Ontario municipalities demanding no new wind power contracts now 24
Huron-Kinloss and West Lincoln have joined 22 other Ontario municipalities supporting the Wainfleet Resolution; the total is now 24.
The resolution refers to the Auditor General’s 2015 report in which Bonnie Lysyk detailed the amount of money Ontario citizens have paid for renewable power in a program that never had cost-benefit analysis. Ontarians paid twice as much for wind power as they should have, she said, with the result that Ontario consumers have seen their electricity bills skyrocket. Worse, she said, is the fact that Ontario is in a situation of surplus power generation, which means regular losses as power generators are paid to “constrain” production, and surplus power is sold off at bargain-basement process on the electricity market.
The Wainfleet Resolution asks that the province not give out any new wind power contracts; the IESO accepted bids for more than 2,000 megawatts of new wind power generation last year, and planned to let contracts for 300 megawatts of new projects, despite the surplus.
While Ontario has over 400 municipalities, only about 100 are rural/small-town communities vulnerable to wind power development. Wind power projects have also been proposed in Northern Ontario where there are no organized municipalities but “unorganized territories.”
Ministry of Environment noise study for wind power project was done using average wind speed at a “particularly quiet site” says consultant hired by Kincardine: increase in sound from wind alone is “staggering”
An acoustics engineer is questioning the Ontario government’s methods for setting baseline sound limits for wind turbines after field testing was recently conducted in Kincardine.
Todd Busch, project manager for Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd., was in front of the Municipality of Kincardine council during its meeting last Wednesday to go over data from a study conducted within the boundaries of the Armow Wind Project last fall. Swallow was contracted by the municipality to study baseline acoustic and infrasound levels prior to the 92-turbine, 180-megawatt project becoming operational.
Engineers conducted interior and exterior sound testing at five homes within the project area between Oct. 30 and Nov. 14, 2015, using special microphones designed specifically to record infrasound (sound not picked up by the human ear). The sound measurements account for sound levels from wind in exterior testing.
Busch said when a noise impact study was conducted with audible sound testing for Armow Wind in 2013, engineers who did the study declared that the project would comply with Ontario Ministry of the Environment noise limits for industrial wind turbines. He said the study was done using an average wind speed at a particularly quiet site and a measurement of seven decibels was added to factor in sound levels at a higher wind speed. In the noise impact assessment summary, Busch said sound levels were calculated at between 37 and 39.8 decibels. The noise level limit set by the province is 40 decibels. Infrasound levels were not tested.
Busch said the report that was generated from the noise impact study did not explain why seven decibels was assumed for higher wind speeds and he questions the mehodology used to measure residual noise levels in the background environment. He does not believe the study factored in noise levels associated with wind and therefore is concerned the testing was compromised.
“We placed our microphones within 10 metres of where the noise impact assessment (study) microphones would have been,” Busch said. “A measurement of 39.8 decibels would be a candidate for scrutiny.”
Testing by Swallow generated acoustic sound levels of between 37 and 57 decibels outdoors and 20 to 40 decibels indoors. Infrasound levels measured between 57 and 88 decibels outdoors and 53 to 72 decibels indoors. He said the increase in sound from wind alone is staggering and should be explored further.
“We have been told many times from the provincial government that we can’t measure infrasound,” councillor Randy Roppel said. “Can you?”
Wind farm will cause serious irreversible harm to wildlife, Tribunal finds
South Shore of Prince Edward County: [Photo Court Noxon, courtesy Point To Point Foundation]
The decision on the appeal of the White Pines wind power project in Prince Edward County was released yesterday: the Environmental Review Tribunal found for the appellant and the environment (in part), in that serious and irreversible harm would result to the endangered Blandings turtle and the little brown bat. The Tribunal also noted risk to migratory birds.This is a victory for a very hard-fought battle as members of this community fought to save the environment from Ontario’s own Ministry of the Environment.
Statement from Orville Walsh, president of the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County:
We are pleased to announce that APPEC’s appeal of wpd’s White Pines Wind Project has been upheld in part. The Tribunal has found that the White Pines project will cause serious and irreversible harm to Little Brown Bats and to the Blanding’s turtle.
The Tribunal did not find serious and irreversible harm to human health, to hydrology or to migratory birds. However in regards to the latter the Tribunal did note that this wind project presents a significant risk of serious harm to migrating birds and that the project site was poorly chosen from a migratory bird perspective.
