Category Archives: Wind power

New procurement plan for large power projects

14 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

As we’ve been saying, the new “procurement” process for large-scale power projects (over 500 kW) has not yet been announced, but there are enough clues in the recently released Long-Term Energy Plan that we have an idea of what’s coming.

First of all, the Feed In Tariff program is gone for large projects; in its place is a Request for Proposal or RFP system, in which applicants will have to meet a number of requirements and rack up points. Those of us who respond to government RFPs will be familiar with the process.

The LTEP outlines several principles that will be applied when launching future energy procurement programs:

  • follow provincial and/or regional electricity system need;
  • consider municipal electricity generation preferences;
  • engage early and regularly with local and Aboriginal communities;
  • provide opportunity for a diverse set of participants;
  • identify clear procurement needs, goals and expectations; and
  • encourage innovative technologies and approaches, including consideration of  proposals that integrate energy storage with renewable energy generation.

As stated in the 2013 LTEP, the government plans to make available up to 300 MW of wind, 140 MW of solar, 50 MW of bioenergy and 50 MW of hydroelectric capacity in 2014.

Note that the wording is that the government will “consider” municipal generation preferences, but that doesn’t mean that if you don’t ant a wind power project, for example, you get to say “no.” Note the importance of the regional energy plans, and also the need to “engage” with local communities.

Again, Prowind has indicated to us that they will be reviewing the new requirements and then reapplying.

The people of Ottawa, and specifically North Gower and Richmond, are ready to act to protect our community, our health, our local economy, and our property values, from a subsidy-seeking power project that is NOT NEEDED.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

P O Box 3 North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Tribunal issues precedent-setting stay vs turbine construction

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Precedent setting decision stops wind turbine construction

TORONTO, Dec. 12, 2013 /CNW/ – The Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a stay preventing the construction of two industrial wind turbines in Wainfleet, Ontario.

The motion, decided by Executive Chair Lynda Tanaka who oversees the ERT, OMB and three other tribunals, temporarily stops the construction of two turbine towers during the appeal of the Ministry of the Environment’s approval of the project. The Appellants, Skydive Burnaby Inc. and the company’s co-owner Mikel Pitt, argue the turbines are too close to their skydiving school.

“We’re so relieved,” said Pitt, “This project is a real threat to our business and the Tribunal appears to have recognized that at this early stage.”

The Appellants’ lawyer, Eric Gillespie, has argued a number of Industrial Wind Turbine appeals in Ontario.  Gillespie said, “this is a precedent setting decision, it’s the first time a stay has been ordered during a Renewable Energy Approval appeal. We’re very pleased for our clients.”

Gillespie’s associate, lawyer Ian Flett remarked, “the Tribunal gave all the parties a fair opportunity to make our cases, we’re happy with the result”.

The hearing of the main appeal is scheduled to begin January 6, 2014 in Wainfleet, Ontario.

SOURCE Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation

For further information:Ian Flett at 416-703-7034 or iflett@gillespielaw.ca

Prowind aims to get investor cash from community

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

(Let us just say first, Not our community. Though we’d like to see them try.)

In this news item, Prowind Canada is reported to be trying to get cash from community members for its Gunn’s Hill project in south-western Ontario (not far from Woodstock).

from reNews, December 10, 2013

Developer ProWind Canada has helped establish the Oxford Community Energy Co-operative to partner in the 25MW Gunn’s Hill project in Ontario.

The proponent will give the coop up to a 49% equity share in the feed-in tariff proposal to help spread the local benefits, Prowind VP Juan Anderson told reNews. Community ownership adds up to 1 cent/kWh to the base FiT rate of 13.5 cents/kWh.

The group hopes to raise up to C$10m, said co-op secretary Christine Koenig. About 30 members have paid C$100 each to join so far. The co-op aims to offer a share purchase program in February 2014.

Ontario regulators meanwhile are assessing a renewable energy approval application for the 10-turbine, distribution-connected scheme.

“We expect it to be deemed complete this month,” said Anderson. A public comment period and six-month review will follow.

