The Toronto wind turbine: green energy symbol

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Not as advertised?

It’s hard to visit Toronto and NOT see the single wind turbine at Exhibition Place. Today, at about 600 kW and 90 meters tall, that turbine is very small compared to what is being built and approved all over Ontario—and yet, the people of Toronto and visitors to that city, believe it is a symbol of all that is good about “green” power developed from wind energy.

The truth is a little more complicated.

Former bank vice-president Parker Gallant has written an examination of the Exhibition Place turbine: all is not what it seems. His article is in two parts.

Part 1: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/torontos-ex-place-wind-turbine-icon-or-mirage/

Part 2: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/the-ex-place-toronto-turbine-disappointing-investment/

A note: whenever wind power developer executives are asked by small town residents whether THEY live anywhere near a turbine, many of them (including Prowind’s president for 5 minutes, Jeffrey Segal, speaking in South Dundas) respond, yes. They mean they live in downtown Toronto, and can see the Ex Place turbine. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Gunn’s Hill wind farm proposal incomplete, should be denied: community group

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The proposal by Germany-based Prowind to build a wind “farm” near Woodstock Ontario is the subject of a complaint to the Ministry of the Environment, and the Office of the Ombudsman. While the application process is supposed to be “transparent” and open to the public, the truth is, documentation is not complete, and the Ministry and the proponent engage in correspondence that is not available to the public.

Joan Morris, Chair of the group East Oxford Community Alliance, wrote a letter to the Ministry of the Environment, both to the Minister and staff, demanding that approval not be granted to Prowind for the project, due to the failure to follow process. The letter follows:

Dear Minister,
I am writing to draw to your attention serious process issues at the Ministry of Environment with respect to renewable energy project reviews.  The public is being denied the opportunity to receive complete and accurate information regarding a project, and also to participate in the “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE reportedly occurring following the EBR comment period.
I trust you will investigate these issues in which Ontario citizens’ rights are being denied.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
From: Joan Morris
Sent: June-23-14 11:15 AM
To: Garcia-Wright, Agatha (ENE)
Cc: ‘Eric Gillespie’
Subject: Environmental Approval Process – Gunn’s Hill Wind Project – “Iterative Process”
Dear Ms. Garcia-Wright,
In your letter dated April 25, 2014 you have indicated the following:
·         The MOE may require “additional information or clarification from the proponent”
·         The review process may be an “iterative process”
These points raise significant concern for reasons as follows:
·         The proponent has reportedly already deemed its application for the project to be complete and accurate (although our FOI request of April 13, 2014 has not yet been fulfilled to confirm this information)
·         MOE staff have deemed the application to be complete (again, results of FOI request pending at this time)
·         The iterative process conducted solely between the MOE and the proponent (without public disclosure or participation) is an admission that the application did not contain sufficient and accurate information for approval and therefore should not have been deemed complete and accurate by the proponent nor by the MOE.  This is also an admission that the information available for public review during the EBR comment period was not complete and accurate.
If the MOE has adopted practices such that the proponent’s REA documents are no longer required to be complete and accurate, and an “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE is accepted practice, then posting to the EBR is a sham and is misleading and deceptive to Ontario citizens.
In your letter of April 15, 2014, you state that projects are planned in a transparent manner, yet, the public appears to have no timely access to the ongoing communication between the MOE, proponent and other ministries.  It appears the only manner in which the public may obtain information is to submit FOI requests on an ongoing basis, to obtain information retrospectively and to incur costs.  Despite my submission of three FOI requests to the Ministry of Environment April 13, April 15 and May 27, 2014 with all applicable fees, as of June 23, I have received no documents whatsoever.  My rights as a citizen to obtain information regarding a project that directly impacts me are being violated due to your ministry’s failure to provide disclosure via either direct request to your agency or via the FOI process.  This, coupled with the “iterative process” between proponent and MOE leads me to reject your claim that projects are planned in a transparent manner, and in fact is reflective of a process designed to facilitate and “remove barriers” for the proponent to gain approval,  rather than to involve and protect the public.
Any iterative process should require that the public be involved at each stage and have the opportunity to participate in a transparent manner. I am not aware that the MOE has disclosed that the process is iterative until now.
I request that the MOE disclose:
·         The date when the iterative process was established between MOE and the proponent and its consultants. In particular please clarify whether the iterative process between MOE and the proponent and its consultants been in effect in the past; AND
·         The process by which the public will be advised of the iterative process;  AND
·         The process by which the public will be full participants in the iterative process;  AND
·         Whether the iterative process will replace the FOI process for obtaining disclosure.
I request that your agency deny the application of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm until such time as your Ministry discloses complete and accurate information to the public regarding all communication relating to this project, and the public has adequate opportunity to participate fully in the “iterative process” in an open and transparent manner.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
Copy:    Eric Gillespie (lawyer)

