Tag Archives: Ontario government

Ontario government not measuring wind turbine noise effectively, engineer tells international conference

22 Monday May 2017

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Noise measurement protocol needlessly complex, failing to identify critical issues with wind turbine noise, Ontario engineer says.

He used MOECC data to confirm “tonal” quality to wind turbine noise emissions. One project has been operating for eight years — residents continue to complain, no action by Ontario government

Conference venue in Rotterdam: Wind Turbine Noise 2017

Ontario engineer William Palmer has proposed a rigorous, but simple and transparent technique to assess wind turbine noise, that could replace the problematic complex computer models and “black box” algorithms currently used in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change newest protocol to assess wind turbine noise compliance.

Speaking at the International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise that took place in Rotterdam beginning May 2, Palmer said of his proposed method,

The method had to consider that an effective monitoring system must take into account more than just averaging sound power levels over a long term. The method recognizes that humans are bothered by the changes and annoying characteristics that occur, as well as long term averages. Others describe this as the need to determine how the special characteristics of sound quality may impact quality of life.

To verify this approach, assessments were conducted using the method at two wind power developments in Ontario. In the K2 Wind project, he used MOECC data from testing in early March 2017 at a home within the K2 project. He was able to demonstrate that the MOECC data confirmed that the noise from the turbines surrounding the home had a tonal quality; that means it should require a 5 dB(A) penalty be applied to the other test results.

He reported:

Although the Ministry did not provide calibration files for their sound recordings they did provide in their report their assessment of the sound pressure level for each sample. Using the Electroacoustics Toolbox, and working backwards to set the given sound pressure level for a number of the recordings provided as the calibration level, permitted a “Quasi Calibration” of the Ministry data, and from that a calibrated FFT analysis was made. … Again, it was seen that when the residents described adverse effects in their comments filed with their initiation of recordings, FFT analysis of the sound recordings taken at those times clearly show a tonal condition occurring at about 450 Hz.

In the Enbridge project, where Mr. Palmer also conducted testing, he found similar tonal quality to the noise emissions in that project, and confirmed that the noise coming from the turbines is above the approved levels at several locations.

For this facility as an example, where the turbines first went into operation in November 2008, and citizen complaints occurred soon after, it has not yet been possible to complete a report to demonstrate compliance. The monitoring is still in progress, over 8 years later, with the turbines continuing in operation, and residents continuing to complain. The hypothesis is that individual samples are not representative due to variation.

Process is complex

He offered comment on the current protocol being used to assess compliance by the MOECC:

A premise of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change wind turbine monitoring protocol is that monitoring to show compliance must be conducted over a long period. The protocol requires the initial acoustic monitoring by residents to produce at least a 10-minute sample for each complaint period, and the final compliance protocol requires a minimum of 120 one-minute measurement intervals for each integer of wind speed. During each of those one-minute intervals there must be no changes in wind speed or direction. A further 60 samples are required for each integer wind speed with the turbines not operational. So far data collection has taken years to obtain a sufficient number of samples, and in at least one array, initial reports showed that over 90% of samples taken were discarded as non-compliant. All samples are logarithmically combined to determine the Leq produced by the facility, which eliminates any short-term change effects. This appears to be precisely the sort of monitoring that was cautioned against by Genuit and Fiebig described in Section 1 when they noted, “By relying on sound pressure levels averaged over long time periods and suppressing all aspects of quality, the specific properties of environmental noise situations cannot be identified, because annoyance caused by environmental noise has a broader linkage with various acoustical properties such as frequency spectrum, duration, impulsive, tonal and low-frequency components, etc. than only with SPL [Sound Pressure Level]. In many cases these acoustical properties affect the quality of life.”

The annoyance aspects that impact the quality of life of impacted residents are not being assessed.

