Tag Archives: Green Energy Act

North Gower readers write: “no qualms about suing”

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Many area residents wrote to Farmers Forum after last month’s edition in which North Gower resident and wind power proponent Ed Schouten made remarks about wind “farms.”

Four were published; we reproduce them here.

Will sue for property loss

I intend to get my house appraised now and re-appraised if wind turbines are erected. I will have no qualms about suing both the property owner and Prowind for loss of property value at the very least. I hope others will be prepared to do the same.*

Julian Hughson, North Gower

*Blog editor note, Oh, they are, they are. Ottawa Wind Concerns has legal counsel on retainer and we have already notified Prowind of the intent to take any and all legal actions available.

Need more wind power studies

It sounds to me like a match made in heaven. Companies offer always cash-starved farms substantial funds to be allowed to build windmills on their farms. They sell the power to Ontario Hydro for enormous amounts of taxpayer money. The farmer is happy with his steady income, the windmill company is happy with its profits. But there are a lot of questions that still need answers about the effects of these monsters. In Europe and the United States, most of them are offshore or in isolated areas. Let’s get some reports from other countries of wind farms located near homes, schools and farms.

J.A. Fournier, North Gower

Blog editor: first of all, the wind power developer had a contract with the Ontario Power Authority or OPA to sell power under the Feed In Tariff subsidy program (which is now halted–a new program begins this year). Second, the farm owners, many unwittingly, gave away many rights to their land as part of the contracts including first right of refusal. An Ontario mayor noted at the August AMO conference that in effect, farmers sold their land for the lease amount. The contracts also contain “gag” clauses so that if the farm owners experience health problems or are disturbed by the noise and vibration, they are not allowed to speak of it. Last, there are problems the world over with wind turbine noise. Denmark alone has 170 community groups, and citizens are opposed in the UK, Germany, France, and the US. The global wind lobby has gone to great lengths to discredit these groups, and currently has a campaign which is based on the idea that the activities of community groups themselves are causing symptoms among turbine neighbours.

My retirement affected by wind turbines

As a resident of the proposed wind farm in North Gower, I will be adversely affected as we will be one of the homes closest to the turbines (the minimum distance is 550 meters). I will no longer be able to enjoy my back deck as the turbines will be far closer to my home than the home of the farm planning on erecting the turbines. Along with the health issues associated with turbines, so will our planned retirement of selling our property be adversely affected. The farmer from this area who said keeping the wind farm small will have no negative effects is, oh, so wrong.

Turbines in Europe a dismal failure

I would never have purchased this home if we had known there would be a turbine so close. Never, never, never. Being of European background, I have kept up-to-date on the fall of turbine desire there. They are a dismal failure. Germany, a country on the front line of energy efficiency, has decided not to erect (more) turbines but is instead returning to coal-fired generation.

What more need I say?

Gerry Courtney, North Gower

North Gower wind project is too big

Farmer Ed Schouten’s comment that the Brinston wind power project (it’s not a “farm”) could be a test case for others is interesting: with 6,700 megawatts of wind power already contracted for in Ontario, I think we have quite enough “test cases.”

What we do have is people sick from the environmental noise near wind power projects at Kincardine, Amaranth and Ridgetown, to name a few. It’s really quite simple: if the noise is so loud people can’t sleep, they become ill.

1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, that was accepted by Ottawa

I disagree with Mr Schouten’s claim that keeping a wind power project small avoids problems. The one proposed by the  Germany-based developer for his farm was a 20-megawatt power plant with eight turbines close to 1,000 families. That’s not “small” in my books. It’s also the reason why over 1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, which was accepted by Ottawa City Council.

With lawsuits over property values on the rise, and concerns about the health of livestock exposed to the turbine noise and vibration, Mr. Schouten must have a few concerns he hopes the Brinston project will allay.

The question that remains, however, is why is Ontario doing this? Why are we paying millions for wind power projects that have such a high impact on Ontario communities, for power we don’t need?