 

See related story here.

Ontario’s massive debt: what voters didn’t want to hear

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Here from Ottawa economist Robert Lyman, a review of Ontario’s debt situation: it isn’t pretty.

ONTARIO’S DEBT – THE STORY ONTARIO VOTERS REFUSED TO BELIEVE 

Several pundits have commented on the reasons for the major victory by the Liberal Party in the Ontario provincial elections held on June 12. Many have judged that voters were simply unwilling to believe the Progressive Conservative message that fiscal responsibility required reductions in spending, including where necessary reductions in the number of public service positions and programs. Voters said that the debt was not a problem that they wanted to worry about.

Even after the event, it is may be a good idea to examine exactly what the facts are with respect to the financial situation of the provincial government and what this may mean to the people who live in Ontario in future.

  • According to the Ontario Financing Authority, the consolidated provincial debt as of June 14, 2014 is $295.8 billion.
  • The debt has grown significantly over the past generation. In 1990, Ontario’s debt was $38.4 billion. It grew to $115 billion by 1998, and has almost doubled again since then.
  • Ontario has only been able to sustain this increase in debt because of interest rates that are at all-time historic lows. Even so, in 2013-2014, annual debt service costs to the provincial treasury were about $10.6 billion, the fourth largest expenditure item after health, education and social services.
  • The 2014 budget that was defeated projected that debt service costs would rise to $12 billion by 2015-16 and $13.3 billion by 2016-17. This is by far the fastest growing item in the provincial budget, growing twice as fast as the health budget.
  • The Liberals are committed to increasing program spending for at least the next four years. This year the $3 billion increase in program spending will increase the annual deficit to $12.5 billion from $11.3 billion last year. The deficit will be much higher if the Liberals’ projection of a 4 % annual economic growth rate turns out to be too optimistic.
  • There are very few reasons to believe the optimistic growth forecasts. Ontario’s productivity growth lags behind that of the United States, as does business investment. The province’s cost competitiveness has eroded, due to higher taxes and fees and much higher energy costs.
  • In the short term, the debt service cost could be increased further if the various investors’ services downgrade the province’s credit rating. Ontario has $250 billion worth of bonds rated by Moody’s Investor Services. The province’s ability to pay back those bonds, known as the debt-to-revenue ratio, is 237.7 %, the worst rating among all Canadian provinces.

Read the full paper here: ONTARIO’S DEBT

Email us at Ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Wind power to be election issue in October?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Turbine and home in Ontario

Turbine and home in Ontario

We would say, yes.

Mayoral candidate Mike Maguire had his formal launch last evening and after saying that hydro bills were his number one issue (and the number one concern for citizens), Mr Maguire mentioned the proposed wind power project in North Gower. He said, I will stand with the citizens there and fight against this “not environmental, fiscally irresponsible” project.

He went on to say that the “monstrous” turbines would change the community forever, for no benefit.

Residents of North Gower and Richmond already sent a petition (as a form of referendum) to Ottawa City Hall last fall, stating that the community is Not A Willing Host; the petition was accepted by Council and a motion passed unanimously noting the community’s declaration, and demanding that the province return local land use planning powers to the municipalities.

