Category Archives: Wind power

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.

MacLeod named Energy Critic in PC shadow cabinet

30 Monday Sep 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Just announced: Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod has been named the Energy Critic in the Progressive Conservative “shadow” cabinet.

MacLeod has been critical of the proposed 20-megawatt wind power project on farmland in North Gower and Richmond which will be too close to hundreds of people, and which will be financed with subsidies from Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers.

Perth-Wellington MPP Randy Pettapiece has been named Rural Affairs critic; Pettapiece’s family first came to North Gower in the 1800s from England, and has appeared at several events in the Ottawa area speaking on energy and wind power issues.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Paying for greenhouse gas emissions: what’s right for Canada?

20 Friday Sep 2013

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

WHAT SHOULD WE PAY TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS?               Environmental organizations frequently call for Canadians to take expensive measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may accumulate in the atmosphere and eventually result in unwanted climate change. Economists have long studied the question of what premium citizens should be asked to pay in order to avoid the adverse environmental effects of climate change. This premium, often referred to as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) has been variously estimated to fall somewhere between $20 and $85 per tonne, depending upon the inputs and assumptions used in the analysis. The primary tools upon which this analysis is based, however, are sophisticated computer models that attempt to integrate scientific assessments of the atmospheric effects of increasing GHG concentrations on temperature and other aspects of climate and economic assessments of the effects of these climactic changes on people’s incomes and wellbeing.

There are several problems with the analytical approaches that have been taken to date. Collectively, these problems suggest that the estimated values of the SCC are exaggerated. The modelers are free to use arbitrary inputs or ones that are largely unknown concerning climate sensitivity to GHG concentrations, social welfare and the economic effects of rising temperatures. The rate of time preference (i.e., discount rates) is a policy parameter, which reflects the choices of policy makers, not the objective assessment of analysts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, now 382 parts per million (ppm), should not be allowed to peak above 450 ppm and should stabilize in the long term at around 380 ppm. However, to achieve this, global emissions would have to decline by 60% by 2050 and emissions from industrialized countries like Canada would have to decline by over 80%. In fact, global emissions are rising, driven by economic development in developing countries and especially in Asia. According to the most recent authoritative forecasts, world energy consumption and related emissions will grow by 56% from 2010 to 2040.

There is no chance of a new climate change agreement before 2016 at the earliest, and that would not come into force before 2020. No progress seems likely on the core issues dividing developed and developing countries.

Canada represents only 1.9 % of global GHG emissions, and global emissions are growing at 1.2% per year. Even if Canada disappeared from the earth, global emissions growth would make up for the loss in 18 months.

Based on this, one should question whether any social premium should be paid for emissions reductions in Canada at all.  To make major costly emissions reductions in the absence of international agreement is to accept major economic harm with no compensating environmental benefits.

Robert Lyman, September, 2013

Robert Lyman is an economist specializing in energy issues; he lives in Ottawa.

Readers may also wish to read Ross McKitrick’s latest article on climate change statistics and forecasts here.

Property values “plummet” near wind power, says US appraiser

16 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Here from Wind Wise Massachusetts:

Studies Show Land-Based Wind Turbines Cause Property Values to Plummet; Wind Wise Massachusetts Claims Study Showing Otherwise is Misleading

Published Monday, Sep. 16, 2013

 

FALMOUTH, Mass., Sept. 16, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A national study that claims there is “no statistical evidence” that real estate prices near wind turbines are negatively impacted is misleading because it lumps homes close to the turbines with those miles away, according to Wind Wise Massachusetts (WWMA).

“The report’s own data found that homes located within one mile to the turbines decreased in value by 28 percent compared to homes located within 3 to 10 miles from the turbines,” according to Virginia Irvine, president of WWMA (windwisema.org), a statewide alliance of grassroots environmental groups and individuals.

“The study’s authors are just perpetuating the myth that wind turbines are not responsible for significant property losses,” she said.

“The report is also comparing apples with oranges as less than 2.5 percent of the more than 50,000 home sales analyzed in recently released Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study were within one mile of the turbines and some were as far as 10 miles away,” Irvine said.

In the widely publicized report, the authors stated in the abstract that “…we find no statistical evidence that home values near turbines were affected in the post-construction or post-announcement/pre-construction periods.”

The report -– A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States –- was published by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in August.

Irvine said independent, comprehensive appraisals have found that land-based wind turbines can cause property values to plummet within two miles by 15 percent to 40 percent.

“There is a major difference between turbines in a power plant 10 miles from homes in the country to those that are less than one mile from homes in residential communities,” Irvine said.

