the full cost of his expediency is known? Harvard, of course, disappeared like a member of some witness protection program for the well-connected.

Peter J. Thompson/National Post Where is McGuinty now that the full cost of his expediency is known? Harvard, of course, disappeared like a member of some witness protection program for the well-connected.
 

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.

Kelly McParland: Here lies the wreckage of Dalton McGuinty’s self-serving gas plant decisions

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.

Parker Gallant: are Ontario’s electricity bills a regressive tax?

07 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

On September 10, 2013, when the temperature hit 34 degrees in Toronto, demand for electricity in Ontario peaked at 8 PM when we were consuming 22,417 megawatts (MW) of power.  At that point according to the Adequacy Report from the IESO, we still had excess capacity−8,437 MW in fact, or enough to power over seven million average Ontario homes.

So the question becomes, if we have power to spare, why do we continue to add expensive sources of power generation like wind and solar to the electricity grid?   Surely the addition of that expensive generation that must be backed up will do nothing more than drive electricity prices up.
Has our electricity system turned into nothing more than a form of wealth transfer or, perhaps, a regressive tax?   The latter is defined as: “A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.”
As it turns out, the management of our electricity system by the Liberal government during the past 10 years has been both.   Consider the following points and see if any of them were meant to keep our electricity prices competitive with other markets, and that might have helped to create jobs in Ontario. Job creation may have resulted in tax revenue that could have been use to reduce our deficit, improve health care, built better transit, or provide better government services.
Reality in Ontario today
Here is what ratepayers must accept:
§     Paying for smart meters and resulting time-of-use pricing–we eat supper after 7 PM and do our laundry in the middle of the night
§     Paying to replace smart meters because they “don’t communicate”
§     Paying for the development of the “smart grid” which turns out to be not so smart.
§     Subsidizing very large energy consumers by picking up a chunk ($200/400 million) of what they would have to pay if they were a household, just to keep remaining manufacturing jobs
§     Paying huge Net Revenue payments to gas plant electricity generators for sitting idle
§     Paying wind generators to not produce electricity
§     Paying solar generators to not produce electricity
§     Paying to erect meteorological stations to measure how much wind generators might have produced so that we can pay them for not producing
§     Paying for “steaming off” perfectly clean nuclear power from Bruce Power
§     Paying for the Ontario Power Authority to run ads on TV, radio and the newspapers to tell us to conserve electricity, racking up average annual spending of $300 million
§     Paying for costs of operating the Ontario Power Authority, which we were told was a temporary long-term planning agency
§     Paying to get the local distribution company to pick up old refrigerators and being told it’s free
§     Paying to move two gas generation plants at a cost of about $1 billion
§     Paying to have the school boards in Toronto and elsewhere put solar panels on their roofs so they could generate money to fix some of the roofs
§     Paying for grants to people that can afford to purchase new expensive electric vehicles (EVs)
§     Paying to put in charging stations for those EVs that use the streets but don’t pay gas taxes
§     Paying for someone else to use coupons to purchase CFL or LED light bulbs
§     Paying for grants to small and medium sized companies to retrofit their lighting systems
§     Paying for expensive electricity generated by solar panels placed on your local municipally owned arena
§     Paying for grants so your municipality can exchange incandescent and halogen street lights to LED lights
§     Paying your local distribution company extra money each year because their revenue deteriorated because you conserved electricity, so they asked for and got a rate increase blessed by the Ontario Energy Board
§     Paying to connect wind and solar generators to the transmission system run by Hydro One, a wholly owned provincial monopoly
§     Paying the cost of electricity produced by your neighbour for those solar panels on his roof for which he gets 80 cents a kilowatt hour
§     Paying for the costs of solar power produced by corporations like Loblaws, Canadian Tire,  IKEA, etc., which they sell into the electricity grid at 70 cents a kilowatt hour, but buy the power they need at the same (or lower) price that you pay
§     Paying forever for “residual stranded debt” that should have been paid off 5 years ago.
§     Paying for the sale of surplus electricity to New York, Michigan, etc. at a price 75/85% below its cost
§     Paying HST on our electricity bills which automatically added 7% to its cost and generates well in excess of $1 billion for the province’s coffers
Now look over these 28 points and think about which represent “wealth transfers” and which represent a “regressive tax.”   Review them again and pick out any that added cost-effective new generation.  Hint: you will probably have trouble finding the latter!
Ontario’s legacy
Energy Minister Chiarelli recently bragged about the reputed $35 billion in new investment attracted to the province by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act and the 31,000 jobs that it supposedly created. Those 31,000 jobs (most are relatively short term construction jobs) will cost the ratepayers of the province over $3 million each.
What Minister Chiarelli didn’t say was that the $35-billion investment will cost ratepayers well over $100/120 billion by the time those 20-year contracts have ended, and most of that will be extracted from the pockets of many Ontarians who cannot afford the “regressive tax” it has become. Many are discovering they can’t afford to turn their lights on for fear of being unable to buy groceries.
What a legacy for the McGuinty/Wynne team.
Parker Gallant,
October 3, 2013
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily Wind Concerns Ontario.