|
||
|
MPP MacLeod asks, where is Energy Minister Chiarelli?
27 Friday Dec 2013
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Peace on earth
24 Tuesday Dec 2013
Parker Gallant: what wind power really is
24 Tuesday Dec 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
From yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen, Parker Gallant of Wind Concerns Ontario responds to an Op-Ed piece by Tim Gray of Environmental Defence.
http://freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/12/parker-gallant-see-wind-power-for-what.html
Another month, another $162 million. Thanks, Bob.
19 Thursday Dec 2013
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, Ontario power exports, Parker Gallant, rising Ontario electricity bills, Tom Adams
 |
| I don’t need a calculator, I can do it all in my head. |
Another month, another $162 million hit to Ontario’s ratepayers
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) posted its November Market Summary on December 18 but so far, Energy Minister Chiarelli hasn’t claimed a profit. He did just that on TVOntario’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin earlier this month, when he claimed Ontario generated a $6 billion profit on exporting electricity.
A look through the IESO market summary shows that Ontario exported an average of 2,243 megawatts (MW) each and every hour of November—that means a total of 1,614,960 MWh left Ontario destined for New York, Michigan and Quebec. The average hourly energy price during the month was a paltry $14.93 per MW (or 1.5 cents per kWh), meaning revenue generated from those exports contributed just over $24 million to production and ancillary costs.
The average cost to Ontario ratepayers is also revealed in the market summary; that was considerably more, at $115.26 per MWh (or 11.5 cents per kWh). In other words, Ontario’s loss on the exported power was $162 million for the month.
It is obvious that much of the wind power generated throughout
November wound up either exported or
caused other generation to be exported or wasted
What that means to every one of the 4.9 million ratepayers in Ontario is a payment of an average of $33.00 each to subsidize those exports for November. The exact role wind and solar played in those exports is not disclosed in the market summary, but wind production during November was high and totaled 721,000 MWh or 1,000 MW per hour. The cost of that power production to the ratepayers is estimated to be almost $100 million, without including the costs of the gas plants backing wind up, spilled hydro, or steamed off nuclear at Bruce Power. It is obvious that much of the wind power generated throughout November wound up either exported or caused other generation to be exported or wasted.
The total amount picked up by the average ratepayer in Ontario to support those exports so far in 2013 is approximately $280.00 each. In announcing the new Long term Energy Plan, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s forecast a rate increase of 42% increase over the next five years—it looks like that may come true much sooner than he forecast.
It is time to pull the plug on the 3,700 MW of uninstalled but contracted wind and the 1,400 MW of solar before the cost to subsidize electricity exports is more than the average ratepayer’s electricity bill!
The $6-billion dollar man, as energy analyst Tom Adams calls Minister Chiarelli, should seriously consider taking a math lesson or two before embarking on any more forecasts.
©Parker Gallant,
December 18, 2013
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.
New procurement plan for large power projects
14 Saturday Dec 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
FIT, subsidies for wind power Ontario, wind farm North Gower, wind farm Ottawa, wind farm Richmond
As we’ve been saying, the new “procurement” process for large-scale power projects (over 500 kW) has not yet been announced, but there are enough clues in the recently released Long-Term Energy Plan that we have an idea of what’s coming.
First of all, the Feed In Tariff program is gone for large projects; in its place is a Request for Proposal or RFP system, in which applicants will have to meet a number of requirements and rack up points. Those of us who respond to government RFPs will be familiar with the process.
The LTEP outlines several principles that will be applied when launching future energy procurement programs:
- follow provincial and/or regional electricity system need;
- consider municipal electricity generation preferences;
- engage early and regularly with local and Aboriginal communities;
- provide opportunity for a diverse set of participants;
- identify clear procurement needs, goals and expectations; and
- encourage innovative technologies and approaches, including consideration of proposals that integrate energy storage with renewable energy generation.
As stated in the 2013 LTEP, the government plans to make available up to 300 MW of wind, 140 MW of solar, 50 MW of bioenergy and 50 MW of hydroelectric capacity in 2014.
Note that the wording is that the government will “consider” municipal generation preferences, but that doesn’t mean that if you don’t ant a wind power project, for example, you get to say “no.” Note the importance of the regional energy plans, and also the need to “engage” with local communities.