“But the sad fact is that whether a wind turbine is near a solo home in the country or in a more heavily populated area, the homeowner is going to see a significant loss in the value of his home,” she added.

“Wind turbines near residential areas are devastating to home values,” according to Michael McCann, president of McCann Appraisal of Chicago.

He said his paired study analysis of homes near wind turbines in more than two dozen communities throughout the country “consistently have found homes losing 25 to 40 per cent of their value.

Contact:  Barry Wanger for Wind Wise Massachusetts, Wanger Associates, 617-965-6469, Barry@WangerAssociates.com

SOURCE Wind Wise Massachusetts

Air traffic controller a neighbour to wind turbines and is sick

16 Monday Sep 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Ottawa Wind Concerns's avatarWIND CONCERNS ONTARIO: On WordPress

Here from New York magazine a very worrying tale about a sleep-deprived man who works as an air traffic controller. How hard can it be, we ask, to understand that if you can’t sleep you are going to become ill?

Here is an excerpt; go to the website for the full story.

“Never Stops, Never Stops. Headache. Help.”

Some people living in the shadows of wind turbines say they’re making them sick. Almost as upsetting: Their neighbors don’t feel a thing. By Kristen French

  • By Kristen French
  • Published Sep 15, 2013

ShareThis

(Photo: Christopher Griffith/Trunk Archive)

On May 4, 2012, at around 8:30 a.m., air-traffic controller Mark J. Cool put two planes on a collision course over Cape Cod. “Runway 14” is what Cool heard the Coast Guard controller say when he okayed a Falcon jet for takeoff from the airport. “Runway 23” is what the controller actually…

View original post 451 more words

Parker Gallant on Ontario’s “smart grid”: what’s been achieved?

11 Wednesday Sep 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario today:

On November 23, 2010, Ontario’s then Minister of Energy, Brad Duguid, issued a directive via an Order In Council to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), with instructions on the “smart grid”:

“… it is desirable that the Province and the Ontario Energy Board move forward together with a plan to implement the advanced information exchange systems and equipment that together comprise the Smart Grid (“Smart Grid”), as defined in the amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998 made by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009…”

   The Duguid directive was a direct result of the Dwight Duncan directive of 2004 to the OEB instructing them to arrange the installation of “smart meters” throughout the province. 

   Co-incidentally (noted by Tom Adams), the Duguid directive is dated the same day as the e-mail exchange between Alicia Johnston (formerly a senior political staffer for Energy Minister Brad Duguid, later promoted to the Premier’s Office) and Ben Chin (a senior Ontario Power Authority executive).  That e-mail exchange contained Ms Johnston’s suggestion to engage Tyler Hamilton, a  contributor to Toronto Star, as an “expert” to counter the  Adams and Gallant duo who “are killing me” ; Chin agreed. Shortly after, Hamilton received a contract from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) for a report on the smart grid.

    The fact is, the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO had already started work on the “smart grid” as noted in the Financial Post article on July 6, 2010 — costs of development were estimated at $1.6 billion.  IESO had awarded a contract to IBM according to a January 15, 2007 press release; the purpose of the contract was defined as:  “the development and operation of Ontario’s Meter Data Management/Repository (MDM/R).”

A culture of conservation

The MDM/R is explained as: “a core part of Ontario’s Smart Metering Initiative to drive a culture of conservation, enabling the billing of Time-of-Use rates and encouraging consumers to shift more of their energy use to off-peak periods.” The initiative would apply to 4.7 million customers of local distribution companies, involving more than “100 million transactions every day.”

   More than six years later, that “Repository” has yet to generate reports on either shifting consumer habits or “imbedded generation.” (Embedded or distributed generation is usually a small scale production of power connected within the distribution network and not having direct access to the transmission network. These generators are typically located close to the electricity consumer.)

   But that hasn’t stopped IESO from awarding IBM yet another five-year contract for $68.5 million for the same “repository” with an option to extend the contract seven to ten years. With an estimated 100 million data feeds daily from “smart meters” one would expect that data to be accessible to determine what production comes from embedded generators such as rooftop or ground-mounted solar, to reinforce the “culture of conservation” and identify shifts in consumer habits. 

  Is this a missed opportunity for a cost/benefit analysis?

  On July 16 of this year, Energy Minister  Bob Chiarelli arranged a press release about conservation and claimed that “Ontario has saved billions of dollars through conservation, and we have a clear opportunity to do more. By investing in conservation before new generation, where cost-effective, we can save ratepayers money and give consumers new technology to track and control energy use.”