The proponent, a subsidiary of Germany-based Prowind GmbH, is finalizing a turbine supply agreement. The developer is also in discussions with contractors and expects to select a builder in early 2014, said Anderson.

The Oxford County project must meet a 50% Ontario content rule. Towers, blades and pad-mount transformers will be sourced in the province*, said Anderson.

Construction is expected to get underway in mid to late 2014 followed by commercial operation in 2015.

It is worth recalling that a few weeks ago, another local community group, the East Oxford Community Alliance, announced that it has hired lawyer Eric Gillespie and intends to sue Prowind and the landowners leasing land for turbines for $28 million, if the Gunn’s Hill project gets approval.

The community investment fund strategy is one being employed by some wind power developers to help them get approval from the government, as community “engagement” and “support” are now important in the approval process.

As regards now VP Anderson’s statement that all materiels for Gunn’s Hill will be from Ontario, their supplier of choice is a company called Broadwind Energy, headquartered in Illinois. Prowind’s HQ is in Germany. Once again, profits (i.e., subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers) are NOT staying in Ontario but going out of this country. A search of Broadwind’s website reveals no information on any Ontario facilities.

 

 

Economist Bob Lyman summarizes the A-G

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Ottawa economist Robert Lyman, who specializes in energy issues, has taken the time to summarize the key points in the Auditor General for Ontario’s report released this week.

His full summary is here. Summary2013 AG ANNUAL VALUE FOR MONEY REPORT

An excerpt:

Despite its diplomatic terminology, the 2011 Auditor General report was a major attack on the rationale for and the implementation of the Ontario government’s renewable energy strategy. The response of the government over the past year includes some significant concessions, including the long-overdue reductions in FIT rates for solar power facilities, although those rates remain 10 times higher than those for conventional energy. The changes that have been made to date, while important, do not alter the path towards one of the most expensive electricity regimes in the world. The “improvements” in planning mean, in effect, that the path for wind and solar power plants on sensitive lands, including Crown lands, will be easier and faster. It is refreshing to see the government’s arguments for employment benefits and greenhouse gas emissions benefits from the high cost renewables strategy so completely undermined. GHGs are actually increasing as a result of the present strategy!

Thanks Bob, for this.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

PO Box 3 North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Tom van Dusen on Ontario’s power situation: “powerless”

10 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

From the December 3rd edition of Ontario Farmer, an excerpt from the Stories from Eastern Ontario feature by Ottawa area writer Tom Van Dusen. Powerless

I recently listened to one of the most horrifying hours of radio programming I have ever heard.

I was driving the truck at the time and almost leapt out of the seat I became so incensed. I was receiving information I already knew in general terms but that didn’t make it any less tormenting.

The show wasn’t about disaster or disease. It wasn’t about the Senate. It wasn’t even about Rob Ford.

It was a discussion about that outrageous cash guzzler Hydro One, its stunning rates and the crippling effect they are having on all aspects of Ontario commercial and residential life.

It was a tale of gross mismanagement, incompetence, political interference and total indifference for consumers–you and me–in Hydro One’s grossly inflated charges…charges poised to make Ontario the most expensive place to buy electricity in North America.’

Listeners were calling in to tell horror stories about dealing with Hydro One, of having their service cut off because they could no longer pay, of planning to move because their electricity bills had become too exorbitant to manage.

There was an overall feeling of helplessness, of being able to do nothing but stand by as the bandits running Hydro One and related government agencies continue to jack prices without explanation. …

The radio show* featured guest energy analyst Tom Adams, who was a pleasure to listen to, a man who seemed to know his stuff and who pulled no punches in describing how Ontario’s electricity future is being burdened with “stupidly expensive junk generation.”

Adams and callers raised several of the issues particularly frustrating to the people who have to pay for all the blunders–that would be you and me–including compensating electricity producers to remain idle and selling off surplus power at cut rate prices to other jurisdictions.

Let’s take wind power. I’m a great fan but enough is enough…taxpayers can’t justify any more subsidized turbine erection under the Green Energy Act when a surplus is being produced for the grid.

