Wrong, wrong, wrong

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Times

Wrong to assume

Blanding-SmallThe Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are wrong. Ontario Nature. Nature Canada. Both wrong. Dr. Robert McMurtry is wrong. The South Shore Conservancy is wrong. So too is the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory. Alvar, bird, butterfly, turtle and bat experts are all wrong. The municipality of Prince Edward is wrong. As are the majority of County residents who believed Crown Land at Ostrander Point should be preserved—rather than industrialized for the profit of one corporation.

And now we have learned that Ontario’s own Environmental Review Tribunal is wrong. A Toronto court has said so. This ought to keep Premier Kathleen Wynne up at night.

The Tribunal’s Robert Wright and Heather Gibbs spent more than 40 days hearing evidence, challenging testimony and witnesses and weighing competing claims. They began their task in a snowstorm in February; and delivered their decision on a hot July day last summer. Wright and Gibbs visited Ostrander Point. They walked around. They saw, with their own eyes, what was at stake.

They dug deep into the evidence. They weren’t satisfied that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) had sufficiently scrutinized the developer’s plans before issuing it a permit to “harm, harass and kill” endangered species, including the Blanding’s turtle.

They discovered that mitigation measures proposed by the developer to ensure overall benefit to the species were untested and worse, according to evidence presented before them—unlikely to work, particularly for the population at Ostrander Point.

However, the Toronto court ruled that Wright and Gibbs should have given the MNR the benefit of doubt.

“In my view, the Tribunal ought to have assumed that the MNR would properly and adequately monitor compliance with the ESA (Endangered Species Act) permit,” wrote Justice Ian Nordheimer in the decision.

But Wright and Gibbs, after listening to 40 days of testimony and examining nearly 200 documents entered into evidence, concluded they could not make that assumption.

The Tribunal’s error was that it didn’t believe the MNR would adequately look out for the Blanding’s turtle.

Wright and Gibbs had gone backward and forward through the proposals prepared and submitted by the developer and accepted by the MNR. They concluded the “Blanding’s turtle at Ostrander Point Crown Land Block will not be effectively mitigated by the conditions of the REA [Renewable Energy Approval].”

The court didn’t say Wright and Gibbs were wrong about their conclusions, but that they should have “accepted the ESA permit at face value” or explained better why their conclusions were different than the MNR.

“The Tribunal was obliged to explain how the fact that the MNR had concluded under the ESA that the project would lead to an overall benefit to Blanding’s turtle (notwithstanding the harm that would arise from the project) could mesh with its conclusion that the project would cause irreversible harm to the same species,” wrote Justice Nordheimer.

This is the bit that ought to send a cold shiver through Premier Wynne and anyone else who is worries about the welfare of endangered species in this province.

Read the full article here.

Ontario citizens expect environment to be protected

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ontario citizens want wildlife protected from wind power plants

Monday, Feb 24, 2014

TORONTO, Feb. 20, 2014 /CNW/ – Ontario citizens expect government to protect wildlife, according to a recent poll. Results of an online public poll hosted by Wind Concerns Ontario showed that 97.38 percent of the more than 1,300 people responding said they did not support the killing of birds and animals for wind power development.

“We think Ontario citizens are unaware of the government’s policy on wildlife, even endangered species, and wind power,” said Jane Wilson, president, Wind Concerns Ontario. “They don’t know that wind power developers are allowed to show that the ‘overall benefit’ of their projects trumps the need to protect birds and animals.”

At the Ostrander Point wind power project to be built on Crown land, the developer proposed to build a “compensation area” for endangered Blanding’s turtles, Wilson said. “We’re not sure how the turtles were going to get the message about that,” Wilson said. “The real message is, this government supports wind power developers, no matter what the cost.”

SOURCE Wind Concerns Ontario

windconcerns@gmail.com

NOTE: the South Branch wind power plant, which is about to begin operations soon just south of Ottawa, received a permit to kill, harm or harass the protected Bobolink.

