Category Archives: Wind power

Global “warmists”: how far do they want us to go?

29 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

In Canada we hear about global warming and climate change but the rhetoric seldom goes to the extremes seen in other areas. Economist Robert Lyman, who advised the federal government on issues pertaining to energy, transportation and the environment for 37 years, reviews the situation in this paper.

An excerpt:

In April 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. body well known for its faulty projections of global temperatures rising, issued yet another report claiming that the science of climate change is “settled” and irrefutable. It also issued a report on the mitigation measures that countries should take. The IPCC’s goal, as approved by governments in 2010, is to avoid a rise in global temperature to no more than two degrees Celsius by the end of the century. To achieve this, they estimate that greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere must be kept below 450 parts per million (ppm) and the world must stay within a carbon “budget” of about 1000 billion tons of CO2 to 2010.

The IPCC report followed, but was closely related to, the 2013 report of Carbon Tracker, a U.K.-based organization allied with a number of “ethical” investment funds. Carbon Tracker’s report, entitled Unburnable Carbon 2013, compared the carbon budget to the amount of carbon present in the world already proven reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Its conclusion was that those current reserves totaled almost 3000 billion tons, three times the allegedly available budget.

The recommendations coming out of these two organizations today don’t even make it to the back pages of the financial sections of the newspapers, but they are making their insidious ways through the governments of western countries as they prepare for the next Climate Change “Meeting of the Parties” in 2015. We ignore this at our risk.

Read the full paper here: WHERE THE CLIMATE WARMISTS WANT TO TAKE US NEXT

No ‘safe hands’ here: 5 ways the Ontario Liberals are messing up the economy

28 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Five ways the Ontario Liberals are messing with the province’s economy

Scott Stinson, National Post, April 28, 2014

Kathleen Wynne has spoken repeatedly in the past month about how her Liberals are the only party to be trusted with the fortunes of a province that is still unsteady on its economic feet.

Ontario, the Premier has said, needs her “safe hands” to guide it through its recovery, not those “reckless schemes” of the two parties in opposition.

Other Liberals have picked up the thread. In blasting the NDP for its demand of increased corporate tax rates, Transportation Minister Glen Murray last week said the province, “is emerging from the global recession. However, our recovery remains fragile.”

Add a couple of seafaring metaphors about troubled seas, and the comments were perfectly in line with what the federal Conservatives were touting in the 2011 election: now isn’t the time to mess about with our delicate economic recovery.

Except there is a key difference: the Ontario Liberals are furiously messing with the economy.

On Thursday, after the federal Tories announced plans to tinker with public pensions, Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa all but rolled his eyes at the proposal and insisted that the province will forge ahead with an Ontario-only enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan. It is fair to say a debate remains over whether a CPP top up is needed, and if so whether a mandatory plan as envisioned for Ontario is the solution. But there is little such debate in the business community.

“It’s going to have a devastating impact,” Nicole Troster, senior policy analyst with the Canadian Federation of Business, said in an interview. Among the key concerns for the CFIB, Ms. Troster said, is that mandatory pension contributions are essentially a profit-insensitive tax. Even struggling businesses would be hit with a new, additional cost. Other business groups have lined up to express concern over the Liberal proposal: the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Certified General Accountants of Ontario, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, among others.

Read the full story here and see the Liberal Party’s new ad.

Excerpt Re: hydro rates:

Hydro rates

The Liberals announced this week that they plan to remove the Debt Retirement Charge from the bills of residential electricity users in 2016. It will remain on those of businesses for another two years after that. Further, while the government is expanding plans to allow companies to switch to time-of-use billing, many of them couldn’t take advantage of the option, even if they were large enough to qualify.

