Bob Chiarelli thinks you are stupid

Tags

, , , ,

Here from energy economist Robert Lyman, a comment on recent remarks made by Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, on actions taken by his government, and whether electricity bills will rise (again).

BOB CHIARELLI THINKS YOU ARE STUPID

Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli, was recently quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying, “When the OCEB (Ontario Clean Energy Benefit) comes off the (hydro) bill, residential customers don’t face additional costs.”

The accompanying news article explained that the OCEB was a subsidy funded by taxpayers that was imposed years ago when Ontario realized that the cost of its “green” energy policies would drive electricity rates much higher. Under this subsidy, ratepayers get a 10 per cent reduction off their electricity bills. This subsidy is scheduled to be ended in July 2014. To offset the increase in electricity rates, the Ontario government apparently plans to end the debt retirement charge (DRC).

What does this mean?

When former Ontario Energy Minister Brad Duguid announced Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan in 2005, he predicted that this would increase rates by 7.9 per cent per year annually for the ensuing five years. The Provincial sales tax of 8 per cent was also added to electricity rates, and the actual increase in transmission, distribution and energy costs far exceeded 7.9 per cent per year. To “offset” this, Ontario introduced the Clean Energy Benefit, a subsidy from taxpayers to electricity ratepayers amounting to 10 per cent of residential bills.

The average ratepayer in Ontario consumes 800 kilowatts (kWh) of electricity per month. The ratepayer’s bill is now about $130.00 per month, which means that the OCEB reduces it by $13.00.

The debt retirement charge is a component of nearly every Ontario ratepayer’s electricity bill. Collection of the DRC began on May 1, 2002, at a rate of 0.7 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity and it remains at that rate today. The charge remits to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), and thus to the Ministry of Finance, about $925 million per year. The DRC was authorized by the Energy Competition Act of 1998, which included the restructuring of the former Ontario Hydro into four main successor companies. The OEFC was given the responsibility to manage the legacy debt of the old Ontario Hydro, which resulted from the fact that, at its dissolution, the former Crown Corporation had debts of $38.1 billion and assets of only $17.2 billion. The $20.9 billion difference was to be repaid partially out of the future profits of OPG and Hydro One. The rest, called the “residual stranded debt’ was to be repaid by consumers directly via the DRC.

Here’s the problem. As of March 31, 2013, the Ontario government had collected $12.9 billion from the DRC, more than enough to eliminate the original “residual stranded debt”. The government claimed, however, that the debt had not been retired because in the meantime the OEFC had incurred other costs. The Auditor General of Ontario, in his 2011 Annual Report, took the position that the Ontario government should determine what the balance of the residual stranded debt was and provide periodic reports to the public on its progress in reducing the debt.

The Ontario Minister of Finance included a report in the 2012 Ontario Economic Outlook and the 2013 Budget on the residual stranded debt. The report revealed that the debt was $4.5 billion at March 31, 2012. The report gave no explanation or commitment as to when the debt would be fully paid and the DRC charge removed.

If one considers only the average rate of reduction from 2003/2004 to 2011/2012 of $925 million per year and projects this forward, it means that the residual stranded debt will not be paid off until the end of 2016/2017. By that time, the Ontario government would have collected about $15.3 billion to repay the original $7.8 billion. This assumes that no other unexplained charges get added to consumers’ bills.

Suddenly, the Energy Minister has discovered that the government does not need to go on collecting the DRC and so will delete it from consumers’ bills. What effect would that have?

That average ratepayer consuming 800 kWh per month would pay $5.60 per month in DRC. The loss of the OCEB would increase his bill by $13.00.  The net effect would be an increase of $7.40 per month. Add the HST and the additional cost increase becomes $8.11 per month, or $97.00 per year for the average ratepayer. If Mr. Chiarelli believes that consumers will be kept whole, he either does not understand mathematics or he assumes the average resident of Ontario will not understand it either.

So who gains and who loses? Ontario electricity ratepayers are today paying rates far higher than the government predicted when it instituted it green energy policy, even with the “Clean Energy Benefit”. Now, those rates will be higher still. Ontario taxpayers will no longer have to pay the subsidy, so they will save about $1.2 billion annually. However, who will end up paying the balance of the “residual stranded debt” that, up to now, the government has claimed is owed? Could there be some creative accounting done by the Ontario government to transfer the costs to ratepayers or taxpayers in some other way? We will just have to watch and see. You can be sure that the Liberal Party of Ontario will not be paying it.