“Quiet nights” by-law could protect communities

19 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Quiet nights bylaw could protect communities from noise

Noise bylaw could stifle windmills 14

By Bruce Bell, The Intelligencer

Friday, February 14, 2014 3:24:46 EST PM

PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY – Strength in numbers could provide municipalities with protection against unwanted developments including wind farms.

Warren Howard, a councillor from North Perth (Listowel) in southwestern Ontario appeared in front of Prince Edward County’s committee of the whole to determine if there was any interest in joining a municipal coalition to establish a noise regulation bylaw.
Howard told the committee a generic bylaw used by a number of municipalities could quite likely help stop unwanted development in Ontario communities.
“A coalition would be a much better way of doing it, because you can be 99.9 per cent sure that if a municipality tried to stop a wind development using a noise bylaw, the developer would challenge it in court,” he said. “If we had 10 municipalities in the coalition, there’s no court that is going to hear the same thing 10 times and I would imagine the first decision would be binding.”
Howard said a bylaw would need to be developed in “good faith” and couldn’t be established to target one type of development – namely the erection of wind turbines or to simply frustrate provincial initiatives. He said legal opinion suggests a noise bylaw could be developed using the concept of “quiet nights” for rural areas, prohibiting clearly audible sounds. He said general exemptions could be provided for activities such as specified farming practices, festivals and emergency vehicles.
Howard said the Green Energy Act (GEA) overrides municipal matters in planning and zoning but not the enforcement of bylaws such as noise control.
While bylaws cannot be created to completely block out provincial initiatives everywhere in a municipality, Howard said a court ruling regarding a wind development in Wainfleet, Ontario, suggests municipalities have the right to enact bylaws which protect the health and safety of residents.
“The wind company submitted that the bylaw should be declared of no force or effect pursuant to Section 14 (2) of the Municipal Act 2001 because it frustrates the purpose of the GEA and that therefore a conflict exists,” Howard told the committee.
“I am not prepared to go that far. The Municipal Act clearly contains provisions to allow for nuisance and noise as well as health and safety matters.”
Coun. Brian Marisett told Howard “Prince Edward County has dealt with noise issues many times and it’s always controversial and I don’t know what level of noise you can monitor.”
Howard said the bylaw would deal only with clearly audible sounds “because it’s hard to determine what level of noise is harmful and scientists can’t even agree on that yet.”

Read the full story here.

European Parliament policy advisor: wind is a loser

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Here is a very short video prepared by Ben Acheson, policy advisor on energy and the environment to Member of European Parliament Struan Stevenson. He reviews the European experience with wind power and says, it’s time to chalk this up as a loss.

And what a loss. Billions in the pockets of developers, and “fuel poverty” for the people.

Watch the video here.

79th Unwilling Host: response to loss of democracy in Ontario

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Here from Sarnia, an opinion on last week’s vote at Lambton County to declare the municipality Not A Willing Host to wind power plants. Note that the report states wind turbines will soon be operating near Ottawa–the wind power plant at Brinston will begin operations this month, or in early March.

Unwilling host declaration born from frustration

By Peter Epp

Friday, February 14, 2014 7:09:16 EST PM

Wind turbines at the Erie Shores Wind Farm near Port Burwell generate power. Similar turbines may be popping up near Ottawa. (CRAIG GLOVER/QMI AGENCY)

Wind turbines at the Erie Shores Wind Farm near Port Burwell generate power. Similar turbines may be popping up near Ottawa. (CRAIG GLOVER/QMI AGENCY)

It’s been almost five years since the Green Energy Act received approval at Queen’s Park, and yet the public debate over the content of that legislation continues to be a sore point, especially in rural Ontario where most of the legislation’s impact has been felt.

Planning and decision-making for the location of wind turbines has been legally centralized in Toronto since 2009, and so local municipalities and their locally-elected councillors have had little to no influence in deciding whether a wind turbine or solar farm ought to be located within their political jurisdiction.

