Tom van Dusen on Ontario’s power situation: “powerless”

10 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

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 by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Parker Gallant: federal finance minister attention to environmental “charities” welcomed

Claiming charitable status while pushing a political agenda just a walk in the park

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.

Bob Chiarelli’s $2 cup of coffee

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, ,

chiarelli1.jpg.size.xxlarge.promoEnergy Minister Chiarelli’s $210 million “cup of coffee”

Just yesterday in the Legislature, Ontario’s “energy literate” Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli responded to a question from Lisa MacLeod, the PC Energy Critic. From the record:

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean-Carleton is on another wish hunt—W-I-S-H. She’s wishing that her imagination comes true. The information that was provided in committee and provided to the Auditor General was quite clear, and she chooses to misconstrue it. “Misconstrue” is not unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, because I actually looked it up in the dictionary. The word “misconstrue” means “to fail to understand the true or actual meaning.” And there are a number of synonyms. The others synonyms are “to misapprehend, to misconstrue, to misinterpret, to mis-know, to misperceive, to misread, to miss, or a mistake.” I would choose the word “mistake,” because the chair of the OPA was at committee. He showed the calculations on the costs, and they actually amount to $1 to $2 per year over 20 years, Mr. Speaker. She doesn’t want to admit it. She chooses to misconstrue it and she wants to obfuscate the truth.

That remark received considerable attention from the media and when questioned by them Minister Chiarelli added this disingenuous remark, “It’s’ less than a cup of Tim Horton’s coffee a year.”

Well, Minister Chiarelli is right, but he is only referring to the cost to ratepayers from the Ontario Power Authority’s direct costs — it ignores all of the other costs identified by the Auditor General.

Under the terms of the “Memorandum of Understanding” between the OPA and TransCanada, the OPA was obliged to purchase the gas turbines as noted in the following taken from that Memorandum:

2. Within ten (10) Business Days following the execution of the Reimbursement Agreement and in

accordance with the terms thereof, the following payments shall be made to TCE by the OPA:

 

(a) $210,000,000 in respect of TCE’s costs relating to the acquisition of gas turbines for the

OGS Facility and all contracts related thereto, including transportation, carrying, storage,

foreign currency hedging, procurement, design and engineering costs and the initial spare

parts;

 

The problem with the OPA acquiring those turbines is that the Act that created the OPA doesn’t allow them to acquire “capital” assets related to the production of electricity.  The OPA’s purpose in life is to “plan”!  That meant that the acquisition cost was immediately tossed into that big pot referred to as the Global Adjustment which is billed out to ratepayers. 

 

So let’s look at that “$2.01” cup of coffee!   

 

According to the Yearbook of Electricity Distributors for 2012 on the Ontario Energy Board’s website ,there were 4,893,782 Total Customers . If they each paid $2.01, the annual cost would be $9,836,502 and over 20 years is approximately $197 million which is remarkably close to what the OPA paid for those gas turbines.

 

It is interesting that the Minister used the word “misconstrue” during the debate (he was censured by the speaker for its use) as that is exactly what he continues to do with the energy file by telling only partial truths.

 

This cup of coffee is tainted. The ratepayers of Ontario recognize that each and every time they open their bills from their local electricity supplier.  Minister Chiarelli should revisit what he tells the public because they understand the meaning of “misconstrue” much better than he does!

 

©Parker Gallant,

December 5, 2013

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Reblogged from Wind Concerns Ontario

Chiarelli defines “significant” municipal involvement. Pssst, want a skating rink?

05 Thursday Dec 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli gave a few more details in an interview yesterday on what “significant” municipal support might mean. Turns out, anything. If a community accepts a contribution toward “infrastructure” or a “service” that will be deemed to be municipal support.

This will be important in smaller communities in Ontario which have already accepted money for things like signs, and contributions toward skating rinks or arenas, etc. “Vibrancy funds” are the wind biz way of contributing money to a community and if the community accepts that, it is “support.”

DufferinsSponsorSign

Reaction to the Long Term Energy Plan: no one’s smiling

04 Wednesday Dec 2013

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Please go to Wind Concerns Ontario’s website to catch up on all the reaction and links to news stories and columns about the new Long Term Energy Plan, announced on Monday. www.windconcernsontario.ca

On Rick Gibbins Lunch Bunch on CFRA today, Carleton business prof Ian Lee said he cannot believe what Ontario is doing to itself. No matter what political stripe the Ontario government was in the past, he said, there was always the understanding that in order to compete with the northeastern States, we had to keep our power prices low. Not now: this is suicide, he said.

What not many commentators are noting however is the disastrous effect this will have on Ontario’s small towns and rural communities, because we are hit harder by the delivery charges, and because we need power for everything including pumps for our wells, electric fencing for livestock, etc. Local stores don’t have the choice of turning off meat freezers or display lights.