We are cautiously elated! The Tribunal acknowledges that engaging in this wind project in accordance with the REA (Renewable Energy Approval) will cause serious and irreversible harm to animal life. Therefore wpd no longer has an REA to stand behind.
The ERT has ordered a hearing of submissions with respect to potential remedies.
The board will be studying the decision over the weekend and following consultation with our legal counsel Eric Gillespie, will have more information to give you next week.
Orville Walsh
President, APPEC
Please go to the Save the South Shorewebsite for information on how to donate toward the legal costs of this fight for the environment. The work done by the community groups in Prince Edward County, Eric K. Gillespie’s legal team, and the witness statements benefit everyone in Ontario.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Eric Gillespie is also legal counsel for Ottawa Wind Concerns.
Ontario premiers have a weak spot for pithy little slogans they can use to brush away troublesome matters.
“There’s never a wrong time to do the right thing,” Dalton McGuinty loved to say whenever stuck for an explanation for some horrific mistake. Why did his government spend $1.2 billion to not build two power plants after repeatedly insisting the projects would go ahead come hell or high water? Well, “there’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.” Smile. Next question.
His successor, Kathleen Wynne, has adopted a catchphrase of her own. “The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher than the cost of going forward ,” she’ll say when confronted with questions about some expenditure that has heads exploding across the province.
She deployed it Wednesday while seeking to justify the new tax on Ontarians that will accompany her cap and trade plan. Gasoline prices are expected to rise 4.3 cents a litre, while natural gas bills will increase about $5 a month.
Just in case the increases annoy Ontarians, Wynne came prepared: “The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher than the cost of going forward and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions,” she declared.
That’s debatable, and it raised an obvious question: Wynne’s Liberals have been in power since 2003. If the province has been “doing nothing,” who, precisely is to blame? And why are motorists and homeowners expected to pay the price now?
The reality is that the Liberals have been doing a great deal — much of it expensive, wasteful, ill-considered and counterproductive. Windmills now pockmark vast stretches of the countryside, producing excess power at marked-up prices supported by heavy subsidies. An Ontario Chamber of Commerce report indicated demand for power has fallen 8% since the Liberals came to power, due to a stagnating economy, but generation has increased 13%, producing a surplus of unneeded electricity. Twenty percent of businesses say the soaring costs could force them to shut down within five years. Rates rose in October, and again in January.
Ontario’s broken promises on funding for health care and jobs
Ontario’s nurses are campaigning for more health care dollars. If only they hadn’t believed the government’s promises …
Back in January 2012, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) issued its Research Paper # 3. The paper was directed at the provincial government and called for increased health care spending including adding 9,000 registered nurses to the sector.
One of the recommendations in the paper was: “To fulfill the 2009 G20 Pittsburg commitment to put quality jobs at the heart of economic recovery – part of the coordinated G20 stimulus plans to which Canada was a signatory – the Ontario government should work with the federal government to establish job creation targets in various areas. This should include job-intensive green job creation and fully subsidized skills training programs accessible to all unemployed and underemployed workers.”
Disaster for health care
Fast-forward four years: the ONA is running TV ads focusing on nursing layoffs at hospitals and reduced health care funding throughout the province. Layoff notices have been appearing regularly since release of the Research Paper. The ONA’s President, Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN, has been outspoken about the health care cuts as in a February 2016 media release where she says “that 2016 is turning into a ‘disaster’ for patient care and it’s now hitting Toronto hospitals.”
It is ironic that the ONA appeared to support Ontario’s Liberal government in the last election, even giving $100,000 to “Working Families,” the coalition of unions that used union dues to paint the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario as not worthy of election. Almost $2.5 million was spent to accomplish that task. The ONA, whose members pay high union dues, spent $687,000 in total.
Billions lost in cheap power exports
Had the ONA re-considered their recommendation to “include job-intensive green job creation” in Research Paper # 3 and instead examined the fall-out from the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), they might have taken a different tack. As I noted in an earlier article, just the cost of Ontario’s net exports of electricity from 2007 to 2015 removed almost $4.5 billionfrom ratepayer pockets. That $4.5 billion would have gone a long way to ensure both the retention of registered nurses and the hiring of recently graduated RNs.