  What caught my eye in that press release were the endorsements: they were not from the usual climate change chorus such as Environmental Defence, CAPE,or the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. The last one was  “Sheldon Levy, President, Ryerson University.”  What would possess the President of Ryerson University to jump on this band wagon? 

  A month later, we have the answer:  on August 26, 2013  a news release announced that Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Energy (CUE) “will build an innovative smart grid laboratory” with support from the province.  The press release doesn’t say how much the province is coughing up but does say “Building a smarter grid is an important part of the Ontario government’s plan to modernize the electricity system in the province and provide clean, reliable and affordable power to consumers.”  One can assume President levy’s endorsement of the July conservation announcement was sought by the Ministry as a condition of support for  the smart grid laboratory.  CUE was launched in 2010 with $7 million in grants from taxpayer-owned Hydro One, Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Power Authority.

  A  Globe and Mail article dated October 17, 2012, called “The tricky business of funding a university” carried the following comments about Ryerson’s CUE:

“Some schools have tiptoed the line successfully. Toronto’s Ryerson University launched its Centre for Urban Energy (CUE) two years ago using $7-million in contributions from three partners – Hydro One, Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Power Authority – and is now hoping to enlist new collaborators such as Siemens and General Electric.”

   It appears that President Levy knows exactly how to “tiptoe the line.” CUE’s intentions to collaborate with GE and Siemens are also interesting.  An announcement by Minister Chiarelli on July 2, 2013  indicates that the $50-million “Smart Grid” fund has already provided grants to GE, Siemens and IBM.

   Just asking: did the grants to GE and Siemens carry a proviso that they collaborate with CUE and did they both seek those grants?  It is not clear why IBM would need a grant as they have been awarded two long-term, multi-million dollar contracts from IESO.  The press release indicates the IBM grant was to create a centre “that will use and analyze smart meter data” which is what they are already supposed to be doing for IESO under the terms of the contract(s)!

Government grants to huge corporations

   So, we hand out grants to multi-billion dollar corporations such as GE, Siemens and IBM and  award them government contracts.  The first two entities are entrenched in the renewable energy business (turbines and blade manufacturing) so, to an extent they are dependent on commitments to more wind power by the Ministry of Energy. And, IBM won two contracts related to the data analysis of 4.7 million smart meters installed throughout the province.

  (I checked the Ontario Lobbyist Registry and could only find GE with registered lobbyists.)

   As noted above, the original estimate to create the smart grid was $1.6 billion, to be paid by Ontario’s ratepayers.  IESO stick-handled the first smart grid rate application through the OEB and ratepayers have paid for it since May 1, 2013.  It is included, but hidden, with the delivery costs charged by your local distribution company (LDC).  It is a charge of .79 cents per month and referred to as a “Smart Metering Entity charge.”  Your LDC will collect this for the next five and a half years.  Doing the math on this rate hike indicates that it will cover $245 million of that $1.6 billion —so be prepared for further “hidden” increases as spending is ramped up. 

   As noted, the MDM/R definition it is really all about conservation and enabling those 72 LDCs to bill on a Time-of-Use basis.  Those “smart meters” and “smart grid” will cost ratepayers $4 billion and will not produce one kilowatt of new power.  I suspect that Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller doesn’t consider the above costs or the costs of the smart meters, when he presents his annual report to the Minister of the Environment.  The Commissioner’s cost/benefit study uses only the annual spending of the Ontario Power Authority (media advertising, free fridge pickup, coupons to purchase CFL bulbs, etc.) which paints the cost of “conservation” as only three cents per kilowatt hour. 

   In addition,  a posting on Scott Luft’s website indicates that time-of use pricing has shifted consumers’ energy use to what used to be “off-peak” periods (noted as an objective of the MDT/R). As a result, those periods have now become “peak” demand periods for ordinary consumers, beginning at 7 PM, rather than mid-day.  Ontario’s ratepayers are now trained to eat our supper and wash our clothes later, not because we want to, but because electricity has become so costly we only use it during the off-peak hours!

   Perhaps the Dalton McGuinty government should have simply doubled the price of electricity when they came to power in 2003 and we would have immediately started to conserve.   Think of the money we could have saved, the countryside we would not have despoiled with industrial wind turbines, the harm to health not caused, the birds and bats not killed, and the property values that would not have fallen!

   Too bad politicians don’t grasp the simple law of supply and demand.

 

Parker Gallant.