Our young families and people on limited incomes will be hit hard–many are already at their limit.

Worse, the government seems determined to push ahead with its wind power agenda, which will mean devastation of our communities environmentally and financially. As the Globe and Mail said in an editorial yesterday (see the Wind Concerns site) “If you know you’re in a hole, stop digging!”

You may write to Minister Chiarelli at write2us@ontario.ca to express how his price-pushing, wind-agenda plan will affect you and your family.

There is a demonstration being planned for Minister Chiarelli’s office on Saturday December 7th at 1 PM. If we get more details, we will post.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Parker Gallant: Ontario already LOST $1.2B in power exports in 2013

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Ontario’s Power Trip: Province lost $1.2-billion this year exporting power

Parker Gallant | 02/12/13 | Last Updated: 03/12/13 8:00 AM ET
More from Parker Gallant
As a starting point, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli needs a bolt of financial literacy if he believes not spending an extra $20-billion actually saves the system anything.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Matthew Sherwood
As a starting point, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli needs a bolt of financial literacy if he believes not spending an extra $20-billion actually saves the system anything.

That’s a cost $250 for every average ratepayer

Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli keeps spinning on his province’s energy mess. “Looking to the future,” he told a local newspaper, “we expect that [electricity] rates will continue to increase but we’ve taken very significant steps to mitigate those rate increases.” To support his claim, Mr. Chiarelli says that the province has deferred an investment in new nuclear power, renegotiated a Samsung power deal and brought in new controls on wind power that combined will save the system $20-billion.
As a starting point, this minister needs a bolt of financial literacy if he believes not spending an extra $20-billion actually saves the system anything.
The fact is that Ontario consumers and industry will not see any relief in their power bills. Nothing brings that point home more than an examination of how much electricity Ontario exports, mostly to the United States, and what those exports cost ratepayers.

Read the full story here.

Ontario needs real change, not blame: WCO

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

Wynne continues wind folly with Long Term Energy Plan

Province needs change not blame, says advocacy group

December 2, 2013, For Immediate Release

 

Toronto—Ontario’s new Long Term Energy Plan released by Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli today has no real change, and maintains the same targets for wind power development, just a longer time frame. That’s bad news for ratepayers and taxpayers affected by higher electricity rates as a result of the province’s push for “green” power.

“Ontario never did a cost-benefit analysis for wind power, but now we know what the costs are,” said Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson. “Very little power produced, power produced out of phase with demand, and few of the thousands of jobs promised. At the same time, the costs are skyrocketing electricity rates, plummeting property values, and absolute tyranny through industrialization of Ontario’s rural communities with huge wind power plants.”

Wilson noted that the Energy Minister’s response to criticism about electricity rates is to produce a new website that featured a tutorial on how consumers can better use electricity.

“That was pure insult,” she said, “especially to rural residents forced to pay horrendous delivery charges for power, and who are already doing all they can to conserve while the government continues with policies that drive up costs.

“We need change, not blame.”

Wind Concerns Ontario also notes that though municipalities and citizens throughout the province demanded a stronger role in siting wind power generation projects, the government hasn’t budged.

Wind Concerns Ontario policy calls for no new Feed In Tariff or subsidy contracts for wind, cancellation of the contracts where construction has not yet begun, and compensation for people who have lost value in their properties neighbouring wind power projects, or whose health has been affected.

www.Windconcernsontario.ca

FACTS about wind power in Ontario

  • Currently 3,700 Megawatts of wind power under contract but not yet connected to the grid: could mean another $1 billion per year to Ontario costs or $250 to average ratepayer’s bill annually
  • Over 6,700 huge industrial wind turbines are already built or are proposed for Ontario
  • 76 Ontario communities have declared themselves “Not A Willing Host” to wind power projects

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of individuals and community groups concerned about the negative impacts on health, environment and the economy from industrial-scale wind power generation projects.

What’s in that wind farm lease? You could lose rights to your land for longer than you will be alive

01 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

This is an advance copy of an article prepared by Garth Manning of Prince Edward County, and chair of the County Coalition for Safe Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE). The article will be appearing in the December edition of Farmer’s Forum, with a circulation of 40,000 in the agricultural community of Ontario.
For more information on Farmers Forum, go to www.farmersforum.com

WHAT’S IN THAT WIND TURBINE CONTRACT?

you could be giving up the right to your land for longer than you are alive.