People walking away from loved homes

The current protocol cannot possibly identify critical issues in wind turbine noise emissions, Palmer asserts. In conclusion, he said:

This paper has demonstrated a method for rigorous monitoring of wind turbine sound. The goal of the method was to establish evidence for the condition noted by Karl D. Kryter: “The most direct, and perhaps most valid, insight into the possible presence and magnitude of stress reactions in general living environments is probably that which has been obtained from attitude surveys and real-life behaviour of people.” Behaviours such as walking away from an unsold loved home to live at the home of a family member, or when normal people become activists in trying to communicate their concerns provide such valid insights. The rigorous method had to consider the present acceptance criterion for wind turbines, in light of the insight given by those who study the quality of noise and its relation to annoyance. Those who study the subject identify that, “Current acceptance criterion relying on sound pressure levels averaged over long time periods and suppressing all aspects of quality cannot identify the specific properties of environmental noise situations.”

The results reported by Bill Palmer are typical of the community testing being undertaken in many communities near wind turbine projects across Ontario.

These findings indicate that the complex processes used by the MOECC and required of wind companies for compliance testing fail to identify key issues that can be quickly identified using much simpler techniques.

Meanwhile, the turbines, shown by other methods to be out of compliance, continue to operate.

[Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario]

Advertisement

You’re not listening to us: IESO publishes comments on renewable power bid process

31 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

“Overwhelmingly fraudulent”; “we were ready with a team of lawyers”; “property values are decreased because of forced wind turbine projects” … and more.

Ontario community groups, municipal representatives and individual citizens responded to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) request for feedback on its renewable power bid process.

The IESO published a summary of comments received in its online survey, yesterday.

Ottawa Wind Concerns was among the community groups responding to this survey.

Key issues were the fact that the process was difficult to understand, unfair to individuals and communities, and that so-called “community engagement” was a false promise, given that community support (or lack of it) was just one of the rated criteria in the bid process, not a mandatory requirement.

Municipal governments are forced to determine whether they support a power project with very little information, representatives said. The rated criteria activities to indicate community support were ineffective, said most of the municipal government representative responding: 70 percent said the activities prescribed were “somewhat” or “very” ineffective.

The mandatory meeting was set up in a format that was to leave everyone with the least amount of say as possible. There were large displays set up showing the project. There was no intention for any real interaction with the participants. We had to basically demand a question and answer period. Questions and answers in a public format is the way these mandatory meetings should be set up to ensure that the correct info is actually being presented.
The mandatory community engagement requirements and optional rated criteria community support activities were neither clear nor successful in raising awareness within the Project Community. How can a requirement to consult members of a community (and having owners sign a support form) on an existing line that had already been fully and duly permitted and that represents no new or additional impact for them be considered mandatory and successful in raising awareness or support for the project? The Rated Criteria points associated with obtaining a support resolution from the municipal council gives too much negotiation leverage to the Municipalities. Rated Criteria points should also be allocated following a prorated basis instead of a all or nothing basis, especially the ones associated with abutting landowners support.

Some respondents questioned the municipal support process, saying that councils ignored community wishes and/or had pecuniary interests in the proposed power projects.

I was part of the General Public who attended meetings and proposal meetings. Our elected officials were not responsive to the general public opinion which was 80% plus against the proposal so we had to fight our representatives. The process was very poor and at least 1 of our political persons refused to withdraw from voting and would directly benefit from the projects if approved. I felt like I lived in a 3rd world country.

Other respondents decried the loss of good Ontario farmland for power projects, and the social impact on communities when some landowners took out leases or accepted payments for support of abutting power projects.

Another concern was the communities and neighbours to power projects had no idea the bid was coming until it was put together.

Very simple. Let communities decide whether they want these projects or not. Let neighbors know from the very outset that their communities are being considered. Holding a propaganda session once the project is ready to be submitted is not community involvement.