Ottawa city council has passed a motion asking the province to give communities more say in where wind power projects are installed.

A little way south in Brinston, 10 turbines are in the works with little backing from neighbours or local government, South Dundas Township. Council passed a motion that additional turbines won’t be supported until a need is proven. With no legal clout behind the move, more than 70 Ontario municipalities have officially become “unwilling hosts” for turbines. Yet this provincial government continues to push its alternative energy agenda while failing to curb Hydro One’s scandalous misuse of our money.

The waste can only be shut off with an election and a complete makeover of the shirt circuiting Ontario Hydro bureaucracy.

tomvandusen@sympatico.ca

*Editor’s note: this sounds like Ontario Today hosted by Rita Celli with guest Tom Adams. A podcast of the show is available at cbc.ca

Parker Gallant asks, are these organizations really “charities”?

10 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Parker Gallant: federal finance minister attention to environmental “charities” welcomed

Claiming charitable status while pushing a political agenda just a walk in the park

Is the David Suzuki Foundation really a “charitable institution”?

An article in the December 6 Toronto Sun indicated that Canada’s Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty is ready to play hardball with environmental groups that abuse their charitable status.

Many people throughout Canada would applaud that as some “environmental” groups do not reflect what most Canadians would regard as a charity.   They don’t shelter the homeless, spend money on medical research, feed the destitute or care for the disabled.  Their objectives are aimed at “greening  the planet” with no scientific basis to back up their reasoning.

One of those that many Canadians either love or hate is the David Suzuki Foundation, co-founded by David Suzuki and Tara Cullis.  Suzuki threw his personal support behind Dalton McGuinty during Ontario’s 2011 election and was shamed by the media for it.  The Foundation was castigated for its visible support for a political party and agenda, despite the legal requirement that organizations with charitable status avoid political bias.

David Suzuki was personally rebuked; a letter to his “Friends” was published on the Foundation’s website and in the National Post April 14, 2012 to announce he had resigned from the Board of Directors of the David Suzuki Foundation.

“In a letter to his supporters on Friday, the former Nature of Things host said he left the David Suzuki Foundation’s board of directors because he wanted to be able to speak freely ‘without fear that my words will be deemed too political and harm the organization of which I am so proud.’ ”

But all is not as it appears: a visit to the Canada Revenue Agency website for Charities, indicates that the Foundation’s August 31, 2012 filings show David Suzuki listed as a “Director” as well as “President and Co-founder.”  The CRA filings also show former Mayor of Toronto, David Miller and another CBC icon, George Stromboulopoulos as directors in addition to David Suzuki’s daughter Severn Cullis-Suzuki.

Did he really go?

While the official year-end filed with the CRA appears to be August 31st the Foundation also publishes a “Statement of Operations” on their website that shows a date of December 31, 2012 and contains what they refer to as “A message from our co-founders.”   This message features a picture of David Suzuki and Tara Cullis along with the message.  The Directors list found on the Foundation’s website doesn’t list Suzuki so it may be that his resignation was tendered to the Board after August 31, 2012 and before December 31, 2012.  His resignation didn’t affect his influence on the Foundation however as Mr. Suzuki has continued as a regular blogger on the site (several postings within the past month) and left his 17-page biography (a direct link just before the donate button under “David”) for all to see as well as his picture on every page.

Has this adverse publicity (Suzuki called it “bullying”) affected the Foundation?  Maybe: it appears to have had an effect as “charitable donations” on the CRA site indicate they fell from $6.9 million in 2011 to $5.3 million in 2012 which is about the same drop as for all revenue.  The latter fell to $9.2 million from $10.9 million in the same period.   If one looks at the Statement of Operations however, posted on the David Suzuki Foundation site for the year ended December 31, 2012 versus 2011 it actually shows revenue increasing by $193,000 from $8.7 in 2011 to $8.9 in 2012.  It is impossible to determine from the statement what was or wasn’t designated as “charitable donations,” nor can one discern what actual expenses were.