Robert Lyman, Ottawa, February 3rd, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

How will wind developers rate in new procurement process?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Large (over 500 kW or 1/2 a megawatt) renewable power projects will soon be required to go through a new process in Ontario. The details are not final (yet the province is holding little dog and pony shows for “engagement”) but one of the ideas is that power developers must now “qualify” to be able to submit a bid to create a power project.

The presentation the Ontario Power Authority delivered on January 22nd via a webinar is here: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/planning/LRP-Presentation-January-22-2014.pdf

Pay close attention to the map on page 12–there appears to be “no limit” for Eastern Ontario.

“Community engagement” is a mandatory requirement in the new process but there is still “no veto,” as the OPA says clearly.

Throughout the summer there will be “ongoing engagement activities” scheduled. This is when the so-called charitable organization, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association or OSEA, at the behest of the government, and paid to do this, will travel through Ontario to tell us how wonderful wind power is. As to community concerns, if you follow our Twitter (@northgowerwind) you will have seen our conversations with OSEA Board member and Ottawa resident Chris Young. Concerned about your property values? Health? In Mr Young’s opinion, you should get out your roll of aluminum foil and refashion yourself a hat because you’re nuts. Health claims are “bogus” and concerns about property values (amply demonstrated by research studies in Ontario) are the result of a “whipped up frenzy.”

The process starts this month. We will try to keep you informed but why not sign yourself up for emails from the OPA by registering here.

We have been fighting for our community for four years; 2014 is going to be a year of dramatic events.

Donations welcome for our post office box, communications, public meetings, and legal advice. PO Box 3 North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Rick Conroy on Amherst Island wind power project: the terrible prospect

Tags

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

There are very few independent newspapers left in Canada. Most are now part of chains, and as a result, their editorial content follows whatever line the ownership decrees. Here then is the refreshing view of wind power in Ontario from editor of The Wellington Times, the “must-read” tab in Prince Edward County.

The Times

Last defence

The channel that separates Amherst Island from Prince Edward County is scarcely two kilometres wide. The island itself is tiny—just 20 kilometres long and seven kilometres across at its widest point. It is likely that in some ancient past Prince Edward County and Amherst Island were connected.

Now these communities share a common threat—a threat to the birds that stopover on their way north and south. To the animals that live here and make this unique habitat their own. To a pastoral way of life. And to the very health and well-being of the folks who who call these island communities home.

Earlier this month, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) deemed complete an application by a company controlled by Algonquin Power to construct as many as 37 industrial wind turbines on this small and fragile island. Thirty seven turbines. Each soaring more than 400 feet into the air— blades sweeping the sky over a span of 10,000 square metres (equal to two acres of sky for each turbine).

Once erected— there will be no escape. No place to avoid the unrelenting thrum or flicker from blades swooshing overhead. No safe passage for migrating birds seeking to avoid the treacherous minefield of turbines stretching across the island.

The playground for the only elementary school on the island lies within 550 metres of one of the proposed turbines. Hydro One won’t allow wind turbines that close to its transmission lines for fear of damage—but the Ontario government deems school children less valuable, it seems.

The simple truth is that it is impossible to cram 37 turbines onto this tiny island and avoid putting humans, animals and natural habitat at risk. It is why the developer, in a report prepared by a consultant on the threat posed by this project to more than 14 endangered or threatened species, stresses that it will work to minimize the impact of its project, but that its first obligation is to “ensure the commitments of the contract” and “ensure renewable energy is delivered to the province”. The developer has made it clear what its priorities are.

We know too, from experience in this community, what the province’s priorities are. The MOE and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is already running ahead to clear the regulatory path for the developer. Endangered species and human health concerns are merely check boxes on a form to be filled in.

Once the turbines are erected Amherst Island will be lost for at least a generation—disfigured and devastated for the duration of the developer’s guaranteed 20-year contract with the province. For species on the brink of survival, the damage may well be permanent.

Read the full article here.