Believing the Ontario Liberal government promises of job creation with the GEA, and endorsing it, the ONA may have exacerbated the continuing cuts to health care. Many earlier studies out of the EU noted that, rather than creating private sector jobs, renewable power developments actually caused the demise of private sector jobs in ratios as much as five to one. Tax dollars need to come from the private sector and those jobs promised by the McGuinty-led government were simply a pipe dream.
The ONA may also have been led astray by George Smitherman when he set up a $40-million irrevocable trust to save nursing jobs referred to as the Nurses Retention Fund, but only a very small portion of the fund has actually gone to retain jobs. While the $40 million is a long way from the $4.5 billion mentioned above, it would appear to have done little to support Registered Nursing jobs, perhaps because of the way it was setup by the former Minister of Health.
The ONA should ask the government to focus on wasted tax dollars both within the health care portfolio and elsewhere, including the Energy Ministry where billions of dollars are being wasted annually.
(C) Parker Gallant
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Please see a news release on a report issued today by the CD Howe Institute on poor governance in Ontario’s electricity sector. An excerpt: “If a disproportionately large amount is dedicated to unnecessary electricity projects, then that amount is not available to meet other needs – such as transportation, schools and hospitals.”
Simcoe and Clearview Counties have announced they are joining forces with the Town of Collingwood to fight a proposed (and approved) wind “farm” that will be near the Collingwood airport.
Collingwood already had a consulting firm examine the economic impacts of the wind power project, which concluded the power development would “serve a narrow range of private interests,” not the public. Now, the counties and Town are concerned about the danger to pilots and passengers from the proximity of the turbines to the local airport.
Set Limits on Queen’s Park’s Power over Electricity Market
“It is remarkable that the expenditure of billions of dollars can be made with the stroke of a pen with virtually no oversight.”
February 24, 2016 – The government of Ontario should move away from controlling electricity planning, according to a new C.D. Howe Institute report. In “Learning from Mistakes: Improving Governance in the Ontario Electricity Sector,” author George Vegh argues that the government should face more checks and balances when spending electricity ratepayer money. The government should only set broad policy objectives and not make choices on which technologies and which suppliers should receive government contracts.
Over the last 10 years, the government has directed the expenditure of billions of dollars of public money on electricity projects with virtually no oversight or checks and balances. During this time, Ontario consumers have seen a large increase in electricity prices, with more to come.
“It is remarkable that the expenditure of billions of dollars can be made with the stroke of a pen with virtually no oversight,” commented Vegh.
In response to concerns about the rising cost of electricity and poor governance, most notably from the Auditor General’s report last December, the Ontario government has touted its proposed Bill 135 as the solution. However, far from solving the concerns about electricity-sector governance, the proposed Bill entrenches and expands the status quo and provides no role for oversight of government electricity directives.
The author proposes the following recommendations to improve the system:
Move away from a central planning model towards a locally based supply obligation that aligns accountability with responsibility.
Even if the government is to maintain its central role in setting outcomes, it can reduce its role in picking winners and losers. This requires increased reliance on market mechanisms, including requests for proposals, and capacity markets to meet operational and capacity needs based on demonstrable system requirements.
Vegh concluded: “Rather than extend and entrench the problems, Bill 135 should provide the opportunity to correct them.”
The C.D. Howe Institute is an independent not-for-profit research institute whose mission is to raise living standards by fostering economically sound public policies. Widely considered to be Canada’s most influential think tank, the Institute is a trusted source of essential policy intelligence, distinguished by research that is nonpartisan, evidence-based and subject to definitive expert review.
For more information contact: George Vegh, Counsel, McCarthy Tétrault, and Adjunct Professor, University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto Law School and Osgoode Hall Law School; 416-865-1904, or email: kmurphy@cdhowe.org.
Higher electricity bills, manufacturing being driven away, social costs of huge wind power plants
Shoreline Beacon, February 8, 2016
By Jim Merriam
Photo Toronto Sun
It’s to be hoped the Fraser Institute didn’t spend much money on its recent study of the fiscal performance of Canada’s premiers.
Every resident of Ontario able to sit up and take nourishment — probably including Wiarton Willie last week — has known the study’s conclusion for a long time: Premier Kathleen Wynne is doing a lousy job of managing Ontario’s economy.
Wynne, with the help of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty, has reduced Ontario from a powerhouse to an empty house.
On almost every file Wynne’s government is found wanting if not severely under water, to borrow a phrase from the mortgage industry.