It is looking like wind power is going to be a critical issue in this year’s municipal election, to be held October 27th.

There are currently 84 communities in Ontario that have passed a resolution at Council to declare they are an unwilling host or Not A Willing Host, out of a probable 100 or so that could be vulnerable to wind power generation projects.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Wind energy provides poor ratepayer value

CCSAGEadmin's avatarCCSAGE Naturally Green

[Letter to Editor published June 26, 2014 in the County Weekly News]

Dear Editor

Your June 12th op-ed piece (Wind energy emerging as electricity option with best ratepayer value) by Robert Hornung for the County Sustainability Group (CSG) is what one should expect from Hornung’s employer, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA).

In his article, Hornung cites a flawed “independent” study prepared for CanWEA by Power Advisory of Boston, that was authored primarily by a former executive from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) who had responsibility for negotiating lucrative 20 year contracts for CanWEA corporate members.

The facts are that in 2012, when only about 2,000 MWs of wind energy were up and running, wind energy accounted for more than 5% ($700 million) of the total costs while generating only 3% of Ontario’s electricity production. (When 5,600 MWs of wind energy plants are operating in accordance with Ontario’s revised…

View original post 294 more words

Leaders’ debate: making the government record stick

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Ontario election debate: Hudak and Horwath try to make ‘corrupt’ Liberal record stick

More from Scott Stinson | @scott_stinson

Premier Kathleen Wynne spent the early part of the Ontario leaders’ debate apologizing for her party’s “mistakes” in the billion-dollar gas-plant scandal, as an election issue that has largely been overlooked in the month-long campaign quickly returned to the forefront.

Responding to the first of six questions submitted by viewers in the only debate of the six-week campaign, one that asked how the Liberals could be trusted, Ms. Wynne said the decisions made “were wrong” and “public money was wasted.” Rather than pivot away, the Premier said that there had been “a breach of trust,” but “I have apologized for that.”

It was a perfect opening for NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who was able to begin her remarks in the 90-minute televised debate by saying “the Liberals have betrayed you.” How the Liberals could be trusted, she said, was “the actual question of the evening.”

Ms. Horwath, as did PC leader Tim Hudak later, pushed Ms. Wynne to explain why, as a member of Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet, she didn’t “say no” to the decision to cancel two gas-fired power plants at what turned out to be a $1.1-billion cost to the public.

“I am so sorry that public funds were wasted,” the Premier replied. “I have taken responsibility for being a part of a government that made mistakes.”

It was an impossible start for Ms. Wynne, and a subject for which there is no good answer, but even still she struggled to not sound guilty. “I’ve said that the decisions weren’t right,” she said. Mr. Hudak responded by saying that if the Liberals are re-elected after having apologized for getting caught, “they’re going to do it again.”…

Read the full story here.

Liberal, PC Leaders in Ottawa today

Tags

, , , , , ,

How important are Ottawa ridings in this provincial election?

Very.

The leader of the Ontario Liberal Party Kathleen Wynne, and the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives Tim Hudak will be in the Ottawa area today. (NDP leader Andrea Horwath is in the Toronto area, and Green Party leader Mike Schreiner is participating in a debate in the riding of Guelph.)
June 4 at 1:40 p.m. — Orléans
Premier Kathleen Wynne will deliver remarks at the campaign office of Marie-
France Lalonde, PC candidate for Orléans, at 5929 Jeanne d’Arc Boulevard
South.

June 4 at 5:45 p.m. — Ottawa
Premier Kathleen Wynne and federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau will meet
with local Liberals at 1000 Byron Avenue.
June 4 at 6:00 p.m. — Toronto

June 4 at 7:00 p.m. — Nepean
PC leader Tim Hudak will hold a town hall public event with Lisa MacLeod, PC candidate for
Nepean—Carleton, Jack MacLaren, PC candidate for Carleton—Mississippi
Mills, and Randy Denley, PC candidate for Ottawa West—Nepean. The event
will take place at Nepean Sportsplex, Hall “A” , 1701 Woodroffe Avenue.