The IESO document is available here.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

House and wind turbine at Brinston, just south of Ottawa. Propaganda meetings are not 'community engagement' says an Ontario citizen

House and wind turbine at Brinston, just south of Ottawa. Propaganda meetings are not ‘community engagement’ says an Ontario citizen

 

 

St Isidore residents fear Wynne government will approve second wind farm

24 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Smaller project gets the nod in unwilling host communities 2016, while larger power project simply has to resubmit

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

Province okays more wind farms

Ontario Farmer, March 22, 2016 (excerpted)

By Ian Cumming

Sixteen new green energy projects across Ontario, five of them wind turbines and 11 solar farms, were approved by the provincial government on March 10th.

The largest project at 100,000 MW [Editor’s note: this is incorrect–the project is 100 megawatts or 100,000 kilowatts], with the next largest project at 54,000 MW [Editor: 54 MW] was approved for windmills in North Stormont in Eastern Ontario.

That will mean 35 to 50 windmills, depending on their size, says North Stormont mayor Dennis Fife.

They are slated to be hilt about one kilometer west of Finch and head north, just west of Berwick and Chrysler [Crysler], said Fife. For those visiting last fall’s plowing match in North Stormont, the southern end of the project will be about where the event was held.

“We don’t know the farmers who signed the leases,” said Fife.

Being picked was a surprise since the Premier and area MPPs had publicly assured them that no such project would be “forced” on areas such as his, that had declared at council that they were “unwilling hosts,” said Fife.

…

Wind Concerns Ontario noted in a press release that four of the five windmill projects approved for this round were slated for municipalities that had declared themselves “unwilling hosts.”

WCO also predicted that the windmills just approved under this round will cost consumers $1.3 billion over the next 20 years.

..In nearby St Bernardine, windmills were approved for the 32,000 MW [Correction:32 MW] Gauthier Project in this round, but the adjoining proposal in the same county of over 100,000 MW [Correction:100 MW] in St. Isidore was not approved.

However, a day after the announcement Steve Dick, who had helped lead the massive protest against both projects in his county, was not celebrating.

“We’re a pretty disheartened group right now,” he said. “They pretty much steam-rolled over the township.”

Since the Gauthier project was approved, the wiring infrastructure they neded to install will be dovetailing, as planned, with the soon-to-be-approved St. Isidore project, he predicted.

[Editor’s note: Sorry, this article is not available online. We object to the use of the term ‘windmill’s–these machines are industrial- or utility-scale wind turbines that are used to generate power.]

 

Ontario wind farm contracting process a cesspool says lawyer

27 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Wind farm contracting process a cesspool in Ontario, says lawyer

Pickens chose Ontario because he thought there was a "rule of law" and fairness here. Apparently not.
Pickens chose Ontario because he thought there was a “rule of law” and fairness here. Apparently not.

London Free Press, October 26, 2015

It’s a high-stakes legal battle over London-area wind farms that pits a self-proclaimed, Canada-loving, Texas oil tycoon against the federal government.

Mesa Power Group LLC vs. Government of Canada, a case that could leave taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, is expected to be ruled on within weeks, four years after the claim was launched by T. Boone Pickens under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Though the federal government is the defendant, Pickens’ real quarrel is with Ontario.

In submissions and testimony before the NAFTA panel hearing the arbitration case, Pickens’ company claims it failed to win contracts for four massive wind farms in Huron and Bruce counties in Southwestern Ontario because of political interference at the highest level.

“This whole process was not carried out in good faith. This was not honesty. This was not fairness. This process was infused with raw politics, arbitrariness, and an egregious abuse of authority,” Mesa lawyer Barry Appleton said in his closing submission to the panel’s three arbitrators at a hearing in Toronto in October 2014.

The claim contains allegations that have not been proven.

In his own testimony before the NAFTA arbitrators, Pickens described how he was a big fan of Canada because of its rule of law.

“My experiences were so good that I enjoyed telling people about it,” he said, relating how he came to Canada with less than $100,000 in 1959 and sold out 20 years later for $610 million.

But his experience in Ontario left him disappointed, he said.

“You always feel bad when you lose, and then you look to see why you lost, and here we lost because we didn’t have a level playing field,” Pickens testified.