“A lot of our members,” Ms. Troster of the CFIB says, “don’t have a way to switch their energy usage.” Businesses are often neither open nor staffed during non-peak hours, when energy is cheapest. And with hydro rates in Ontario having doubled since 2008, and scheduled to rise further, electricity is “the most important cost concern for our members over the last two years,” she says.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Parker Gallant: the Liberal shell game on hydro bills

28 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Liberals’ promise of ‘significant relief’ on power bills: a closer look

The April 2014 Liberal event calendar has had a minimum of an event a day, including the Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s delivering a message on how the government plans to help small and medium Ontario business deal with electricity bills. The event was held at Giant Tiger’s HO in Ottawa.

Energy

Bob Chiarelli and friends: did they look at the numbers, really?

These daily announcements are leading up to the budget presentation on May 1st which is widely expected to trigger an election.

Not once in the 27-minute podcast did the Minister mention “Timmies” coffee in the context of either what it would cost ratepayers or how much it would reduce hydro bills for those small and medium sized companies. But what he did was to spin the bad news electricity story: first they rob Peter and Paul to pay wind and solar developers, and when Paul becomes vocal you rob more from Peter to pay Paul. As soon as Peter laments, you tell him you have a plan to give him a break and you simply stick Paul with higher rates. Then, while you are telling Peter he will soon get a break, you rob the company that employs him so they can no longer afford to hire Paul. Shortly after that the company laments that they may have to lay Peter off so you rob even more from Peter and Paul, so that they will be able to keep Peter on staff and may even be able to afford to hire Paul.

Should you decide to watch Chiarelli’s podcast you’ll see he doesn’t make it quite that simple. Instead, he talks about “pillars,” points and electricity acronyms like “IEI” (Industrial Electricity Incentive) or “ICI” (Industrial Conservation Initiative) programs. Like the other promises of prosperity coming daily from the government, the benefits are all in the future. Only one of his suggestions came with a specified time (2015). That was one that will instruct your local distribution company (LDC) to become a lending institution! They will be told to provide financing for “up-front capital costs” associated with “conservation programs.” Needless to say this and the other programs will be financed by other ratepayers via the Global Adjustment (GA).

The day before, the announcement was about ending the Debt Retirement Charge (DRC) at the end of 2015, and was clearly aimed at residential ratepayers (people who vote). Premier Wynne said it would bring “significant rate relief.” The DRC will continue to be collected until 2018 from those to whom Minister Chiarelli promised relief too, from his perch at Giant Tiger. By the end of December 2015 we will have paid $15.5 billion to retire the original $7.8 billion of “Residual Stranded Debt” but they want more, so they will take about $1 billion from most commercial and industrial clients before they will finally declare it paid—evidence of the Liberal trick of robbing Peter to pay Paul!

“Significant relief”?

Let’s look at Wynne’s “significant rate relief” claim. Just one year ago the Ontario Energy Board announced a rate increase that cost the “average” ratepayer $3.63 a month or $44 annually, and followed that with another increase in November raising rates by $4.00 a month or $48 annually. The more recent increase of April 14, 2014 saw another increase of $2.83 a month or $34 annually, and those announcements didn’t include rate increases for the “delivery” or “regulatory” lines on our bills, which also increased. So, in just one year the electricity rates jumped $126 annually and Wynne’s announced rate relief won’t happen until the end of 2015. That’s the year the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) ends. The OECB reduces the average bill by $13.30 per month or $160 annually. The “average” bill (electricity only) at the start of 2016 will be $286 higher on an annual basis than it was as of April 30, 2013. Adding the HST brings the increase to $323.
We should also expect additional increases from the OEB’s scheduled rate setting on December 1, 2014, May 1, 2015 and December 1, 2015; those add a minimum of $100/120 to our electricity line.

In other words, the average bill will have jumped by approximately $425/$450 by which time Wynne’s “significant rate relief” will become insignificant. Just as the annual DRC charge of $67 falls away, another scheduled charge from the Wednesday announcement (aimed at reducing energy poverty) of $11 will be added, so we may see a measly $56 decrease at that time.