 

Wind power documentary airs Wednesday June 4

Tags

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

Wednesday June 4 at 8 PM on Sun News, is the debut of the documentary film Down Wind.

The film features interviews with Ontario residents living near wind power projects, economics professor Ross McKitrick, human rights lawyer Julian Faulkner, energy analyst Tom Adams, Human Rights Charter appellant Shawn Drennan, activist Esther Wrightman, and Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson.

DownWindPoster

Wind turbines cause property values to drop: U.S. Realtors

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Here from the Watertown Daily Times is an account of the effect on property values at Cape Vincent, which is across the St Lawrence from Wolfe Island, and where BP Energy was also planning a wind power project, now cancelled.

Realtors say Wolfe Island wind turbines caused waterfront home prices to plummet

 

10 years of “irrational” energy planning in Ontario

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Here from former banker Parker Gallant, an analysis of what has gone wrong on the energy file in Ontario over the last 10 years.

Ontario’s Power Trip: Irrational energy planning has tripled power rates under the Liberals’ direction

Parker Gallant, Special to Financial Post | June 2, 2014 | Last Updated:Jun 3 8:17 AM ET

Dalton McGuinty's Liberals claimed the province’s electricity sector was in a mess when they took over in 2003. Look at it today.

Ontario Hydro may well have been a mess. But it was a mess that produced less expensive electricity

In the summer of 2003, just before Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals gained power in Ontario, 50 million people in the U.S. Eastern Seaboard and Ontario suffered an electricity blackout caused “when a tree branch in Ohio started an outage that cascaded across a broad swath from Michigan to New England and Canada.” Back in 2003 Ontario’s electricity prices were 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh) and delivery costs added 1.5 cents per kWh. An additional charge of 0.7 cents — known as the debt retirement charge to pay back Ontario Hydro’s legacy debt of $7.8-billion — brought all-in costs to the average consumer to 6.5 cents per kWh.

The McGuinty Liberals claimed the province’s electricity sector was in a mess when they took over in 2003. The Liberals’ first Energy minister, Dwight Duncan, said then that he rejected the old Ontario Hydro model. “It didn’t work. We’re fixing it. We’re cleaning up the mess.”

Fast forward 11 years. Today, Ontario electricity costs average over 9 cents per kWh, delivery costs 3 cents per kWh or more, the 0.7-cent debt retirement charge is still being charged, plus a new 8% provincial sales tax. Additional regulatory charges take all-in costs to well over 15 cents per kWh.. The increase in the past 10 years averaged over 11% annually. Recently, the Energy Minister forecast the final consumer electricity bill will jump another 33% over the next three years and 42% in the next 5 years.

Summing up: Whatever mess existed in 2003 is billions of dollars worse today. The cost of electricity for the average Ontario consumer went from $780 on the day Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals took power to more than $1,800, with more increases to come. The additional $1,020 in after-tax dollars extracted from the province’s 4.5 million ratepayers is $4.6 billion – per year!

Why?

First, the Liberal Party fell under the influence of the Green Energy Act Alliance (GEAA), a green activist group that evolved into a corporate industry lobby group that adopted anthropogenic global warming as a business strategy. The strategy: Get government subsidies for renewable energy. The GEAA convinced the McGuinty Liberals to follow the European model. That model was: Replace fossil-fuel-generated electricity with renewable energy from wind, solar and biomass (wood chips to zoo poo). In the minds of those who framed the Liberal’s energy policies, electricity generated from wind, solar, biomass – green energy – was the way of the future.

The plan was implemented through the 2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), a sweeping, even draconian, legislative intervention that included conservation spending and massive subsidies for wind, solar and biomass via a euro-style feed-in-tariff scheme. The GEA created a rush to Ontario by international companies seeking above market prices, a rush that pushed the price of electricity higher. The greater the increase in green energy investment, the higher prices would go.