It is rare in Ontario, and in other democratic jurisdictions, when the wishes of the electorate, through their public representatives, are ignored so profoundly. Indeed, approximately 80 municipalities in this province have declared themselves to be “unwilling hosts” for wind turbine developments – a collective protest against legislation that smacks more of the Soviet than the Canadian style in getting things done.

Lambton County council joined that chorus on Wednesday. And in declaring that Lambton County was an unwilling host to wind turbines, it joined with several lower-tier local municipalities that have done the same.

Most protests are born from frustration and from the collective anger of an individual or group who have been placed in a position of futility. Removing all but a token comment on wind turbine developments has left local councils in Lambton County and elsewhere in a municipal no-man’s land. All they have left is the “unwilling host” designation.

None of this will change until there is a change in government at Queen’s Park. The Liberal government in power is loath to tinker with the legislation it crafted and supported five years ago. Even as recently as January 2013, during the heat of the Liberal leadership race, Kathleen Wynne declared that her role as premier would be to better convince the people of Southwestern Ontario that wind turbines are good for us, and that Toronto knows best.

And Wynne has been as good as her word. She’s tried to convince rural Ontario, but we’re not buying what she’s selling.

Read the full story here.

Wind power approvals pushing electricity bills higher

13 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Wind Power Project Approvals Driving Up Cost of Ontario’s Electricity

By Parker Gallant

The provincial government would have us believe it is taking steps to manage rapidly rising electricity costs. Meanwhile, in the background, they are pushing 55 wind turbine projects through the Renewable Energy Approval process, projects  that will add $1.1 billion per year to Ontario’s electricity costs.  The impact of these turbine projects is 20 times the cost of the gas plant relocations. 

The 230-megawatt  (MW) Niagara Region Wind Project proposed for West Lincoln and Wainfleet in the Niagara Region alone will add $78 million annually to Ontario’s electricity costs when approved.  The cost over its 20-year contract is $1.6 Billion.  Rather than declining or delaying these 55 projects, the provincial government continues to issue approvals and increasing electricity costs to levels that Ontario household and business users cannot afford. 

In fact, wind power projects continue to be approved almost weekly despite Ontario’s current surplus of electricity.  Some operators of existing wind power generation facilities are actually being paid not to produce electricity, and neighbouring jurisdictions like New York and Michigan are being paid to take Ontario’s surplus power, which they in turn use to attract jobs away from Ontario with cheap electricity.  To create capacity on the grid for the expensive power generated by wind turbines, Ontario is also idling the Niagara hydro plants which in the past have powered Ontario’s economy by supplying cheap clean electricity.

The truth is that wind is not a reliable source of electric power.  In Ontario, wind turbines generate most of their electricity at night, and in the fall and winter months—exactly when we don’t need it. To provide the electricity needed by the province during the day, and in the hot summers, Ontario has had to supplement wind turbines with gas plants to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing.  This means that the average Ontario electricity user will not only pay about $220 annually for the cost of the wind turbine contracts but also another $200 annually to pay for the base costs of the gas plants needed to back them up.  Ontario electricity ratepayers could do a lot with that $420.

While the government argues that it has no option but to proceed with these projects, Ontario court have confirmed that the Feed-in-Tariff contracts issued for these projects only allow the proponent to enter a “complex regulatory process that might have led to approvals” and that the Environmental Project Act gives the Ministry of the Environment Director “broad powers to issue, reject, or amend Renewable Energy Approvals.”  The known impacts of existing wind power projects on communities in rural Ontario give the Ministry of the Environment Director a basis for rejecting or delaying these projects.  The Ontario government is pursuing wind power without a proper cost-benefit analysis, as was pointed out by the Auditor-General in 2011; no analysis was done before launching into the wind power program, or since. Citing benefits to the environment, is not an appropriate rationale:  with the coal plants closed, there is no need for concern about pollution from them, and there are also valid concerns about environmental damage and harm to wildlife from wind power plants.