25% increase in two years
The “average” ratepayer will have experienced an increase of over 25% in electricity prices in slightly more than 2 years by the time the December 31, 2015 date arrives. At that time our electricity costs will be charged out at over 21 cents per kilowatt (kWh). That only gets worse as more contracted wind and solar enter the grid. The price will rise further should OPG prove successful in their “significant” rate increase request now before the OEB. Add in increases expected in the “delivery” and “regulatory” lines, tack on HST and all-in costs will be in the neighbourhood of 30 cents a kWh! That average $133 monthly bill will suddenly be $240 and Ontario residents will be challenging Germany and Denmark for the privilege of having the most expensive rates in the industrialized world.

It seems the Liberal Ontario government has apparently abandoned the “Chiarelli” math (units are based on the price of a Tim Horton’s coffee) and have now moved on to a shell game. They tell us their management of the energy portfolio is constantly saving us money—you just have to look for the pea under the right shill, oops, I meant shell!

©Parker Gallant,
April 26, 2014

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

MPAC report: NO effect on property values from wind turbines

22 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Well, what can you say about this. Realtors are telling us that buyers are saying, If I can see a turbine from the house, I’m not buying it. And Ontario-based research has shown significant property value loss for properties neighbouring wind power projects.

But the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (which reports to the Ontario Minister of Finance) says, No. No effect. No problem. No loss.

No kidding.

Read the report here but be aware it is pretty technical. It has to be, to avoid the obvious.

What MPAC left out is very interesting: they didn’t do the area prior to the Green Energy Act, where property value losses have already occurred and the market was distorted significantly, and they left off vacant lots, where the wind power developers have had to go in and buy houses that were rendered uninhabitable and were then removed. They also studied turbines 1.5 MW and larger, which again, leaves off the older turbines and the areas in Ontario where the impact has already been felt.

A number of people are offering critiques on this but here is an excellent commentary from the website Wind Farm Realities at:

http://windfarmrealities.org/mpacs-2012-study/

The MPAC study is self-serving, misleading, and obscuring of the truth. But it will serve its purpose for this government which is to quash requests for assessment reconsideration, and put a chill on legal actions and request from Assessment Review Board hearings.

Once again, the citizens of Ontario are at a disadvantage against Big Wind.

SW Liberal ridings in trouble

21 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Problem-plagued LIberals have lost support in 10 ridings in SW Ontario

April 20, 2014

Deborah Van Brenk

If the minority Liberal government can’t pass its budget next month, Ontario will be plunged into a widely expected spring election. Deb Van Brenk tested the early voter mood in the 10-riding London region, driving its Hwy. 401 backbone. Once almost solidly Liberal, the region now has only one Grit left standing. High power bills, the gas plants scandal, wind turbines — voters are chafing at many issues.

HOW THE REGION HAS VOTED

2011 (Liberal minority government):

Conservatives: 7

Liberals: 2 (MPP Chris Bentley later resigned in 2013)

NDP: 1 (gained Bentley’s London West seat in 2013 byelection)

2007 (Liberal majority)

Conservatives: 2

Liberals: 8

2003 (Liberal majority)

Conservatives: 1

Liberals: 9

Glen Ure says he doesn’t want wind turbines on his property, because of potential difficulties selling his farm near Chatham, not because he’s worried about any health issues as his farm is surrounded by the large structures. Mike Hensen/The London Free Press/QMI Agency

Where: Hwy 401 at Kent Bridge Rd. (Chatham-Kent-Essex riding)

Who: Farmer Glen Ure

From just this overpass, between the West Lorne and Chatham exits, 76 wind turbines are visible in the near and far horizon.

Some sprout just beyond the borders of Glen Ure’s farm, where he’s lived all his life and where his parents farmed before him.

Elsewhere in the region, others battle turbines out of health concerns but Ure rejected offers to be a wind landlord because he wasn’t satisfied with the wind companies’ answers to his many questions. Governments and energy companies control enough of his life and he’s not about to let them control his land, too.

Anyone looking for his vote will face a barrage of questions:

— Why have his power bills soared to $6,600 a year, even as he uses less electricity?