The worst is energy. The cost of power in the province has forced industries to close and some families to choose between heat and groceries.
A columnist in a Toronto newspaper recently suggested the heat-vs.-food statement is an exaggeration. He should spend a few minutes listening to clients at food banks in rural areas. But I digress.
Much of the high cost of power is associated with renewable energy production.
A new study from the University of Ottawa confirms what we’ve been saying all along: Ontario brought in wind energy with a “top-down” style that brushed off the worries of communities where the massive turbines now stand.
Stewart Fast, who headed the study, said, “It was a gold rush, basically.” Since those involved kept details secret to avoid giving their competitors an edge, residents didn’t know what their neighbours were planning.
“That is really the worst way to go about something that you know is going to have a big impact on landscape and people,” he said.
In defence of renewable energy, we keep hearing from our urban cousins how much money farmers are earning by allowing turbines on their land. Although true on the surface, there’s much more to that equation, said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.
Just one question is the impact of the presence of a turbine on the farm owner’s financing.
Community group Save The South Shorein Prince Edward County, which is battling two wind power projects that threaten the natural environment including the endangered Blandings turtle and migratory birds, and will affect every resident in the area, has released two more videos in its series The County Speaks Out.
In the recent videos are Dr Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine at Western University, a former assistant Deputy Minister of Health for Health Canada, and a member of the Order of Canada; and Garth Manning QC (retired).
Ontario gives away $4.5B in ratepayer dollars; Energy Minister Chiarelli persists in directive to add more intermittent, expensive wind power
Electricity costs up 97 percent in Ontario: power surplus exports rising
February 8, 2016. Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario
The GA or Global Adjustment first made its appearance on IESO’s Monthly Market Report in January 2007. As noted in the chart below, that year, the GA finished 2007 at $3.95 per megawatt hour (MWh) which means it cost Ontario’s electricity ratepayers about $600 million for the full year. In, 2015 the GA was just shy of $10 billion.
To be fair, the GA includes the price of “contracted” power, less the value given to it on the hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) market. As a result of Ontario’s high surplus of generating capacity and the intermittent presentation of wind and solar in periods of low demand, has resulted in the HOEP showing declining values. Despite declining values the cost of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity increased from an average of 5.43 cents/kWh to 10.7 cents/kWh from November 1, 2007 to November 1, 2015 — up 97%. The upsetting part, and a driving force behind the 97% increase is surplus generation sold to our neighbours. We sell excess output to New York and Michigan, etc. without inclusion of the GA. The GA lost on those sales is charged to Ontario ratepayers and has become increasingly large. The chart indicates the “intertie flows” (exports/imports netted) initially cost Ontario ratepayers $20 million for 2007, but that has increased, and representing more $1.3 billion for 2015.
It is anticipated the annual cost of subsidizing surplus exports will continue to climb.
Scott Luft notes results for January 2016 are 20% higher than January 2015 for the cost of electricity as the HOEP was lower despite what Ontario’s Liberal government says about pricing stabilizing. With plans to add 500 MW of capacity for wind and solar, the climb will continue for at least another two years. Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli recently stated: “Our government’s focus is now on preparations for the next long term energy plan and the ways in which we can continue to drive down costs for Ontarians”. (Note to the Minister: a 97% increase does not “drive down costs”!)
Further reference to the chart points out addition of more wind and solar over the past nine years has driven up the percentage of renewables exported. The “Net Intertie” (net exports) increased from 19.6% in 2007 to over 57% in 2015.
What the Energy Minister needs to accept is this: we don’t need more intermittent and unreliable power.
That message is not getting through, despite evidence presented by the Auditor General of Ontario on several occasions and by numerous critics in the media.
Costing ratepayers $4.5 billion in after-tax dollars to help our neighbours is what’s happened. Perhaps Minister Chiarelli could suggest to Finance Minister Charles Sousa, that the money extracted from ratepayers provides no benefits to Ontarians. Perhaps a tax receipt is in order — that would help cash-strapped citizens, but there is a better idea.
The Energy Minister needs to immediately recall his directive to the IESO to acquire another 500 MW of contracts for intermittent wind and solar power.
![South Shore of Prince Edward County: [Photo Court Noxon, courtesy Point To Point Foundation]](http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/South-shore-by-Court-Noxon.jpg)
Ottawa Wind Concerns 