Ontario never did a cost-benefit analysis on wind power, the Auditor General complained in 2011. That was the real “test case” we needed.

Jane Wilson, North Gower

Lisa MacLeod roars on the Green Energy Act!

06 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Yesterday was the occasion for debate on the Green Energy Act, as the government is now scrambling to correct its domestic input policy—illegal as determined by the World economic regulatory body.

Nepean-Carleton MPP and PC Energy Critic Lisa MacLeod covered the gamut of problems with the Green Energy Act in her speech. You may read the full account here (recommended). An excerpt follows:

…But if they want to talk about children’s health, I’ll talk about a child’s health. I’ll talk about Madi Vanstone, who every day we’ve brought up in the assembly here. I can’t help but think that the Ontario that I live in, the Ontario that I’m raising my daughter in, is spending $22 billion for 1% of energy to make Liberal friends rich when little girls in this province who need life-saving drugs can’t get them. And why can’t she get them? Because this Premier said it costs too much. She said that it costs too much; we couldn’t afford it. We could afford to make Mike Crawley a rich man, we can afford to make NextEra a rich company and we can ensure that Samsung basically has a seat at the cabinet table here, but apparently our government cannot and will not choose to support a child who needs help. That’s the reality that we’re in in Ontario today. People can’t understand it. It was well documented, I thought, by Christina Blizzard. I thought she laid out the case on that quite clearly, and I thought that she pointed out what most people in Ontario are saying.
You look at the cost of power now—and I had the opportunity to speak to the supply motion, I guess it was a week ago. I talked about the opportunity I had to visit many of my colleagues’ ridings and talk to many people who are in their communities, and we talked about the high cost of energy and how that is hurting the people of this province and hurting manufacturers, and we talked about what our plan would be.
We’ve written a number of white papers. Some of them were just, effectively, ideas that we put forward that we’ll run on; others were ideas for discussion that we’ve talked about. But, very clearly, people are looking for a rational solution to the mismanagement by the government.
We’ve put forward a number of, I think, very thoughtful ideas and very sensible ideas to review not only the existing Green Energy Act—I think we’ve been very clear that we would repeal it—but we also talked about looking at some of the entities that we have in Ontario, like the OPG and Hydro One, monetizing them to bring more accountability. We know that there are some very serious and straightforward concerns there. We know, for example, that we’re exporting about $1 billion worth of power. …
You think about this: He has just acknowledged in this House that to create 1.1% of power is $22 billion. They had to acknowledge, albeit it was the Auditor General who forced them, that it was $1.1 billion for them to save five seats. With that amount of waste and that amount of mismanagement, we could not only eradicate our deficit, but we could make significant investments into our communities in health care and education, and we would still have power that we wouldn’t have to export. A novel idea, Speaker, but that is the reality; it is the truth, and it is something that we have said consistently—and the only party to do so since 2009.
That’s why we stand here day in and day out. We stand for the people in Strathroy and Stratford. We talk to the people in Cobourg, the people in Oxford and the people in Barry’s Bay. We talk about the people who are opposing these high subsidies and who are opposing these invasions on their land. We talk to them. We ask them to stay in Ontario and make sure that they continue to support us so that we can change this.
…
Let me be abundantly clear, Speaker: This is a government who is too concerned with its own ideology, and too concerned with its buddies that they could make a little bit more rich, that they had no concern whatsoever about the people paying the bill; that they have no concern whatsoever of the broader implications in an international trade war that they have now thrust us into. They don’t care, Speaker. They didn’t do their job at the beginning.
They’re not doing their job now, they didn’t do their job then, and everybody in Ontario is paying for it.

Lyman: Ontario’s electricity prices continue to rise

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here from energy economist Robert Lyman, an analysis of what’s going on with the price of electricity in Ontario… and what’s to come.