— Why spend more than $1 billion, as the Liberal government did, to relocate two gas plants because of city people’s concerns while ignoring rural issues?

— Why have taxes gone up without measurable benefit to him and his neighbours?

His biggest question? Why, in his 70 years of farming and then trucking and then farming and retirement, have governments promised the world but delivered less than dirt?

“An old farmer told me, when I was 10 years old, ‘politics is like pig farming. You get one person in, fatten him up and kick him out, get another one in, fatten them up and kick them out.’ You vote people in and think they’re going to do all right (but they don’t follow through).”

…

Read the full story and comments here.

Wind Concerns Ontario asks Ombudsman to look at wind power approval process

15 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wind Concerns Ontario has sent a letter to the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, asking that aspects of the approval process for wind power projects be looked at. The Ombudsman’s office has now had its role expanded to be able to look at issues of municipal concern, which may allow it to address the request of many municipalities throughout Ontario facing wind power developments and who are without any say in the siting of these projects. The Green Energy and Green Economy Act passed in 2009, over-rode 21 others Acts in Ontario, and removed local land use planning powers for Ontario municipalities with regard to renewable power projects. In the wake of municipal objections ever since, the Ontario government now says it will offer municipalities more “say” but still no veto.

That’s unacceptable says Wind Concerns Ontario, which refers to important issues:

  • documentation provided to the Ministry of the Environment is being “deemed complete” and then going to public comment; community groups performing audits on this documentation are finding, however, that the documents are often not complete and sometimes absent altogether—not acceptable
  • land leases are signed between the power developers and landowners, which means municipalities and residents can have no idea where turbines are going to be located until too late; this has the effect of halting real estate sales and “sterilizing” development
  • wind power developers (e.g., Samsung in Southgate) are now offering significant sums of money in return for municipal approval and other items such a building permits, road use, etc.
  • landowners are not being provided with the full range of information on the potential negative effects of having wind turbines on their properties

See the news release and link to the letter to the Ombudsman here.

In other news, the community near Woodstock Ontario, facing an 18-MW Prowind wind power project, has also filed a letter of complaint with the Ombudsman, citing deficiencies in documentation, and changes being made to documents AFTER the public comment period has closed. See the East Oxford Community Alliance story here. Prowind is the Germany-based developer that proposed a wind power project for the North Gower-Richmond area of Ottawa, which would have placed 10 turbines on local farm properties within 3 km of more than 1,000 families. The project is now on hold, waiting for the new large-scale renewable power procurement process to begin.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Economist: Ontario’s actions on electricity bills possibly illegal

12 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

From Ottawa energy economist Robert Lyman:

THE $6.2 BILLION SLEIGHT-OF-HAND

 Parker Gallant is a retired banker who has done tremendous service to the people of Ontario by reporting publicly on the Ontario government’s mismanagement of the province’s electrical energy system. In an analysis he posted on April 11, 2014, Mr. Gallant applied his knowledge of financial management and accounting to reveal the damaging and possibly illegal actions of the Liberal government with respect to the Debt Retirement Charge included in the monthly electricity bills of Ontario residents. The analysis can be found online here:

http://ep.probeinternational.org/2014/04/11/parker-gallant-the-debt-retirement-charge-premier-wynnes-6-2-billion-revenue-tool-5/#more-12245

This note offers my explanation, in layperson’s terms, of what Mr. Gallant revealed.

Background

In 1998 the Ontario government launched a major restructuring of the province’s publicly-owned electricity industry. One aspect of this restructuring was the breakup of Ontario Hydro into five successor companies on April 1, 1999.