At the same time, Liberals forced installation of smart meters, a measure that added $2-billion to distribution costs. Billions more were needed for transmission lines to hook up the new wind and solar generators. At the same time, wind and solar generation – being unstable – needed back-up generation, which forced the construction of new gas plants. The gas plants themselves became the target of further government intervention, leading to the $1-billion gas plant scandal.

Advertisement

To force adoption of often unpopular wind and solar plants, the GEA took away municipal rights relating to all generation projects, stripping rural communities of their authority to accept or reject them.

To pay for the rising subsidies to wind and solar, the Liberals adopted an accounting device that would spread the cost over all electricity consumers. The device was called the “Global Adjustment.” The Global Adjustment draw on consumers grew fast and will continue its upward movement. In effect, the Global Adjustment is a dump on ratepayers for energy costs that are above market rates. During 2013, the total global adjustment was $7.8-billion. Of that, 52% went to gas/wind/solar/biomass.

The GA for 2014 is expected to rise to $8.6-billion, adding another 2.9 cents per kWh for each electricity consumer.

To oversee all this, the Liberals established the Ontario Power Authority to do long-term energy planning (LTEP) and to contract renewable generation under the feed-in tariff (FIT) program that guaranteed wind and solar generators above-market prices for 20 years or more. In 10 years Ontarians have seen four versions of the so-called long-term plan, suggesting there is nothing long-term or planned. The Auditor General’s report of Dec 5, 2011, disclosed that no cost/benefit analysis was completed in respect to those feed-in tariff contracts.

Whatever mess existed in 2003 is billions of dollars worse today

The numerous Liberals who have sat in the Energy Minister’s chair have had a penchant for believing how the sector should function, issuing “directives” from the cabinet. The directives created the most complex and expensive electricity sector in North America. The Association of Major Power Consumers issued a “Benchmarking” report in which they stated: “Our analysis shows that Ontario has the highest industrial rates in North America. Ontario not only has the highest delivered rates of all these jurisdictions; the disparity in rates also is growing.”

The almost 100 directives over the past 11 years from Liberal energy ministers have instructed the OPA, the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One on a wide variety of issues from building a tunnel under Niagara Falls to paying producers for not generating power, subsidizing industrial clients for conservation while subsidizing other industrial clients for consumption. Numerous new programs have been created that support clients in Northern Ontario, urban clients for purchasing EVs (electric vehicles), homeowners for purchasing CFL light bulbs and a host of other concepts without weighing the effect on employers or taxpayers.
Aside from the burden on consumers, Ontario’s Power Trip has cost jobs as companies – Caterpillar, Heinz, Unilever and others – closed Ontario operations while others, such as Magna, failed to invest in Ontario due to high electricity prices and high taxes that would have created private sector jobs.

Were “green energy” jobs created? Government claims hit 31,000 in a press release in June 2013 but since then no mention of green job claims appears in releases. The recent budget of Finance Minister Charles Sousa reported 10,100 jobs in the “clean tech” sector, a far cry from earlier claims.

Ontario Hydro may well have been a mess a decade ago. But it was a mess that produced electricity priced to consumers at 6.5 cents a kWh. Current prices of 15 cents a kWh will rise to over 20 cents a kWh by 2018/19, forcing the average Ontario ratepayer to pay an additional $700 annually. By that date the cost of “renewable energy” to Ontario’s 4.5 million ratepayers will result in an annual extraction of $8-billion to satisfy the perceived benefits of wind, solar and biomass. Over the 20 years of the FIT contracts, $160-billion in disposable income will be removed from ratepayer’s pockets to access a basic commodity, all in the name of “global warming” and renewable power without use of a cost/benefit analysis.

Perhaps it is time for a change in the governing of Ontario and particularly the way the electricity sector is overseen.

Parker Gallant is a former Canadian banker who looked at his local electricity bill and didn’t like what he saw.

Read the full opinion and comments here.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com