Home to Ontario’s largest wind farms with its largest number of the highrise-sized turbines, Southwestern Ontario is no stranger to the controversies generated by the power-producing windmills. Critics have decried them as a threat to human health, divisive to rural communities and a financial blow to a province that signed up producers with early sweetheart deals paying them far more to generate power than consumers pay.

Details of this latest dust-up are found on a federal government website containing submissions by Mesa, the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and transcripts of the claim heard before a NAFTA tribunal last fall.

Mesa argued that other wind farm companies, Florida-based NextEra Energy and Korean-based Samsung — both, industry giants — were given illegal, preferential treatment and inside information that doomed Mesa’s projects.

“It was a cesspool. It was shameful. I feel very badly after seeing what went on here for my fellow Ontarians and the ratepayers of Ontario. They are having to bear the burden of the shameful behaviour,” Appleton said in a transcript from the hearing.

Responding to Mesa’s arguments, also at the hearing, Canada’s lawyers rejected Mesa’s assertions and said the company’s failures were self-inflicted.

“This is a case which is, as the expression goes, about sour grapes. It is a case about an investor who took a business risk and is unwilling to accept that that risk did not pay off,” government of Canada lawyer Shane Spelliscy said.

Spelliscy said Mesa’s applications for contracts with the Ontario Power Corp. were “sloppy” and “poorly done.”

When contracts were handed out, Mesa didn’t get one because its proposals weren’t highly ranked in a process monitored by an independent third party, Spelliscy said.

If they had put together better applications, they may have been successful, the federal lawyer said.

“There was no discrimination,” he said.

According to Mesa’s submissions, it decided to develop wind farms in Ontario — one, a 200-megawatt proposal in Bruce County would have been the largest in Ontario — after learning the province was offering 20-year contracts at a fixed price of 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

“Make no doubt about this, this was a highly attractive rate,” said Appleton.

The rate meant there was no shortage of competing applications. A critical factor for companies became whether there would be enough transmission capacity for wind energy in the areas where they’d selected to build.

Appleton said Mesa had no idea that Ontario had cut a separate deal to allocate transmission capacity to Samsung, a Korean industrial giant, which promised to build manufacturing plants in Ontario.

And Mesa, unlike some of its competitors, was never informed about rule changes, a chance to switch its transmission points in order to increase its chances, he said.

Part of Mesa’s case was based on e-mails from Bob Lopinski, a registered lobbyist for NextEra, to Energy Ministry officials during the allocation process.

Lopinksi, a principal at Counsel Public Affairs, had previously served as director of issues management and legislative affairs to then-premier Dalton McGuinty and advised the Liberal leader on selecting cabinet ministers.

Appleton said though Lopinski and NextEra executives were communicating with Ontario government and Hydro One officials, Mesa understood no such communication was allowed.

Canada’s response filed with the NAFTA panel was there isn’t any evidence NextEra was ever provided with non-public information.

Mesa has asked for damages of $653 million plus interest.

READ THE DOCUMENTS

Legal documents from Mesa’s lawsuit against Canada under Chapter 11 of NAFTA can be found at: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/mesa.aspx?lang=eng

MESA’S four PROPOSED WIND FARMS

The company claims it already invested $160 million on preliminary work for four proposed wind farms in western Ontario and would have spent $1.2 billion-plus on construction:

Twenty Two Degree: 150-megawatt project

Arran Wind Energy: 115-MW project

Summerhill: 100-MW project

North Bruce: 200-MW project

Hundreds protest wind power projects in The County

28 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

A few of the 300 people in Milford Ontario yesterday: not the right place for a power project

A few of the 300 people in Milford Ontario yesterday: not the right place for a power project (Photo: MPP Todd Smith)

HGTV host of Income Property Scott McGillivray once described Prince Edward County as “it is to Toronto what the Hamptons are to New York.”

For now.

Despite the fact that Prince Edward County is classified as an Important Bird Area for migrating birds in North America, despite the fact that taxpayer dollars have gone to promote its tourism and wine industries, and despite the fact that The County is steeped in Canadian Loyalist history, the Ontario government has approved not one but two wind power projects for the area.