Again, Prowind has indicated to us that they will be reviewing the new requirements and then reapplying.
The people of Ottawa, and specifically North Gower and Richmond, are ready to act to protect our community, our health, our local economy, and our property values, from a subsidy-seeking power project that is NOT NEEDED.
Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
P O Box 3 North Gower ON K0A 2T0
Tribunal issues precedent-setting stay vs turbine construction
12 Thursday Dec 2013
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Precedent setting decision stops wind turbine construction
TORONTO, Dec. 12, 2013 /CNW/ – The Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a stay preventing the construction of two industrial wind turbines in Wainfleet, Ontario.
The motion, decided by Executive Chair Lynda Tanaka who oversees the ERT, OMB and three other tribunals, temporarily stops the construction of two turbine towers during the appeal of the Ministry of the Environment’s approval of the project. The Appellants, Skydive Burnaby Inc. and the company’s co-owner Mikel Pitt, argue the turbines are too close to their skydiving school.
“We’re so relieved,” said Pitt, “This project is a real threat to our business and the Tribunal appears to have recognized that at this early stage.”
The Appellants’ lawyer, Eric Gillespie, has argued a number of Industrial Wind Turbine appeals in Ontario. Gillespie said, “this is a precedent setting decision, it’s the first time a stay has been ordered during a Renewable Energy Approval appeal. We’re very pleased for our clients.”
Gillespie’s associate, lawyer Ian Flett remarked, “the Tribunal gave all the parties a fair opportunity to make our cases, we’re happy with the result”.
The hearing of the main appeal is scheduled to begin January 6, 2014 in Wainfleet, Ontario.
SOURCE Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation
For further information:Ian Flett at 416-703-7034 or iflett@gillespielaw.ca
Prowind aims to get investor cash from community
12 Thursday Dec 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
(Let us just say first, Not our community. Though we’d like to see them try.)
In this news item, Prowind Canada is reported to be trying to get cash from community members for its Gunn’s Hill project in south-western Ontario (not far from Woodstock).
from reNews, December 10, 2013
Developer ProWind Canada has helped establish the Oxford Community Energy Co-operative to partner in the 25MW Gunn’s Hill project in Ontario.
The proponent will give the coop up to a 49% equity share in the feed-in tariff proposal to help spread the local benefits, Prowind VP Juan Anderson told reNews. Community ownership adds up to 1 cent/kWh to the base FiT rate of 13.5 cents/kWh.
The group hopes to raise up to C$10m, said co-op secretary Christine Koenig. About 30 members have paid C$100 each to join so far. The co-op aims to offer a share purchase program in February 2014.
Ontario regulators meanwhile are assessing a renewable energy approval application for the 10-turbine, distribution-connected scheme.
“We expect it to be deemed complete this month,” said Anderson. A public comment period and six-month review will follow.
The proponent, a subsidiary of Germany-based Prowind GmbH, is finalizing a turbine supply agreement. The developer is also in discussions with contractors and expects to select a builder in early 2014, said Anderson.
The Oxford County project must meet a 50% Ontario content rule. Towers, blades and pad-mount transformers will be sourced in the province*, said Anderson.
Construction is expected to get underway in mid to late 2014 followed by commercial operation in 2015.
It is worth recalling that a few weeks ago, another local community group, the East Oxford Community Alliance, announced that it has hired lawyer Eric Gillespie and intends to sue Prowind and the landowners leasing land for turbines for $28 million, if the Gunn’s Hill project gets approval.
The community investment fund strategy is one being employed by some wind power developers to help them get approval from the government, as community “engagement” and “support” are now important in the approval process.
As regards now VP Anderson’s statement that all materiels for Gunn’s Hill will be from Ontario, their supplier of choice is a company called Broadwind Energy, headquartered in Illinois. Prowind’s HQ is in Germany. Once again, profits (i.e., subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers) are NOT staying in Ontario but going out of this country. A search of Broadwind’s website reveals no information on any Ontario facilities.
Economist Bob Lyman summarizes the A-G
12 Thursday Dec 2013
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Auditor General Report, Crown land wind farms Ontario, Ontario electricity prices, renewable energy Ontario
Ottawa economist Robert Lyman, who specializes in energy issues, has taken the time to summarize the key points in the Auditor General for Ontario’s report released this week.