Millions and millions
Looking at the CRA filings it shows a net worth for the Foundation of $10.5 million (August 31, 2012) and itemizes expenses in a more understandable format.  On the latter “compensation” is shown as $4,886,000; Professional & Consulting Fees as $1,120,000; research grants of $1,128,000; travel & vehicle expense as $233,000; occupancy $513,000; and political activity expenditures as $211,000.  The balance went to office supplies, staff training and other sundry related expenses.   If one tallies up those expenses it presents expenditures of $8.8 million— it is difficult for the observer to find the “charity” involved.

Traveling back to the “Statement of Operations” posted on the Foundation’s website, the expense categories are completely different carrying titles under the heading “Programs” such as Climate Change and Clean Energy, $1,180,000; Terrestrial Conservation $914,000; Marine and Freshwater $915,000; Program Management, $216,000; and  Communication $2,146,000.  This statement also discloses an expense referred to as “Fund-raising” which consumed $2,067,000 (24%) of total claimed expenses of $8,770,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012.

So, exactly what did this charity accomplish?  Did it feed the poor in Africa, or educate children in Ecuador, save a gorilla, or protect a species at risk, or even provide a single bed for a homeless person in Canada?   If your answer is, none of the above, why would anyone even deign to think that this is a “charity” or to believe that they should get special tax treatment by our government.

In the spirit of Christmas, I say “bring it on” Mr. Flaherty. It is past the time that the CRA gives these organizations special treatment!  A lump of coal for Mr. Suzuki and his Foundation!

©Parker Gallant,
December 8, 2013

Note: According to the CRA filings by the David Suzuki Foundation “The charity has not indicated that it is designated as a public or private foundation.”

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

Bob Chiarelli’s $2 cup of coffee

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, ,

chiarelli1.jpg.size.xxlarge.promoEnergy Minister Chiarelli’s $210 million “cup of coffee”

Just yesterday in the Legislature, Ontario’s “energy literate” Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli responded to a question from Lisa MacLeod, the PC Energy Critic. From the record:

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean-Carleton is on another wish hunt—W-I-S-H. She’s wishing that her imagination comes true. The information that was provided in committee and provided to the Auditor General was quite clear, and she chooses to misconstrue it. “Misconstrue” is not unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, because I actually looked it up in the dictionary. The word “misconstrue” means “to fail to understand the true or actual meaning.” And there are a number of synonyms. The others synonyms are “to misapprehend, to misconstrue, to misinterpret, to mis-know, to misperceive, to misread, to miss, or a mistake.” I would choose the word “mistake,” because the chair of the OPA was at committee. He showed the calculations on the costs, and they actually amount to $1 to $2 per year over 20 years, Mr. Speaker. She doesn’t want to admit it. She chooses to misconstrue it and she wants to obfuscate the truth.

That remark received considerable attention from the media and when questioned by them Minister Chiarelli added this disingenuous remark, “It’s’ less than a cup of Tim Horton’s coffee a year.”

Well, Minister Chiarelli is right, but he is only referring to the cost to ratepayers from the Ontario Power Authority’s direct costs — it ignores all of the other costs identified by the Auditor General.

Under the terms of the “Memorandum of Understanding” between the OPA and TransCanada, the OPA was obliged to purchase the gas turbines as noted in the following taken from that Memorandum:

2. Within ten (10) Business Days following the execution of the Reimbursement Agreement and in

accordance with the terms thereof, the following payments shall be made to TCE by the OPA:

 

(a) $210,000,000 in respect of TCE’s costs relating to the acquisition of gas turbines for the

OGS Facility and all contracts related thereto, including transportation, carrying, storage,

foreign currency hedging, procurement, design and engineering costs and the initial spare

parts;

 

The problem with the OPA acquiring those turbines is that the Act that created the OPA doesn’t allow them to acquire “capital” assets related to the production of electricity.  The OPA’s purpose in life is to “plan”!  That meant that the acquisition cost was immediately tossed into that big pot referred to as the Global Adjustment which is billed out to ratepayers. 

 

So let’s look at that “$2.01” cup of coffee!   

