Here is a report from CTV news on how higher electricity bills and now propane charges are driving some rural residents to visit Food banks.
Rising power, propane bills cause energy poverty for rural residents
29 Wednesday Jan 2014
Ontario continues to approve wind power projects despite research, concerns
29 Wednesday Jan 2014
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
CAW wind mill, RETH study, turbine noise, wind farm noise, wind farms and health effects, wind turbine syndrome
Here is a report from Sun news, which features an interview with Dr Philip Bigelow, of the University of Waterloo’s RETH health study.
Big Becky cost overruns: how come nobody got fired?
28 Tuesday Jan 2014
Parker gallant on Big Becky: what is THAT going to cost you?
| 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
26 Sunday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
American Wind Energy Association, Ben Hoen, Canadian Wind Energy Association, Green Energy Act, property value loss North Gower, property value loss wind farms, property values wind farm neighbours
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%
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.
+2Homes 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.
+2Homes 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
26 Sunday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
cost-benefit analysis renewables, electricity bills Ontario, Green Energy Act, James Bradley Ontario, job loss Ontario, Minsitry of the Environment Ontario
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. click to open MP3 versionor 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
23 Thursday Jan 2014
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
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.
Parsing Bob Chiarelli’s radio interview
17 Friday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, Ontario electricity bills, power costs Ontario, rising hydro bills Ontario, Scott Luft
Energy blogger Scott Luft has gone through Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s interview with the CBC the other morning, and found a few leeeetle problems with the facts…
Check out his blog here.
Ostrander Point appeal: citizens vs government in court next week
17 Friday Jan 2014
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
bird kills wind farms, Blanding's Turtle, ERTs, Green Energy Act, James Bradley Environment, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ostrander Point, Rick Conroy, Wellington Times, wind farms environmental damage, wind turbines environmental damage
Final chapter
PECFN and APPEC are represented by Eric Gillespie and Natalie Smith. The MOE is represented by Sylvia Davis and Sarah Kronkamp. Gilead Power’s case will be argued by Doug Hamilton, Chris Wayland and Sam Rogers of Mc- Carthy Tetrault.
Ostrander Point victory to be tested in appeal court next week
There are many people will be nervously watching developments in a Toronto courtroom beginning next Tuesday. It is here that likely the last chapter of the industrial wind turbines on Ostrander Point is to be written.
HOW WE GOT HERE
In 2009, the Green Energy Act was made law. The sweeping legislation comprised an array of measures designed to ease the development of more renewable energy projects in the province. It reduced or eliminated regulations and processes used by its safeguarding agencies, including the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Energy Board. It replaced several regulatory appeals with one—the Environmental Review Tribunal.
Politicians, such as former MPP Leona Dombrowski, assured anxious rural Ontario residents, communities and their local leaders that the ERT, or Tribunal, would be independent, thorough and their conclusions would be final. Many residents were unsettled by the assurances—viewing the ERT as merely the last checkbox for a developer to tick before being released to plunder the provincial treasure and lay waste to the rural countryside. It was viewed as a cynical contrivance by a government fixated on seeing thousands of industrial wind turbines spinning in the provincial countryside. It would be Premier Dalton McGuinty’s legacy to Ontarians.
To ensure ERT adjudicators weren’t being led astray by sympathetic arguments by those defending their communities, livelihoods and natural environment, the Green Energy Act dictated that the legal test for the ERT would be impossibly high.
To be successful an appeal to this panel would have to prove “serious harm to human health” or in the case of birds, animals and their habitat the requirement is to prove “serious and irreversible harm.”
OSTRANDER POINT
Late in 2011 the Ministry of Environment issued a Renewable Energy Approval to Gilead Power Corporation, enabling it to proceed with its plan to erect nine industrial wind turbines, each soaring 423 feet into the flight path of the millions of birds that migrate through the region each spring and fall. It granted the approval on Crown Land—essentially industrializing a rugged and largely wild bit of the south shore of Prince Edward County.
Two appeals were made to the province’s ERT.
The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County presented witnesses who described the damaging effects of living near industrial wind turbines. They presented scientific and medical evidence to support their position that wind turbines were hurting Ontario residents and that no other project should be permitted until a thorough and independent study of the health effects was conducted and shown to be safe.
The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists presented expert evidence on the rare and sensitive alvar habitat at Ostrander Point. Evidence showed that a number of endangered species of birds and animals shared this unique ecosystem, and that tipping the balance to industrial development would put the survival of endangered species in peril.
Read the full article here.
Minister Chiarelli: you need “better control” of your power costs
16 Thursday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, CBC Ottawa Morning, cost of electricity to business, cost of electricity to farms, cost of wind power Ontario, cost-benefit analysis renewables, cost-benefit analysis wind power, electricity bills Ontario, Ottawa electricity bills
As per our post on Monday, a panel consisting of a local business representative, a social assistance agency, and a farm owner were guests on CBC’s Ottawa Morning show, to discuss the impact of rising electricity bills. They all said that time-of-use had affected them significantly, and the increase in electricity rates was just going to be worse. The farm owner, Peter Ruiter of Black Rapids Farm, said his cows need to be milked at the appropriate times every day, and there was no time-of-use flexibility for his operation. He invited Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli to come and see for himself.
Mr Chiarelli was interviewed on the show yesterday: his appearance was, in our view, a shocking demonstration of partisan politics but worse, one of complete ignorance of the power situation in Ontario. His claim that Ontario Power Generation made $7B for the taxpayers of Ontario is false, for example. And his claim that power bill increases are just a “blip” is insulting. While interviewer Hallie Cotnam caught him out on that, there was no question as to why the province continues to approve multi-million-dollar deals with wind power developers, for power we don’t need.
The link to the entire interview is here.
The rumour is that Mr Chiarelli is going to retire and not run in the next provincial election. Given his performance in this all-important portfolio, we think that is a “smart” decision.
Ontario’s electricity bills: rising costs for everyone
13 Monday Jan 2014
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Here from today’s CBC show Ottawa Morning, is a panel discussion on the impact of Ontario’s rising electricity bills. The panelists include a representative from the Preston Street BIA, a representative of an agency trying to help people in need, and an Ottawa area dairy farmer.
The message is a powerful one: rising electricity bills will result in increased costs for everyone including for food, as well as job losses as business try to cope.
Dairy farmer Peter Ruiter of Black Rapids Farm says the province ought to have figured out how it was going to pay for its renewables progarm. He invited Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli to come to his farm.
Listen to the program here.