People don’t think that’s right.

And they said so yesterday, as more than 300 people gathered at the Mount Tabor Community Hall in Milford to protest.

The Ostrander Point project has already been under appeal for years, and recently heard shocking testimony that a species at risk expert working for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommended a permit NOT be granted for the project. The province gave the permit to kill wildlife, and approved the project. Hearings resume October 27th as the Ministry has been directed to produce more documentation on that process.

The community has also appealed the “White Pines” project by Germany-based wpd Canada, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for early November.

All this time, various community groups such as the Point2Point Foundation, the Hastings Prince Edward Land Trust, and the South Shore Conservancy have been working with the federal and provincial governments to have the entire south shore declared off-limits to development like wind power plants.

How does the Ontario government justify its wind power program which is supposed to “save” the environment, while it is despoiling fragile environments and killing wildlife?

These groups could use your help.

Ostrander Point: www.saveostranderpoint.org

White Pines: Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County https://appec.wordpress.com/

ToughonNature-smaller

Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario

MPP Jim McDonell launches wind farm petition

08 Friday May 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

A photo on Flickr

MPP for Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry Jim McDonell has launched a petition asking to Ontario government to return full consultation for the community regarding a proposed 30-50 turbine wind power project, and further, to do a complete study of any impacts of the proposed power project.

The petition MUST be printed out, signed, and mailed or delivered to Mr McDonell’s office as a legal document. Fax or scanned versions are not legal.

Obtain the petition here: Petition

Contact Mr McDonell’s office at 613-933-6513 or visit his website at: http://jimmcdonellmpp.ca/

 

Big Wind’s “Big Bonanza” in Ontario: subsidies benefit a few corporations, not ratepayers

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

From the Financial Post Comment, February 4, by Brady Yauch, executive director the Consumer Policy Institute

When the Ontario government launched its Green Energy Act (GEA ) in 2009, it promised “new green economy jobs” and ” a wide range of economic opportunities.” Then Minister of Energy George Smitherman argued that the GEA would be a boon to Ontarians of all stripes: “We see opportunities in our rural communities for farmers, not just to lease their land for big companies that are the proponents of wind farms, but indeed for clusters of farmers to see themselves as investors in projects…. the emergence of thousands of smaller green energy projects—microgeneration—in urban as well as rural areas.”

Yes, everyone would need to pay a little more for renewable power, the public was told, but the benefits would be widely shared, for the ultimate benefit of all. As it turned out, power rates didn’t go up a little – they soared. And the subsidies weren’t widely shared among the folk – a handful of billion dollar companies pocketed most of them, most of them outside the province.

According to an analysis by the Consumer Policy Institute and Energy Probe, 90% of the wind subsidies went to just 11 companies, 80% of the subsidies went to nine companies with annual revenues over $1-billion, 60% of the subsidies went to six companies with more than $10-billion in annual revenue.

As for the province’s claim that it wants to create an Ontario-based “green economy,” less than 10% of subsidies to wind generators went to small-scale or local owners.

Since 2006, when the province first started subsidizing wind turbines, the province has provided more than $1.92 billion in subsidies. This act of corporate welfare is far from over.

According to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) – the provincial agency in charge of energy planning and contracting – the province has signed deals for another 2,630 MW of wind energy to come on stream in the coming years, on top of the 3,065 MW already in commercial operation. All of that generation will receive above market rates courtesy of ratepayers for their output. In total, the amount of subsidies to wind producers could hit $8-billion over the next decade and $13-billion over the next 20 years.

The list of companies receiving the lion’s share of subsidies reads like a “who’s who” in Canada’s energy sector and corporate heavyweights. Brookfield Renewable Energy (a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management), Enbridge and Transalta alone accounted for about 38 percent of all subsidies handed out to wind generators. Those companies combined brought in $54-billion in total revenue in 2013.