Coalition forming to create new nuisance noise bylaw

Tags

, , , , ,

Several Ontario municipalities have been discussing the possibility of creating a bylaw for the benefit of all communities with wind power generation projects, so their residents may be protected against the environmental noise and low frequency vibration produced by the turbines.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is supposed to be monitoring the noise from wind power projects, but as was disclosed to the Environmental Review Tribunal hearing the appeal of the Samsung-Pattern Armow project, the Ministry’s position is that the wind power developers’ computer modelling for the turbines must be correct, so if they receive complaints for a project that therefore incapable of producing noise over the regulated limits, they don’t even investigate.

Worse, noise complaints go to the “Spills Line” which was really set up for ordinary environmental spills into air and water and on land, and the complaints are kept at the district level—they NEVER go to head office in Toronto for analysis and action.

So, while the municipalities are fighting to regain local land use planning control, they are also seeking ways to protect. Kincardine Council voted this week to begin the coalition of municipalities.

Question: do you think Ottawa should join? Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Kincardine backs plan to form coalition, create noise nuisance bylaw

Municipality seeking legal advice on how to move forward
Section:

29/01/2014, 04:42

By Barb McKay

Kincardine will support forming a coalition with other municipalities to develop a noise nuisance bylaw and plans to contribute $30,000 over two years to help make it happen.

It was the third time in as many weeks that council debated the idea of joining forces with other municipalities to come up with a bylaw that regulate industrial noise, including that from wind turbines, in rural areas. Last Wednesday council finally reached a concensus and approved two motions to support the plan, first presented by Warren Howard on behalf of Huron-Kinloss Against Lakeshore Turbines (HALT) on Jan. 8. That group indicated it will cost an estimated $300,000 to develop the bylaw and defend it in court.

The first motion, introduced by councillor Ken Craig, called on municipal staff to get legal advice on joining the coalition and developing the noise nuisance bylaw.

“If it’s a great idea you wonder why it hasn’t been done one hundred times before, and maybe it has,” said Craig.

He said before council agrees to join the coalition he would like to understand if there are any liabilities associated with doing so.

Councillor Jacqeline Faubert said coalitions have been formed many times in Ontario to deal with different issues. She pointed to Kincardine’s plans to form a municipal services corporation with Huron-Kinloss Township and Arran-Elderslie Township for the natural gas project as a prime example.

Deputy mayor Anne Eadie questioned if council would be putting the cart before the horse by seeking legal advice before it was determined if a coalition would even before formed.

“I agree that we need to consult a lawyer, but without an agreement from other municipalities we don’t have anything to take to a lawyer,” she said.

Councillor Randy Roppel said he supported the municipality seeking legal advice, but that it might be more make sense to do so as a coalition, rather than having 20 municipalities individually talk to a lawyer.

“I think we will need our own legal advice either way,” Kraemer said, and council agreed.

The second motion, introduced by Faubert, directs council to strongly support forming a coalition to draft a generic noise nuisance bylaw and to pledge $15,000 annually for two years to fund the coalition, which will include legal costs to test the bylaw out in court. The funds are conditional on other municipalities committing funds to the endeavor; the creation of a memorandum of understanding signed by other coalition members; and a plan to move the process forward.

“The courts have ruled in Ontario that noise and nuisance are legitimate municipal matters,” Faubert said. “I’ve been empowered by the ratepayers and this is a chance to do something. I feel very optimistic about this.”

Councillor Ron Coristine asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to add a communication protocol for participating municipalities to the memorandum of understanding, and council agreed.

Councillor Maureen Couture said by Kincardine putting its money where its mouth is, it may encourage other municipalities to join the coalition. But, she added, she would be more comfortable pledging funds for one year to avoid committing the next council to providing the money. Roppel said the next council could choose not to allocate the funds if it didn’t want to.

Councillor Candy Hewitt said the process to create the bylaw and have it go through the court system will in all likelihood take more than a year and it would be appropriate to commit funds for two years.

“It’s something at the ground level that shows that we really are trying to do something with the little power that we have to effect change,” she said.

Mayor Larry Kraemer said he was concerned that pledging $15,000 per year would scare off smaller municipalities who would like to participate but may assume they would have to contribute the same amount. He said he believes it will take at least 100 municipalities to have an impact.

Council voted in favour of both motions. Municipal staff is expected to bring a report back to council with legal advice regarding joining the coalition by Feb. 19.