For example, the government’s own Environmental Review Tribunal revoked approval to construct the Ostrander Point project last July because the project would cause “serious and irreversible harm” to the endangered Blanding’s turtles native to the area.  Rather than accepting that decision, however, the Ministry of the Environment partnered with the wind industry in January to appeal this ruling in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto; the Ministry is trying to overturn the decision to protect the turtles.  Similarly, the Ministry continues to support the Wainfleet Wind Energy project, despite the obvious dangers presented to users of the nearby Skydive Burnaby facility.

Electricity costs in Ontario are now among the highest in North America. Ontario households and businesses have reached the limit of their capacity to pay for this Green Energy experiment. It is time for the Ontario government to stop approving more wind turbine projects, like the Niagara Region Wind Project, that will drive up the cost of electricity in the province for the next 20 years while generating electricity we do not need. 

Parker Gallant is a former vice-president with the TD Bank, a former director with Energy Probe, and currently an energy analyst and commentator. He is vice-president of Wind Concerns Ontario.

Prowind’s Woodstock area project closer to approval

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

In the never-ending stream of approvals of wind power projects, yet another is posted for approval: the Gunn’s Hill project in Oxford County. The developer is Germany-based Prowind.
The company moved recently but until a few months ago, this was the site of their corporate offices in Canada, an upstairs office suite in Hamilton, Ontario.

Comments on the Gunn’s Hill project are due March 24th here

The community group in the area is the East Oxford Community Alliance, which has already retained legal counsel.

North Gower farmer still wants turbines on his land

08 Saturday Feb 2014

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Here from the current edition of Farmers Forum, a story on the differing views of farm owners on having turbines on their property. One farmer interviewed reacted to the concerns of the community, the other persists in believing that community opposition is wrong.

Farmers face off over wind turbines

Wind farm at Brinston will be test case for others

 By Tom Collins

PETERBOROUGH — As 10 new wind turbines were to start spinning at Brinston — about an hour south of urban Ottawa — the tide of public opinion about wind farms is changing, pitting farmers against one another.

The Brinston wind farm has been controversial, so much so that South Dundas council has since passed a resolution that it will not support further turbines until it sees a need for it. Some wind power supporters have seen communities turn on them.

When M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. decided to build five wind turbines in Cavan Monaghan Township near Peterborough, Don Winslow immediately jumped on board. In spring of 2013, he signed with the wind company to allow them to build a wind turbine on his 500-acre cash crop farm. Three months later, after immense public pressure and hostility, he told the company he couldn’t do it anymore.

“It relieved our stress tremendously (to cancel the contract),” said 70-year-old Winslow, who estimated that less than five per cent of the community is in favour of wind turbines. “We don’t have to sneak around the neighbours hoping to not run into them.

“There is always an element of society that is going to go overboard,” he said. “But people I respected were just as upset as the real radicals.”

Winslow is still a big believer in wind technology. But many Ontario municipalities are not. As of late January, 78 of 444 municipalities have declared themselves unwilling hosts of wind turbines — along with 33 concerned municipalities — despite the fact the designation has no teeth.

Five or six years ago, wind companies were offering farmers an agreement where they could earn $10,000 or more per year to allow a turbine to use up a half-acre of land. Now that price has almost doubled, Winslow said. A farmer signing an agreement today could make about $400,000 on a 20-year agreement.

Winslow said his neighbours were concerned about property values, health risks, and a flicker effect caused by shadows from rotating blades in the setting sun.

These wind turbine issues are still hotly debated. While the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said last April that wind turbines do reduce property values, many of the health issues have seen studies that support both sides of the argument. Health Canada has been studying the issue and expects to release the results this year.