His full summary is here. Summary2013 AG ANNUAL VALUE FOR MONEY REPORT
An excerpt:
Despite its diplomatic terminology, the 2011 Auditor General report was a major attack on the rationale for and the implementation of the Ontario government’s renewable energy strategy. The response of the government over the past year includes some significant concessions, including the long-overdue reductions in FIT rates for solar power facilities, although those rates remain 10 times higher than those for conventional energy. The changes that have been made to date, while important, do not alter the path towards one of the most expensive electricity regimes in the world. The “improvements” in planning mean, in effect, that the path for wind and solar power plants on sensitive lands, including Crown lands, will be easier and faster. It is refreshing to see the government’s arguments for employment benefits and greenhouse gas emissions benefits from the high cost renewables strategy so completely undermined. GHGs are actually increasing as a result of the present strategy!
Thanks Bob, for this.
Ottawa Wind Concerns
PO Box 3 North Gower ON K0A 2T0
Tom van Dusen on Ontario’s power situation: “powerless”
10 Tuesday Dec 2013
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Brinston wind power, cost of wind power, Not a Willing host, Ontario electricity bills, Tom Adams
From the December 3rd edition of Ontario Farmer, an excerpt from the Stories from Eastern Ontario feature by Ottawa area writer Tom Van Dusen. Powerless
I recently listened to one of the most horrifying hours of radio programming I have ever heard.
I was driving the truck at the time and almost leapt out of the seat I became so incensed. I was receiving information I already knew in general terms but that didn’t make it any less tormenting.
The show wasn’t about disaster or disease. It wasn’t about the Senate. It wasn’t even about Rob Ford.
It was a discussion about that outrageous cash guzzler Hydro One, its stunning rates and the crippling effect they are having on all aspects of Ontario commercial and residential life.
It was a tale of gross mismanagement, incompetence, political interference and total indifference for consumers–you and me–in Hydro One’s grossly inflated charges…charges poised to make Ontario the most expensive place to buy electricity in North America.’
Listeners were calling in to tell horror stories about dealing with Hydro One, of having their service cut off because they could no longer pay, of planning to move because their electricity bills had become too exorbitant to manage.
There was an overall feeling of helplessness, of being able to do nothing but stand by as the bandits running Hydro One and related government agencies continue to jack prices without explanation. …
The radio show* featured guest energy analyst Tom Adams, who was a pleasure to listen to, a man who seemed to know his stuff and who pulled no punches in describing how Ontario’s electricity future is being burdened with “stupidly expensive junk generation.”
Adams and callers raised several of the issues particularly frustrating to the people who have to pay for all the blunders–that would be you and me–including compensating electricity producers to remain idle and selling off surplus power at cut rate prices to other jurisdictions.
Let’s take wind power. I’m a great fan but enough is enough…taxpayers can’t justify any more subsidized turbine erection under the Green Energy Act when a surplus is being produced for the grid.
Ottawa city council has passed a motion asking the province to give communities more say in where wind power projects are installed.
A little way south in Brinston, 10 turbines are in the works with little backing from neighbours or local government, South Dundas Township. Council passed a motion that additional turbines won’t be supported until a need is proven. With no legal clout behind the move, more than 70 Ontario municipalities have officially become “unwilling hosts” for turbines. Yet this provincial government continues to push its alternative energy agenda while failing to curb Hydro One’s scandalous misuse of our money.
The waste can only be shut off with an election and a complete makeover of the shirt circuiting Ontario Hydro bureaucracy.
tomvandusen@sympatico.ca
*Editor’s note: this sounds like Ontario Today hosted by Rita Celli with guest Tom Adams. A podcast of the show is available at cbc.ca
Parker Gallant asks, are these organizations really “charities”?
10 Tuesday Dec 2013
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Parker Gallant: federal finance minister attention to environmental “charities” welcomed
 |
| Claiming charitable status while pushing a political agenda just a walk in the park |
Posted on December 10, 2013
Is the David Suzuki Foundation really a “charitable institution”?
An article in the December 6 Toronto Sun indicated that Canada’s Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty is ready to play hardball with environmental groups that abuse their charitable status.
Many people throughout Canada would applaud that as some “environmental” groups do not reflect what most Canadians would regard as a charity. They don’t shelter the homeless, spend money on medical research, feed the destitute or care for the disabled. Their objectives are aimed at “greening the planet” with no scientific basis to back up their reasoning.