Samsung, which posted $217-billion in revenue last year, is expected to triple its wind capacity in Ontario – and the subsidies that go along with it – in the next couple of years.

The damage to ratepayers for such policies has been significant. Since 2009 – when the GEA was introduced – ratepayers in Ontario have seen the commodity cost on their energy bills climb dramatically, with the regulated price of power over that time having increased on average by 56%, or just over 9% annually – more than five times the rate of inflation, making electricity price increases worse in Ontario than elsewhere in Canada.

To make matters worse, the high rates being pushed onto ratepayers has lowered demand for electricity across the province in recent years. That means Ontario now has a significant surplus of power, which it then exports to neighbouring jurisdictions at a loss. Ontario ratepayers are now subsidizing the energy consumption of households in America and other provinces.

Nearly everyone is losing when it comes to renewable energy in Ontario – except for those few companies that planted industrial wind turbines across the province and are receiving billions in subsidies for their effort.

Brady Yauch is an economist and the executive director of Consumer Policy Institute. bradyyauch@consumerpolicyinstitute.org

NOTE from Ottawa Wind Concerns: The Library of Parliament, on request from MP Pierre Poilievre, estimated that IF the wind power project proposed for the North Gower-Richmond area of Ottawa by Germany-based Prowind had gone ahead (it almost reached approval), the 20-MW project would have cost Ontario ratepayers $4.8 million per year.

Does conserving power in Ontario save us money? (No.)

16 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Here is a precis of an analysis of the Ontario government’s conservation efforts prepared by local economist Robert Lyman, based on research by Parker Gallant.

Here are the numbers.

In 2009, local electricity distribution companies in Ontario provided 124,206,032 megawatt-hours (MWh) for 4,748,577 households, a monthly average of 2,180 kilowatt hours (kWh).

In 2013, they provided 125,306,563 MWh for 4,944,488 households, a monthly average of 2,112 kWh. Average consumption fell by 3.3%, or 875 kilowatts annually between 2009 and 2013. For the average home, that is a monthly reduction from 800 kWh to 774 kWh (317 kWh per year).

In 2009, the cost of a kWh of electricity delivered averaged 6.15 cents and the “commodity” cost (just the electricity portion) for the full year was $590. By reducing annual consumption by 317 kWh, the savings should have been $19.50.

In 2013, the commodity cost had risen to 9.2 cents per kWh, or $854 per year. Not only did the $19.50 savings disappear, but also, the average household paid an additional $264 annually. That represents an additional cost to all ratepayers in the province of $1.2 billion annually. That does not include the $2 billion cost of installing smart meters.

The average household would have had to reduce its annual consumption by 33%, or 3,200 kWh, in order to have simply matched its cost for electricity consumption in 2009.

The Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) is required to maintain an operating reserve of generating capacity of between 1,300 and 1,600 MW for contingencies. Since 2009 the available surplus has been between 4,000 MW and 5,900 MW. The IESO expects these surpluses will continue until at least the later part of this decade. Thus, while the official rationale for smart meters, time-of-use pricing and “conservation” programs is to avoid the addition of expensive new generation capacity, the province has continued to add that capacity even in the face of a substantial surplus.

What’s next? Current Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli has set new targets for both reductions in peak demand and “conservation” in his long-term energy plan. The target set for reducing peak demand is 10% (2,400 MW by 2025) and for “conservation” is 16% (30 TWh) by 2032. These will be combined with continuing large additions in industrial wind turbine and solar power generators at substantial premiums above most current generation. As a result, despite the lower consumption, ratepayers will be expected to dig deeper into their pockets.

Wind farm fight in Ontario 2014: no giving up

31 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

From Wind Concerns Ontario

Ontario wind farms in 2014: a look back

A spokesperson for Northland Power, whose Grand Bend wind power project can now proceed following decision in an appeal, told a London Free Pressreporter that “One would think the people opposed would lose their appetite for this fight, but they haven’t yet.”