Ed Schouten of North Gower: “I will host a couple…”

Ed Schouten has long wanted wind turbines on his dairy farm in North Gower. He doesn’t believe turbines are as much trouble as some make them out to be and would host a couple if a wind farm company decided to build in the area.

“I’m not afraid of them, let me put it that way,” he said. “I don’t think it’s going to harm the farm. I never thought in my life people would be against this.”

Schouten thinks the Brinston turbines will be a good test case for the rest of the area. If wind farms are done right — like the one in Brinston — then no one will complain, he said. The trick is to keep the wind farm small. If there are a few turbines, they look nice, but if there are hundreds, they become an issue.

Winslow said the negativity in the news media has played a big role in people shifting away from wind turbines.

“You don’t hear much except for negative publicity,” he said. “It’s hard for the average citizen to take anything but the view they keep hearing over and over in the press. There’s far too much emotion into it now.”

……….

Editor’s note: despite Mr Schouten’s claim that keeping the “wind farm small” would avoid issues with the community, the truth is, the proposal for his property and one other that is now on hold, was for eight turbines that would have been the largest in North America, and would have affected more than 1,000 homes. As for “small,” the 20-megawatt wind power generation project would have cost the citizens of Ontario $4.8 million a year, had it achieved a Feed In Tariff contract, or $96 million over the life of the contract. Prowind of Germany, the company putting that proposal forward, told Ottawa Wind Concerns that it is reviewing the requirements of the new procurement process for for large renewable power projects, and will decide to apply. The result is, North Gower-Richmond remain in “limbo” for months to come.

 

What do you think? Should wildlife be endangered by wind power plants?

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Wind Concerns Ontario is sponsoring a poll on whether at-risk species of wildlife should be harmed by wind power generation facilities.

The Ontario government believes that the “overall benefits” of wind power outweigh any other environmental damage.

What do you think?

Take the poll here.

Parker Gallant: why your electricity bills are so high

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Tell me again:  why have Ontario’s electricity rates gone up so much?

If you live in an Ontario city and just received your first electricity bill for the year, you are probably looking at it and scratching your head!   Wow, did we really use that much electricity for those lights on the Christmas tree?

The answer is, no, you didn’t, but your electricity rates and your delivery rates have climbed a lot over the past several years, even though you may have used less electricity.

Ontario’s electricity sector is very big with annual revenues of about $20 billion (approximately 4.5% of total 2012 Ontario primary household income).  The sector has been undergoing massive changes over the past decade as the current Liberal government, supported by the NDP, decided we should go “green” and save the world from global warming or its current iteration, “climate change.”

So exactly what has caused the price of electricity in Ontario to rise at a level we haven’t seen in our lifetime?   Here is a list of the principal changes that have affected our electricity bills during the past decade. Many will continue to push our bills even higher over the ten years.   They are in no particular order and remember, they all cost you money.

§     $230 million for taxpayers and almost $900 million for ratepayers to move the gas plants.

§     $60-$70 million annually—the Ontario Power Authority or OPA’s budget. One of our “energy ministers” created the temporary (OPA) instructing them to develop a Integrated Power System Plan.  It’s no longer temporary even though it has never produced an acceptable plan.

§     $300 million plus annually for the OPA to run the province’s “conservation” program, to pick up your old fridge, provide coupons for purchases of lightbulbs and thermostats.

§     Rate increases: when you actually conserve electricity the program allows your local distribution company (LDC) to apply to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for a rate increase on their delivery rates because they lost revenue.

§     More: the same program supports local municipalities to convert their street lights to LED bulbs.

§     $20 billion, now reduced to $13 billion, for the OPA to sign that Samsung contract to pay them for putting up wind turbines and solar panels and (maybe) produce power over the 20-year contract.

§     70.2 cents per kilowatt for the OPA to develop the feed-in tariff (FIT) program which pays various school boards to put solar panels on school roofs, or for IKEA, Loblaws and Canadian Tire, etc. to put them on their stores, and then charge them 8 or 9 cents to buy back the power.