The Ontario Electricity Tragedy – The Numbers for 2013

The average resident of Ontario has a difficult time even understanding his or her electricity bill, let alone comprehending all the costs borne by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the Crown Corporation that manages provincial electricity supply and demand.

Fortunately for the rest of us, one man spends a lot of time monitoring IESO’s purchases and costs. His name is Scott Luft, and he reports his analysis on a blog entitled “Cold Air.” He takes publicly available data from IESO and translates it into something meaningful. Two tables recently published by Scott Luft tell us a great deal about what has happened to the “commodity cost” of electricity in Ontario since 2006, and especially about the breakdown of costs in 2013. The commodity cost is the charges that IESO pays for the actual power that it purchases from generators plus additional costs that are added on by order of the provincial government. It excludes the cost of electricity transmission and distribution and other special charges like HST.

Read the full article here.Ontario’s Electricity Tragedy by the Numbers (revised)

“Quiet nights” by-law could protect communities

19 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Quiet nights bylaw could protect communities from noise

Noise bylaw could stifle windmills 14

By Bruce Bell, The Intelligencer

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

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

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

Read the full story here.

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

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

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

Unwilling host declaration born from frustration

By Peter Epp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full story here.

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

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

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

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

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.

Ostrander Point appeal: citizens vs government in court next week

17 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Final chapter

Fair-Fight

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.

National Post: Ontario taxpayers don’t benefit from power exports

10 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli likes to crow about how much money Ontario is making when it sells its surplus power. The truth is something far different, even in Mr Chiarelli’s millions-equal-Tim-Hortons-coffees world of mathematics.

Scott Stinson: Ontario powers up electricity exports but taxpayers see little benefit

Republish Reprint

Scott Stinson | January 9, 2014 6:58 PM ET
More from Scott Stinson | @scott_stinson

Jurisdictions that import electricity from Ontario pay close to the wholesale market price but consumers in the province pay much more.

Tyler Anderson/National Post
Jurisdictions that import electricity from Ontario pay close to the wholesale market price but consumers in the province pay much more.

At a time when Ontario has seen its manufacturing industry crater, the province has found that it can still do a booming business with one type of export: electricity.

Unfortunately for ratepayers, the business model is a little unsound. If energy were doughnuts, Ontario would still be expanding its dough supply, while sending ever more trucks full of discounted day-olds to places like Michigan, Minnesota and Quebec.

The province’s Independent Electricity System Operator on Wednesday released its year-in-review of the province’s energy data. Most of the numbers were as expected, with wind energy an increasing part of the supply mix, coal a decreasing part of it and nuclear energy remaining the backbone of the grid.

Energy exports, meanwhile, “rose to 18.3 TWh,” which is an awful lot of electricity: enough to power 300 billion 60-watt bulbs for an hour. The province’s exports have been on a steady upward trend; the 2013 total is a notable jump from 14.6 TWh in 2012 and from 12.9 TWh in 2011, according to figures released by the IESO last year. Exports have increased by almost 50% over that two-year period.

This would be a welcome development if the province and its ratepayers — which is to say, you — received a return for our electricity that was equal to, or ideally above, the amount that was paid to produce it.

But it does not. Jurisdictions that import electricity from Ontario pay something close to the wholesale market price of electricity, a number that changes hour by hour and is dependent on factors too numerous to list here. For 2013 the average wholesale price was between 2.5¢/kWh and 3¢/kWh. The cost paid to produce that electricity, again using the IESO’s own numbers, is on average about 8.5¢/kWh, or about four times the wholesale price.

Consumers pay, again depending on a host of factors, something much closer to the larger number, because built into the cost of our electricity is everything from capital investment to executive salaries to the payout for when gas plants are cancelled in the middle of election campaigns.

This trend, where Ontario ships excess electricity to its neighbours at steep discounts, is not new. In 2011, the province’s Auditor-General noted in a report that “the price Ontarians pay for electricity and the price it charges its export customers … have in recent years been moving in opposite directions.”

Read the full story here.

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.