Indeed not. And 2015 will be more of the same as almost every wind power project in Ontario has been appealed, and several are headed for judicial review. Plus, countless private individuals have lodged or plan to take legal actions related to noise nuisance and property value loss.

The truth will stand, eventually.

Here’s a look back in pictures at the year that was.

Parker Gallant (R) on the Dale Goldhawk consumer radio show for one hour on the $16-million Christmas Day power giveaway in Ontario. Wind Concerns Ontario documented the millions lost over 2014 through Ontario's mismanaged energy sector
Parker Gallant (R) on the Dale Goldhawk consumer radio show for one hour on the $16-million Christmas Day power giveaway in Ontario. Wind Concerns Ontario documented the millions lost over 2014 through Ontario’s mismanaged energy sector
Julian Falconer represented four families in a legal challenge; while many points about the appeal process were made, the appeal was lost
Julian Falconer represented four families in a legal challenge; while many points about the appeal process were made, the appeal was lost
Lawyer Eric Gillespie continues to represent Ontario communities and appeals against wind power projects; more to come
Lawyer Eric Gillespie continues to represent Ontario communities and appeals against wind power projects; more to come
Auditor General Lysyk becomes the 2nd A G in a row to lambaste the Ontario government for its incompetence in the energy file, and wasted money on green energy
Auditor General Lysyk becomes the 2nd A G in a row to lambaste the Ontario government for its incompetence in the energy file, and wasted money on green energy
Transport Canada bends to pressure from Big Wind and rescinds order to remove Chatham-Kent wind turbines for safety. (2015 is an election year!)
Transport Canada bends to pressure from Big Wind and rescinds order to remove Chatham-Kent wind turbines for safety. (2015 is an election year!)
Invenergy pulls out of Listowel-area wind project
Invenergy pulls out of Listowel-area wind project
Health Canada releases non-peer-reviewed summary of noise and health study; shows that 16.5% of people within 1 km of turbines experience distress. Media misses this. (2015 is an election year!)
Health Canada releases non-peer-reviewed summary of noise and health study; shows that 16.5% of people within 1 km of turbines experience distress. Media misses this. (2015 is an election year!)
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli tries to explain that Ontario's electricity bill increases are insignificant, thereby demonstrating his opinion of the intelligence of Ontario citizens
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli tries to explain that Ontario’s electricity bill increases are insignificant, thereby demonstrating his opinion of the intelligence of Ontario citizens
Two wind power projecst approved for Ontario's world-famous Algoma region, showing the Ontario government has no regard for the environment, whatsoever
Two wind power projects are approved for Ontario’s world-famous Algoma region, showing the Ontario government has no regard for the environment, whatsoever
None so blind as those who will not see. Or listen. Toronto-based Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne ignores rural and small-town communities. New procurement process for large-scale power projects still does not allow municipalities to say "No" to Big Wind.
None so blind as those who will not see. Or listen. Toronto-based Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne ignores rural and small-town communities. New procurement process for large-scale power projects still does not allow municipalities to say “No” to Big Wind.
Rallies and protests continue throughout the province; this one to Save the Nor'Westers
Rallies and protests continue throughout the province; this one to Save the Nor’Westers
Dr Robert McMurtry, officer of the Order of Canada, publishes a case definition for adverse health effects associated with wind turbine noise, with health researcher Carmen Krogh
Dr Robert McMurtry, officer of the Order of Canada, publishes a case definition for adverse health effects associated with wind turbine noise, with health researcher Carmen Krogh
87 communities have now passed Not A Willing Host resolutions
87 communities have now passed Not A Willing Host resolutions
Fund-raising events occur throughout the province: here Stephana Johnston attends a supper for SWEAR and the Drennan case
Fund-raising events occur throughout the province: here Stephana Johnston attends a supper for SWEAR and the Drennan case
One of Tim Hudak's election promises was to end the Green Energy Act and enact new regulations; the PCs lose the election for various reasons, disappointing rural/small-town Ontario
One of Tim Hudak’s election promises was to end the Green Energy Act and enact new regulations; the PCs lose the election for various reasons, disappointing rural/small-town Ontario. The Liberals win a majority and vow to continue their (money-losing) green energy policies.
Sun Media's Down Wind doc film with Rebecca Thompson attracts $30,000 in crowd-funding in days
Sun Media’s Down Wind doc film with Rebecca Thompson attracts $30,000 in crowd-funding in days
The Blandings Turtle is in and out of court as Prince Edward County citizens fight the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to save the environment. CanWEA lawyer announces in Toronto court that no appeal was ever supposed to be successful, and the Environmental Review Tribunal needs "direction" so a successful appeal never happens again.
The Blandings Turtle is in and out of court as Prince Edward County citizens fight the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to save the environment. CanWEA lawyer announces in Toronto court that no appeal was ever supposed to be successful, and the Environmental Review Tribunal needs “direction” so a successful appeal never happens again.
Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn publish a review that says there is evidence of an association between wind turbine noise and distress
Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn publish a review that says there is evidence of an association between wind turbine noise and distress
After taking on Big Wind for years and NextEra in specific, members of the members of the Wrightman family of Middlesex-Lambton decamp to Nova Scotia (but continue to fight)
After taking on Big Wind for years and NextEra in specific,  members of the Wrightman family of Middlesex-Lambton decamp to Nova Scotia (but continue to fight)
Big Wind continues its indoctrination of schoolchildren with support of the Ontario government. In this case, distribution of the T-shirts was halted when parents complained
Big Wind continues its indoctrination of schoolchildren with support of the Ontario government. In this case, distribution of the T-shirts was halted when parents complained
Ontario communities fight against the Big Wind "scam": wind power cannot deliver on its promises of reducing GHGs, creating jobs, protecting the environment
Ontario communities fight against the Big Wind “scam”: wind power cannot deliver on its promises of reducing GHGs, creating jobs, protecting the environment