 

Big Becky cost overruns: how come nobody got fired?

Tags

, , , ,

Parker gallant on Big Becky: what is THAT going to cost you?

BigBecky

The big hole where your money goes

 

In February 2010 an article penned for the Financial Post I disclosed that the Ontario Power Generation’s OPG) new Niagara tunnel (“Big Becky”) was not only running late but had incurred substantial cost overruns—in excess of $600 million, in fact.
The effects of that overrun have not affected our electricity prices yet, but the writing is now on the wall based on the OPG application of September 27, 2013.  The increases requested in that rate application by OPG, if approved, will increase electricity rates by at least $6-7.00 per month ($72-84.00 annually) for the average 800-kilowatt (per month) consumer.   According to the submissions to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), all of OPG’s “regulated” hydro rates will increase from 3.9 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 4.4 cents per kWh due to the costs of the tunnel.  One-half a cent doesn’t sound like much, but when you consider that in 2012, OPG produced 18.5 billion kWh of unregulated hydro, it is time to bring out the calculators.
That overrun effectively means OPG is seeking to recover about $96 million annually for the cost of “Big Becky” for the next 50 years (amortization period), which equates to $4.6 billion for a tunnel originally estimated by OPG in the business case presented to their Board of Directors in 2005, to cost $873 million. It has cost 70% over that amount.
OPG is seeking approval for the foregoing as a rate increase for their “regulated” hydro as Big Becky is classified; that means it is considered “baseload” generation and its cost of production will be close to 10 cents a kWh.  At the same time they are also seeking approval for an even larger increase in their “unregulated” hydro which could generate as much as $300 million and was the cause of the media focus when they discovered the application.  The “anti-nuclear” lobby painted it as a rate increase related to OPG’s nuclear refurbishment plans, which was a false premise.
What the cost overrun on “Big Becky” demonstrates is that oversight at Queens Park is sadly lacking in the energy portfolio.   It is disconcerting to realize that this project was $600 million over budget, yet to the best of the writer’s knowledge no OPG employee or Board member was castigated or lost their job. A private sector firm would investigate and allocate “cause” to one or several individuals in the event a project of this size exceeded budget by a factor of 70%.
Perhaps it is time to privatize the electricity sector as the private, but regulated, natural gas sector has demonstrated they can do a much better job.
©Parker Gallant                                                                                                                                           January 25, 2014
The views expressed here are those of the author.
Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario windconcernsontario.ca

London School of Economics study finds property value loss near wind power

Tags

, , , , , ,

Research in Ontario on values of properties neighbouring wind power projects show a a range of loss on the order of 20-48%, as has been reported here.

The London School of Economics is about to publish a study based on transaction for properties near 150 wind “farms” studied over a 12-year period, which finds significant value loss.

Property value loss has been a hot-button issue for the wind power lobby, probably because it is proveable, and is a negative side effect of wind power projects, which can be very invasive in communities. The study is a sharp contrast to studies done by Ben Hoen in the United States, usually at the behest of and with funding from the wind power lobby. Mr Hoen famously produced a study claiming to have looked at over 7,000 properties—that was roundly criticized by people who know something about real property (Sunak & Madlener, Wilson, more).

This is just a preliminary news story; we look forward to reading the whole study on its release.

Property value loss in North Gower due to the proximity of the huge wind turbines (over 500 feet in height) to 1,000 homes, is estimated to be $134 million.

Donations to help us with legal advice are welcome; send to PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Proof wind turbines take thousands off your home: Value of houses within 1.2 miles of large wind farms slashed by 11%, study finds

  • Study by LSE found value of homes close to wind farms slashed by 11%
  • Home that costs £250,000 would lose £27,000 in value
  • Homes as far at two-and-a-half miles away could be reduced by 3%

By Sanchez Manning

PUBLISHED: 23:59 GMT, 25 January 2014 | UPDATED: 15:45 GMT, 26 January 2014

The presence of wind turbines  near homes has wiped tens of thousands of pounds off their value, according to the first major study into the impact the eyesore structures have on house prices.

The study by the London School  of Economics (LSE) – which looked at more than a million sales of properties close to wind farm sites over a 12-year period – found that values of homes within 1.2  miles of large wind farms were being slashed by about 11 per cent.