One of those that many Canadians either love or hate is the David Suzuki Foundation, co-founded by David Suzuki and Tara Cullis. Suzuki threw his personal support behind Dalton McGuinty during Ontario’s 2011 election and was shamed by the media for it. The Foundation was castigated for its visible support for a political party and agenda, despite the legal requirement that organizations with charitable status avoid political bias.
David Suzuki was personally rebuked; a letter to his “Friends” was published on the Foundation’s website and in the National Post April 14, 2012 to announce he had resigned from the Board of Directors of the David Suzuki Foundation.
“In a letter to his supporters on Friday, the former Nature of Things host said he left the David Suzuki Foundation’s board of directors because he wanted to be able to speak freely ‘without fear that my words will be deemed too political and harm the organization of which I am so proud.’ ”
But all is not as it appears: a visit to the Canada Revenue Agency website for Charities, indicates that the Foundation’s August 31, 2012 filings show David Suzuki listed as a “Director” as well as “President and Co-founder.” The CRA filings also show former Mayor of Toronto, David Miller and another CBC icon, George Stromboulopoulos as directors in addition to David Suzuki’s daughter Severn Cullis-Suzuki.
Did he really go?
While the official year-end filed with the CRA appears to be August 31st the Foundation also publishes a “Statement of Operations” on their website that shows a date of December 31, 2012 and contains what they refer to as “A message from our co-founders.” This message features a picture of David Suzuki and Tara Cullis along with the message. The Directors list found on the Foundation’s website doesn’t list Suzuki so it may be that his resignation was tendered to the Board after August 31, 2012 and before December 31, 2012. His resignation didn’t affect his influence on the Foundation however as Mr. Suzuki has continued as a regular blogger on the site (several postings within the past month) and left his 17-page biography (a direct link just before the donate button under “David”) for all to see as well as his picture on every page.
Has this adverse publicity (Suzuki called it “bullying”) affected the Foundation? Maybe: it appears to have had an effect as “charitable donations” on the CRA site indicate they fell from $6.9 million in 2011 to $5.3 million in 2012 which is about the same drop as for all revenue. The latter fell to $9.2 million from $10.9 million in the same period. If one looks at the Statement of Operations however, posted on the David Suzuki Foundation site for the year ended December 31, 2012 versus 2011 it actually shows revenue increasing by $193,000 from $8.7 in 2011 to $8.9 in 2012. It is impossible to determine from the statement what was or wasn’t designated as “charitable donations,” nor can one discern what actual expenses were.
Millions and millions
Looking at the CRA filings it shows a net worth for the Foundation of $10.5 million (August 31, 2012) and itemizes expenses in a more understandable format. On the latter “compensation” is shown as $4,886,000; Professional & Consulting Fees as $1,120,000; research grants of $1,128,000; travel & vehicle expense as $233,000; occupancy $513,000; and political activity expenditures as $211,000. The balance went to office supplies, staff training and other sundry related expenses. If one tallies up those expenses it presents expenditures of $8.8 million— it is difficult for the observer to find the “charity” involved.
Traveling back to the “Statement of Operations” posted on the Foundation’s website, the expense categories are completely different carrying titles under the heading “Programs” such as Climate Change and Clean Energy, $1,180,000; Terrestrial Conservation $914,000; Marine and Freshwater $915,000; Program Management, $216,000; and Communication $2,146,000. This statement also discloses an expense referred to as “Fund-raising” which consumed $2,067,000 (24%) of total claimed expenses of $8,770,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012.
So, exactly what did this charity accomplish? Did it feed the poor in Africa, or educate children in Ecuador, save a gorilla, or protect a species at risk, or even provide a single bed for a homeless person in Canada? If your answer is, none of the above, why would anyone even deign to think that this is a “charity” or to believe that they should get special tax treatment by our government.
In the spirit of Christmas, I say “bring it on” Mr. Flaherty. It is past the time that the CRA gives these organizations special treatment! A lump of coal for Mr. Suzuki and his Foundation!
©Parker Gallant,
December 8, 2013
Note: According to the CRA filings by the David Suzuki Foundation “The charity has not indicated that it is designated as a public or private foundation.”
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 