§     $11 billion because the energy minister(s) instructed Hydro One (transmission & distribution monopoly) to spend on both transmission and distribution assets, including a big chunk just to hook up solar panels and wind turbines.

§      $700.54 for each of Hydro One’s 1.1 million smart meters—a lot more than other LDCs spent. The total cost of smart meters for the province is around $2 billion .

§     Despite all that spending on smart meters Hydro One is continually messing up their distribution customer’s hydro bills due to faulty meters and a billing system that doesn’t work very well.(One radio commentator said it’s in constant “FAIL” mode.)

§     1,700 employees at Hydro One up 39% since 2005, but they actually distribute less electricity now than they did then.

§     $4.8 billion, as of spring 2013 for pension shortfalls at OPG and Hydro One. Ratepayers are on the hook for and must pay for through their monthly bills.

§     $600 million: the amount OPG went over budget on the Big Becky tunnel under Niagara Falls.

§     $2.6 billion because OPG was directed to move forward with the Mattagami project, for run-of-river hydro which will produce power principally in the spring when we won’t really need it.

§     $6 billion, the amount the Energy Minister recently said we made in “profit” selling our excess power but ratepayers subsidize those exports at a cost of over $1 billion every year.

§     We now pay wind turbine developers to not produce power and we also pay solar farm developers for not producing power because it might put Ontario’s grid at risk for blackouts or brownouts.

§     We now pay for meteorological stations to be erected at wind developments to measure how much power they might have produced, but we can’t use, and pay for it anyway.

§     Five: the top five executives at Hydro One earned almost twice as much as Hydro One paid out under the LEAP (Low-income Energy Assistance Program) grant program which was developed to alleviate “energy poverty.”

§     $7.7 billion: in 2005 when the Global Adjustment was called the Provincial Benefit it actually was a benefit and reduced electricity bills by $53.1 million, but for 2013 it was a charge on ratepayer’s bills that exceeded $7.7 billion.

§     $1.2 billion: on July 1, 2010 the Province started collecting the provincial portion of the HST and that 8% tax increase now costs ratepayers at least $1.2 billion annually.

§     140%: the amount the “Off-Peak” time-of-use rates have risen since they first appeared, moving them closer to “On-Peak” rates—so much for encouraging power consumption to off-peak hours as a conservation measure.

§     Discounts to big industry: because Ontario has added so much generation our Energy Minister has directed the OPA to start two new industrial incentive programs that will allow big industry to pay for electricity at huge discounts similar to what we are paid for our exports which ordinary ratepayers will subsidize.

§     3,600 megawatts of wind and 1,200 MW of solar: what the OPA has contracted for which will all be paid for at above market prices, and will push that Global Adjustment pot up much further than it was in 2013.

§     The “renewable generation connection” charge: what we pay for Hydro One to connect wind and solar projects to the grid.

§     $12 billion: what Ontario’s ratepayers have handed over to pay off the residual stranded debt of $7.8 billion but here’s the bad news—there is still $3.9 billion to be paid.

§     $1.5 billion: the cost for the Province via the IESO to develop a “smart grid,” some of which is now appearing on our bills under the “regulatory” line.

§     $200 to 400 million a year, we pay to subsidize electricity consumption for large industrial users.

§     $1 billion a year: what we pay gas generators through a “net revenue requirement,” so they can be at the ready when the wind’s not blowing or the sun is not shining.

§     $ 1 billion a year and more: what taxpayers have been paying for the past four years to provide ratepayers with a “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit” of 10%. It expires in one year, meaning electricity bills will jump by 10% more.

So, no, it wasn’t your Christmas lights that jacked up your bill.  Here’s hoping a light goes on somewhere in the halls at Queen’s Park, and the government takes action to stop this madness.

©Parker Gallant

February 3, 2014

The opinions expressed are those of the author.