The Ontario Ministry of Finance determined that, on April 1, 1999, Ontario Hydro’s total debt and other liabilities stood at $38.1 billion, which greatly exceeded the estimated $17.2 billion market value of the assets being transferred to the new entities. The resulting shortfall of $20.9 billion was determined to be “stranded debt”, representing the total debt and other liabilities of Ontario Hydro that the Ministry judged could not be serviced in “a competitive electricity environment”. This total was subsequently reduced to $19.4 billion when it was adjusted for $1.5 billion of additional assets transferred to OEFC. Responsibility for servicing and managing the “legacy” debt of Ontario Hydro, which includes the stranded debt, was given to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), whose opening balance sheet reflected a stranded debt, or unfunded liability, of $19.4 billion. This was the difference between the $18.7 billion value of assets assumed by the OEFC and the $38.1 billion of Ontario Hydro legacy debt.

To retire the debt, the government established a long-term plan wherein the burden of debt repayment would be borne partly through dedicated revenues from the electricity sector companies – Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Hydro One, and Municipal Electrical Utilities – and partly by electricity consumers directly. (Bear in mind that all the revenues from the electricity sector companies come from electricity consumers, so electricity consumers pay all the costs, one way or the other.). The electricity companies would make “payments in lieu of taxes” to the OEFC (this is, in theory, the equivalent of corporate income taxes). It was projected that future revenues from OPG and Hydro One and municipal electricity distributors would generate $11.6 billion over the next eight to nine years.

To read the full article click here.THE $6.2 Billion Sleight-of-Hand

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Have you seen this bird?

11 Friday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

 

 

 

bobolink (1)

The members of the Blackbird family–red-winged blackbirds and grackles–are returning to the Ottawa area. A lesser known member of the family is the Bobolink, which is endangered protected in Ontario.

If you see a Bobolink this spring, or at any time, please log the time, date and location you saw it—this may be needed at some point in future to audit wind power developers’ environmental assessments.

 

Eastern Ontario farmers on turbines: expensive, inefficient, and No thanks

11 Friday Apr 2014

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to the Eastern edition of Farmers Forum, the paper did a survey at the recent Farm Show in Ottawa and asked people whether they “approve” of wind turbines.

The startling result is the majority of those responding said they did NOT approve of large-scale wind turbines, and the reason for most was that wind power was expensive and inefficient. Several remarked on what having turbines would do to their community (thank you! You are the good guys!) and others said that the economics just didn’t make any sense. The Auditor General for Ontario said that to the government in 2011, but it still has not done any cost-benefit analysis.

Note that one North Gower area farm owner said he is “not allergic to money” and would still put one on his property—not where he lives, we venture.

Farmers not sold on wind turbines, survey says

By Brandy Harrison

OTTAWA — While farmers are among the few who can directly benefit financially from hosting wind turbines, Eastern Ontario farmers are more likely to oppose than support them, a Farmers Forum survey shows.

In a random survey of 100 farmers at the Ottawa Valley Farm Show from March 11 to 13, nearly half — 48 per cent — disapproved of wind turbines. Another 29 per cent approved and the remaining 23 per cent said they were neutral.

But positions on the issue weren’t always clear cut. Even when farmers threw their lot in with one side of the debate or the other, their reasoning was peppered with pros and cons.

It’s in stark contrast to a Farmers Forum survey of 50 Western Ontario farmers at the London Farm Show in early March, where 58 per cent were strongly opposed to wind turbines. Farmers opposed outnumbered those who approved by nearly three-to-one.

The number of turbines reveal the difference: Of the 67 wind projects representing more than 1,200 turbines province-wide, almost all the turbines dot the landscape of Western Ontario. Only two projects are in Eastern Ontario, an 86-turbine project on Wolfe Island, south of Kingston, and another 10 turbines near Brinston, south of Winchester, which were completed in January.

Wind power is so controversial that 13 farmers polled at the farm show wanted to remain anonymous, unwilling to come out publicly as a supporter or a critic.

Nearly three-quarters of farmers who disapproved liked green energy in theory but panned turbines — and sometimes the Green Energy Act as a whole — as a too-costly, inefficient electricity source that’s driving up their power bill.

Eric VanDenBroek doesn’t mind the look of the turbines that are only a short drive from his Winchester dairy farm but isn’t a fan of the way the program was rolled out.