September 11, 2013

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

Ontario’s Not a Willing Host communities meet today

20 Tuesday Aug 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Coalition of ‘Unwilling Host’ Municipalities

Press Advisory August 20, 2013, Ottawa

Representatives of the 62 municipalities that have declared themselves ‘unwilling hosts’ to wind turbines are coming together during the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) meeting currently underway in Ottawa to discuss ways to bring their concerns more forcefully to the government.

According to Kevin Marriott, Mayor of Enniskillen, ‘the government has not addressed the concerns of these communities’.  In the Throne Speech and other statements by the Premier, they talked about wanting to locate projects in willing host communities, but there has been no substance to these announcements in terms of municipal input will be incorporated in the process.  Meanwhile, the government continues to approve wind turbine projects without consideration of municipal concerns according to Marriott.

Some municipal officials represented at AMO have already experienced the impact of wind turbines on their communities.  Complaints start once when they become operational with people being forced from their homes by noise and low frequency noise vibrations.  These municipalities are looking for the MOE to actually start enforcing the noise standards that they have set and to follow up on the health complaints being filed with Medical Officers of Health.

Mayor April Jeffs of Wainfleet wants the government to start applying learning from these early projects and apply increased set-backs from people’s homes to new projects before they are approved.  Wainfleet adopted a 2 kilometer set-back by-law that was challenged in court by the wind developer.

Municipalities are looking for the government to return real local planning authority for wind turbines to local municipalities.  These powers were taken away by the Green Energy Act. Municipalities are better placed that a Queen’s Park civil servants to identify local issues that need to be addressed in reviewing wind turbine projects.  They also have processes in place to review and approve other complex or controversial projects building projects that take place in their municipalities.

The municipal representatives at AMO will be meeting Tuesday August 20 at 4:30 pm. in the Governor-General 1 on the 4th floor of the Westin Hotel in Ottawa.

For further details contact, Kevin Marriott at 519-383-9170 or April Jeffs at 905-658-7890.

Mayor Watson’s letter to our community

05 Monday Aug 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Back in May, after the decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the case of Wiggins et al vs wpd, we wrote to the Mayor of the City of Ottawa to inform him of the importance of the Court’s decision: that it was acceptable for property owners who live as neighbours to property being leased for industrial-scale wind turbines to sue for property value loss and nuisance at the time of approval of a wind power project (i.e., they do not have to wait until the power project is built), and that the Court accepted that property value loss had already occurred simply with the announcement of the power project near Clearview Ontario, on the order of 22-50 percent.

The effect of the proposed wind power project in North Gower-Richmond will be significant, we wrote , in terms of the potential danger to health (also acknowledged by the Court) and property value loss, which we estimate to be approximately–and conservatively–$70 million.

We received a reply from the Mayor, in which he repeats that this is a provincial responsibility (that was written in all capital letters so we wouldn’t miss it), and that the “regime” [sic] in place for renewable energy approvals is “quite onerous.”

“Should a wind power developer* seek a renewable energy approval in Ottawa,” he wrote, “the City will review all documentation and information relating to the proposed development and fully participate in any such consultative process. …the City will be in a better position to assess its response…and to address any concerns and needs of the public.”  Note he does not say that the City will ensure people are not harmed; he does not say, the City will ensure that its residents are protected.

The letter is here: MayorWatsonLetterJuly17

We wrote back–sorry to take up more of his time–and said that we had recently participated in “dialogue” sessions with the province and found that we, along with other stakeholders, believe the renewable power (they keep saying ‘energy’ because it sounds nicer than power plants, but that’s the truth) planning process is deeply flawed and Ontario needs a completely new process. There was NO ONE from the City of Ottawa at the evening session we attended, and as far as we know, NO ONE from the City of Ottawa at the morning session, hosted by the Ontario Power Authority.

We told the Mayor that we demanded a return of local land-use planning powers to municipalities (removed by the Green Energy Act) and also a cost-benefit analysis including the impacts, financial and health, on local communities.

Many analysts are now describing the province’s “green” energy plan as a monumental policy failure that has already run electricity prices so high it is affecting businesses’ ability to be competitive (let alone survive) and has had an astounding effect on Ontario’s rural and small urban communities.

All we ask is that our City protect us from a power plant that is not needed, which uses an invasive, expensive and unreliable technology,  and which will doubtless negatively affect this community.

NWH-Ottawa.jpg large

Not a Willing Host demonstration, Ottawa City Hall, April 2013; MPP Lisa MacLeod and community members.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

*the Marlborough 1 project is on “hold” until the province announces its new procurement process; wind developer Prowind, headquartered in Germany, told the Ottawa Citizen recently that it intends to reapply when the new process is in place.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

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