This means that if such a wind farm were near an average house  in Britain, which now costs almost £250,000, it would lose more than £27,000 in value.

Homes located within 1.2miles of wind farms can decrease in value by up to 11 per cent, a study has discovered

+2

Homes located within 1.2miles of wind farms can decrease in value by up to 11 per cent, a study has discovered

In sought-after rural idylls where property prices are higher, the financial damage is even more substantial. In villages around one of Southern England’s largest onshore developments – Little Cheyne Court Wind Farm in Romney Marsh,  Kent, where homes can cost close to £1 million – house values could drop by more than £100,000.

The study further discovered that even a small wind farm that blighted views would hit house values.

Homes within half a mile of such visible turbines could be reduced in value by about seven per cent.

Even those in a two-and-a-half-mile radius experienced price reductions of around three per cent.

Homes within a two-and-a-half mile radius could see reductions of up to three per cent

+2

Homes within a two-and-a-half mile radius could see reductions of up to three per cent

The report’s author, Professor Steve Gibbons, said his research was the first strong evidence that wind farms are harmful to house prices.

MORE ‘GREEN C**P’ TO BE CUT AS CARBON TAX IS SLASHED

Green taxes are set to be frozen to reduce soaring energy bills.

Whitehall sources say the Government is preparing to put the brakes on the ‘carbon tax’ on greenhouse-gas emissions, with an announcement expected in the Budget in March.

Prime Minister David Cameron has reportedly instructed aides to ‘get rid of all this green c**p’ to reduce energy bills, which currently average £1,350 a year.

Prof Gibbons, director of the LSE’s Spatial Economics Research Centre, said: ‘Property prices are going up in places where they’re not visible and down in the places where they are.’

The study, which is still in draft form but is due to be published  next month, focused on 150 wind-farm sites across England and Wales. It compared house-price changes in areas that had wind farms, were about to see one built  or had seen one rejected by the  local authority.

Last night Chris-Heaton Harris, MP for Daventry, said: ‘There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence – especially in my constituency – of house-price reductions near wind turbines. The question is, will anybody be liable for these losses in future?’

And Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the LSE, said: ‘These results are not really surprising as it is already known that people place a value on countryside views.’

A Department for Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: ‘Developments will only get permission where impacts are acceptable.’

A spokesman for Renewables UK, which represents the wind industry, said: ‘We will be analysing the conclusions closely when the final report is issued.’

Green Energy Act the most important issue for rural, small town Ontario

Tags

, , , , ,

With a possible provincial election in the spring, and a municipal election in October, this story will be of interest to political hopefuls: the Green Energy Act has been a disaster for rural/small-town Ontario.  While concerns about the GEA were at number one, worries about jobs came in second–we propose that the two are closely linked, as Ontario’s soaring power bills drive businesses away, and make it difficult for businesses to compete. Jobs are being lost, not created.

Wind Turbines a Concern for Rural Ontario

Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:41 PM by Fadi Didi
Bayshore Broadcasting poll reveals listeners and readers worried about Green Energy Act

There is audio for this story.
MP3 - click to open click to open MP3 version
or click the play button to listen now.
Bayshore Broadcasting News asked you what you think the biggest concern is for rural Ontario in 2014, and the Green Energy Act spun out at number one.

Thirty-six percent of respondents feel the Green Energy Act or environmental sustainability is a major worry for those living in the province’s country lands.

The poll results follow a year rich with wind turbine controversy, including 78 towns, municipalities, and counties declaring themselves unwilling to host turbines.

Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives refused to support the act, stating they would not support the GEA until a Health Canada study ruled winds turbine do not negatively effect health.

Just trailing the concern over Green Energy at thirty-three percent is the worry of employment opportunities in rural Ontario.

Respondents worried that the few jobs in country areas do not pay very well, and that even those jobs are scarce.

Farm revitalization and transportation improvement were of the least concern to respondents, each coming in at six percent.

Germany: not the coolest kid on the block

Tags

, ,

The Ontario government and the gigantic wind power lobby group have routinely pointed to Germany as the shining example of how green energy works, and especially wind power. Apparently, things aren’t so lovely in Germany where, by the way, there are community groups opposed to siting wind power projects too close to people.

Here is the story from The Telegraph.