Ontario’s $1B electricity month: wind surplus significant

05 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Print

October 2014 Breaks Record for Ontario Electricity Costs and Losses

Cost to consumers of government energy policies for one month reaches $1 billion

TORONTO, Nov. 5, 2014 /CNW/ – The Ontario government’s policy of pursuing “renewable” sources of power at a premium and selling off surplus at a loss has resulted in a record-breaking month of expenses and losses for Ontario’spower consumers.

In a document prepared by former bank vice-president and Wind Concerns Ontario executive Parker Gallant and energy analyst Scott Luft, figures from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) show that the Global Adjustment for Ontario power customers hit $1 billion.

The Global Adjustment is the difference between market rates for electricity, and what the government pays power generators. In the case of wind power, which has first right to the grid in Ontario, Ontario is buying high and selling low, says Gallant. “In the spring and fall every year, demand for power is low, but wind production is at a high—that is the problem with wind power: it is produced out-of-phase with demand. Because of the contracts the government has with the developers, we  pay top dollar for the power and when we don’t need it, sell for bargain-basement prices.  We pay about 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour for wind, and sell it off far below that; in October it was below 0.7 cents.

“This is economic disaster for Ontario,” Gallant adds.

Consumer power bills rose again on November 1st, and the government will also launch its new procurement process for wind and solar this month.

Wind Concerns Ontario has been opposed to the development of large-scale wind power in Ontario’s communities in part because it is an expensive yet unreliable source of power. The record-breaking October  figures should spur the government to halt its wind power program, says president Jane Wilson. “Any decision to approve one more wind farm, or to launch the new procurement process  for more contracts this month as planned, is completely unsupportable,” she says.  “Wind power doesn’t work, and Ontario can’t afford this experiment any longer.”

Ontario has contracts for 43 wind power projects not currently operational, which will cost consumers $16 billion over the next 20 years.

http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/october-2014-breaking-ontarios-record-for-electricity-costs/

SOURCE Wind Concerns Ontario

Canada News Wire November 5, 2014, 1:21 PM