 Wind companies operating in Ontario are frequently owned outside Canada, and are not interested in “saving the planet for our grandchildren” or “curing climate change” as those weary clichés would have you believe. Rather, they’re only after the biggest possible profits guaranteed over a period of from 21 to 40 years by our provincial government using the proceeds of Ontario residents’ constantly increasing hydro bills and taxes.
So what do you do when the wind company wants you to sign a contract? The land owner must first decide for him/herself whether there’s any truth in the now widely accepted beliefs that industrial machines, taller than the Ottawa Peace Tower and as tall as the London Eye, can cause health problems, reduce property values, adversely affect local economies, provide few jobs, kill birds and bats in unacceptable numbers, devastate rural Ontario and disrupt communities.  If you can get past that, you have to accept that wind power is not even required at all in an economy with an excess of electricity, some of which is virtually given away to neighbouring provinces and states on a regular basis.
The “gifts” the wind company salesmen bear while dangling the sugar plum of additional (taxable) income, include more than 30 pages of legal documents, which they urge you to sign.  In a word…DON’T. They are prepared by large, expensive, law firms to protect wind companies, not you. Have them reviewed by your own lawyer and insist that the wind company reimburse you for the legal fee.  Then make your own informed decisions.
There is no such thing as a standard form of contract used by wind companies – they’re all different in detail but usually consist of an option agreement and a stringent form of lease (which you will have to sign without change if the wind company decides to go ahead).
To protect yourself, your lawyer and you should consider and discuss a long list of valid concerns. Here are some examples.
You could be virtually handing over control of your property and the way you normally use it for a period of time extending beyond your own life expectancy. The wind company can get out of the contract but you can’t. Turbine(s) can be sited where they, not you, want it or them.  Ditto for the access roads to the turbine(s). You should discuss how your mortgage and insurance coverages might be affected. The period of construction will entail the presence of heavy machinery and considerable upheaval to your normal daily life. This could be repeated after about 21 years if the wind company decides to build bigger turbines to replace the old ones. You may find it difficult to sell, or raise money on, your property. There’s no guarantee that the wind company will follow up on its promise to make good all damage caused by construction, for which you should require a major cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit or bond.  Ditto for its promise to remove the turbine(s) and make good your land.
There’s more…the wind company can escape its obligations by assigning the contract to anyone,   including an anonymous numbered company, without assets, which could avoid removing the turbines(s) and making good the land. Without the proper financial protection, you might find yourself responsible 20 or 40 years from now for demolishing the turbine(s) at immense personal cost.
You might also be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement restricting your right to communicate publicly what you have learned from your dealings with the wind company. You could be required to give legal permission for the turbine(s) to cause flicker, noise, turbulence and general unpleasantness, thus giving up any right to sue should you or your family suffer any health or financial problems from the turbine(s). You could be sued by neighbours for knowingly contributing to diminished value or unsaleability of their property because of the presence of the turbine(s) on your land. You may be left with massive concrete foundations and other sub-surface installations on your lands.
You owe it to yourself, your family and your community to consider and act on these concerns before you sign a contract.
Garth Manning
Mr Manning is a retired lawyer living in Prince Edward County.
This article is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.

Parker Gallant: Ontario’s insane power exports

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

(reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario)

Another weekend came and went and Ontario shipped 104,000 megawatt hours (MWh) to our neighbours in Michigan, New York and Quebec. Those exports were enough to provide electricity to almost 11,000 Ontario households for a full year but instead helped the buying jurisdictions hold down their electricity prices. Continuing at this pace of exporting 2,100 MWh each and every hour means Ontario will export the same amount of electricity used to power 1.8 million Ontario homes.

Those 104,000 MWh generated revenue of $2.4 million based on the average price received per kWh over the weekend (2.3 cents) but cost ratepayers in Ontario in excess of $11 million to produce. The difference of $8.6 million will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot, driving up electricity prices in Ontario. While last weekend (November 23rd and 24th) experience only amounts to about $2.00 each for the 4.5 million ratepayers, if we add that to the $8.00 for the prior two weekends, it becomes $10.00 for each ratepayer—collectively, that amounts to $50 million for power Ontario’s ratepayers never got to use but had to pay for over just six days.
Last weekend, wind turbines produced slightly over 60,000 MWh or 57% of Ontario’s exports; the costs for that production alone (minus the revenue earned) was $6.9 million. If one adds the cost of gas plant back-up of $900,000, payment for constrained wind ($150,000), and steamed off nuclear from Bruce Power ($800,000) it coincidentally comes to slightly more than the $8.6 million that went to the GA pot.
The hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP) held up (2.3 cents per kWh) better for the past weekend than the previous two, or the cost to ratepayers would have been even higher.
The Long Term Energy Plan or LTEP is due to be released Monday, December 2. If it does not attempt to turn down this insane wealth transfer from Ontario’s residential and commercial ratepayers to NY, Michigan and Quebec, then Ontarians should seriously look at exporting our Liberal politicians. I think many of us would even pay those jurisdictions to take them off our hands.
©Parker Gallant
November 27, 2013
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.