 

According to the Yearbook of Electricity Distributors for 2012 on the Ontario Energy Board’s website ,there were 4,893,782 Total Customers . If they each paid $2.01, the annual cost would be $9,836,502 and over 20 years is approximately $197 million which is remarkably close to what the OPA paid for those gas turbines.

 

It is interesting that the Minister used the word “misconstrue” during the debate (he was censured by the speaker for its use) as that is exactly what he continues to do with the energy file by telling only partial truths.

 

This cup of coffee is tainted. The ratepayers of Ontario recognize that each and every time they open their bills from their local electricity supplier.  Minister Chiarelli should revisit what he tells the public because they understand the meaning of “misconstrue” much better than he does!

 

©Parker Gallant,

December 5, 2013

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

Reblogged from Wind Concerns Ontario

Chiarelli defines “significant” municipal involvement. Pssst, want a skating rink?

05 Thursday Dec 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli gave a few more details in an interview yesterday on what “significant” municipal support might mean. Turns out, anything. If a community accepts a contribution toward “infrastructure” or a “service” that will be deemed to be municipal support.

This will be important in smaller communities in Ontario which have already accepted money for things like signs, and contributions toward skating rinks or arenas, etc. “Vibrancy funds” are the wind biz way of contributing money to a community and if the community accepts that, it is “support.”

DufferinsSponsorSign

Reaction to the Long Term Energy Plan: no one’s smiling

04 Wednesday Dec 2013

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Please go to Wind Concerns Ontario’s website to catch up on all the reaction and links to news stories and columns about the new Long Term Energy Plan, announced on Monday. www.windconcernsontario.ca

On Rick Gibbins Lunch Bunch on CFRA today, Carleton business prof Ian Lee said he cannot believe what Ontario is doing to itself. No matter what political stripe the Ontario government was in the past, he said, there was always the understanding that in order to compete with the northeastern States, we had to keep our power prices low. Not now: this is suicide, he said.

What not many commentators are noting however is the disastrous effect this will have on Ontario’s small towns and rural communities, because we are hit harder by the delivery charges, and because we need power for everything including pumps for our wells, electric fencing for livestock, etc. Local stores don’t have the choice of turning off meat freezers or display lights.

Our young families and people on limited incomes will be hit hard–many are already at their limit.

Worse, the government seems determined to push ahead with its wind power agenda, which will mean devastation of our communities environmentally and financially. As the Globe and Mail said in an editorial yesterday (see the Wind Concerns site) “If you know you’re in a hole, stop digging!”

You may write to Minister Chiarelli at write2us@ontario.ca to express how his price-pushing, wind-agenda plan will affect you and your family.

There is a demonstration being planned for Minister Chiarelli’s office on Saturday December 7th at 1 PM. If we get more details, we will post.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Parker Gallant: Ontario already LOST $1.2B in power exports in 2013

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Ontario’s Power Trip: Province lost $1.2-billion this year exporting power

Parker Gallant | 02/12/13 | Last Updated: 03/12/13 8:00 AM ET
More from Parker Gallant
As a starting point, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli needs a bolt of financial literacy if he believes not spending an extra $20-billion actually saves the system anything.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Matthew Sherwood
As a starting point, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli needs a bolt of financial literacy if he believes not spending an extra $20-billion actually saves the system anything.

That’s a cost $250 for every average ratepayer

Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli keeps spinning on his province’s energy mess. “Looking to the future,” he told a local newspaper, “we expect that [electricity] rates will continue to increase but we’ve taken very significant steps to mitigate those rate increases.” To support his claim, Mr. Chiarelli says that the province has deferred an investment in new nuclear power, renegotiated a Samsung power deal and brought in new controls on wind power that combined will save the system $20-billion.
As a starting point, this minister needs a bolt of financial literacy if he believes not spending an extra $20-billion actually saves the system anything.
The fact is that Ontario consumers and industry will not see any relief in their power bills. Nothing brings that point home more than an examination of how much electricity Ontario exports, mostly to the United States, and what those exports cost ratepayers.

Read the full story here.