“Financially, it’s already proving to be a disaster,” …

Read the full story and see the chart of responses here.

 

Economist: cancel the Feed In Tariff, Ontario

08 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

From today’s Financial Post, an opinion by economist Jack Mintz. Mintz holds the Palmer Chair in the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary and is the former chair of the CD Howe Institute.

Canada’s sagging middle: Ontario
Ontario’s growth has lagged the rest of Canada, averaging less than 1% annually since 2009
With Quebec’s election over, we can turn to Ontario where a scandal-plagued Liberal government will soon present its 2014 budget – and possibly trigger a spring election. Ontario is sagging under the weight of monstrous public debt, uncompetitive energy prices and rising taxes. Given Ontario’s size, other regions of Canada are being hurt.
Ontario has only one way out: economic growth. Luckily, the American economic recovery will significantly benefit Ontario. However, it won’t be enough. The government needs to get its house in order.
Pushing aggregate demand with deficit spending won’t achieve growth. Economic stimulus might provide some short-term relief but won’t generate sustained expansion. Instead, growth will be attained with supply-side policies by reducing onerous regulations, providing some smart tax reforms and shifting to growth-oriented spending, especially to address the notorious Greater Toronto Area infrastructure problem.
Nor will growth come from expansionary public programs like the proposed Ontario pension plan. Forcing people to hold assets in a government-sponsored plan might be helpful to some but it will be just another form of new taxation for others, who are already have adequate savings for retirement.
Ontario’s growth has lagged the rest of Canada, averaging less than 1% annually since 2009. Employment since 2009 has increased by 375,000 but the employment rate has fallen to U.S.-levels of 61.4% as of March 2014, far less than Alberta’s at almost 70%.
Ontario‘s fiscal picture is also not pretty, with gross debt over $290-billion (net debt is $272-billion), requiring $10.6-billion in taxes to cover interest charges. This expense is enormous, about one-half of education expenditures.
The average Ontario debt interest rate is only 4% but interest rates are expected to rise within the next few years. Each point increase in interest rates will add at least another $3-billion in annual interest expense.
Ontario’s energy prices are soaring. Look at any bill and one can read added delivery charges, regulatory charges, debt retirement charges and HST, resulting in an average price of 12.48 cents per kwh in Toronto for households. Large power customers pay 10.89 cents per kwh in Toronto, less than New York but higher than most eastern U.S. and Canadian cities.
Ontario made real progress in 2009 by adopting the HST to replace the provincial sales tax and reducing Ontario’s corporate and personal taxes to ensure that revenues would not increase. However, the province reneged on tax cuts only two years later.
The Ontario corporate income tax rate is stuck at 11.5%, compared to the promised 2009 legislated rate of 10%. None of this helps the province’s poor investment climate. Ontario’s share of business capital spending is only 32% of Canadian investment, less than its share of population and dramatically less than a decade ago.
Personal income tax rates have also increased to almost 50% at the top end, third highest in Canada. There is a reason why many high-income taxpayers have moved Alberta with its top rate of 39%. Alberta’s rich households, with over $500,000 in family income, account for 15% of Alberta’s taxable personal income. This ratio is two-thirds higher than Ontario.
Add in Ontario sales taxes at a 13% rate (about the average Canadian rate), fuel taxes (Ontario’s at 14.7 cent per litre is one of the highest in the country) and property taxes (Ontario is on the high side especially for non-residential property) – it all adds up to a yoke on growth.
Ontario’s Minister of Finance is in a bind. He needs more growth but he also has to deal with a large debt mountain and an uncompetitive tax system. So what are his options? Here is a five-point plan.
First, focus spending on growth-oriented programs. Transportation infrastructure should be on the top of the list as GTA traffic results in unproductive use of time.
Second, kill off the feed-in tariff program for wind and solar that creates excessive electricity costs for households and companies. This would both improve growth and help reduce administrative costs….

Read the full article here.