Tag Archives: Ontario

Wind farm appeal an eye-opener on government oversight of wind power approvals

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Birds? What birds? MNRF "biologist" misses the fact the South Shore of Prince Edward County is a designated Important Bird Area. It is slated for a 29-turbine wind power project.

Birds? What birds? MNRF “biologist” misses the fact the South Shore of Prince Edward County is a designated Important Bird Area. It is slated for a 29-turbine wind power project.

There have been many appeals of wind power project approvals in Ontario —in fact, almost EVERY approval since 2009 has been appealed—but the two appeals ongoing in Prince Edward County currently are interesting as they focus on the approval process for power projects, and the expert oversight citizens expect is part of it.

The truth? There isn’t any oversight.

If the wind power developer says there are not at-risk or endangered species in the project area then, well, they must be right. According to the government, that is.

The Ostrander Point appeal is now in its fifth phase as the appeal has bounced from the quasi-judicial Environmental Review Tribunal to court and back; we learned there that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources at-risk species expert recommended a permit NOT be granted for the power project.

And now, testimony at the White Pines appeal, also in Prince Edward County, is showing that the developer and the government relied on inadequate and incomplete consulting reports, and the government never bothered to check. At yesterday’s hearing, the MNRF “biologist” (she has a BA in environmental studies) stated that she was “unaware” that the County’s South Shore was a site for thousands of migratory birds, or that the power project site had several species of at-risk or endangered wildlife.

We invite you to follow along the excellent reports of the White Pines appeal (Ostrander Point has now heard all the evidence and will see final submissions in mid-January) at both Wind Concerns Ontario and the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC).

It’s an eye-opener.

[To donate to APPEC’s legal fight click here.]

Ontario’s cheap power exports make us everybody’s friend

12 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

New York State using cheap Ontario power to lure business stateside

Buffalo NY: keeping the lights on and luring business thanks to cheap power from Ontario (Photo: The Herd Report)
Buffalo NY: keeping the lights on and luring business thanks to cheap power from Ontario (Photo: The Herd Report)

Buffalo’s Pal: Ontario’s ratepayers

(Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario http://www.windconcernsontario.ca )

The September 2015 summary report from IESO demonstrates that once again, Ontario ratepayers picked up additional costs for exporting surplus power. The September results, gleaned from examination of the “monthly summary” indicates it cost $100 million to subsidize Ontario-generated electricity exports to New York, Michigan, etc., in September.

That totals $1.5 billion for the first nine months of 2015. The 16.2 terawatts exported in those nine months could have supplied power to 1.7 million average Ontario households for the full year.

What’s really annoying is finding out that our neighbours in Buffalo are engaged in an industry attraction effort that is meeting with some success. A recent article about the NY government subsidized building ($750 million) of SolarCity’s “gigafactory” in Buffalo to manufacture solar panels indicates they are on the comeback trail and attracting investments.  One of the reasons is because they are able to offer a “huge benefit: the electricity rate for manufacturers averages just 4.79 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is possible because of cheap hydroelectric power generated from Niagara Falls.”

Because some of our power generated from Niagara Falls1. and other sources in September was sold as surplus power for just 3.19 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), we’re actually helping Buffalo offer those attractive electricity rates.

This fact should remind all Ontarians of the promises made to us by the Ontario Liberal government when it enacted Bill 150, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA).  The April 8, 2009 Standing Committee on General Government transcript on Bill 150, with the then Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman on the stand, elicited this response to a question posed about the effects of the GEA on electricity prices:

“We anticipate about 1% per year of additional rate increase associated with the bill’s implementation over the next 15 years. Our estimate of cost increases is based upon the way that we actually amortize costs in the energy sector.”

Let’s look back to September 2009, the year the Legislature passed the GEA, when Ontario demand for electricity was 10,932,000 megawatt hours (MWh) and compare to September 2015 when Ontario demand was slightly higher (+3.8%), reaching 11,362,000 MWh. IESO’s monthly summary for September 2009 indicates the “average weighted cost” (all-in) to consumers was $82.73/MWh whereas the “average weighted cost” for September 2015 was $125.35/MWh.

That translates to an increase of $42.62/MWh or 4.26 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and cost ratepayers $453 million extra for just one month.  Looking at this in a slightly different way, the extra MWh we consumed for September 2015 versus 2009 came at a cost of $1,196 each or $11.96 per kWh, had generation and delivery costs remained the same through those six years.

It is clear costs to ratepayers have already become a multiple of the Smitherman promise … and we still have nine years left in his forecast.

The Auditor General pointed out the Energy Ministry failed to complete a cost/benefit study before implementing the GEA. There was never any acknowledgement or accounting for the intermittent nature of renewable energy, the fact power is produced when it’s not needed, and the need for renewables to be backed up with other generation (along with transmission line costs to bring it to where it’s needed) was apparently never considered.

And now, in spite of the evidence of the past six years, the march continues to add more wind and solar to the Ontario grid, which means Buffalo and other jurisdictions will reap the rewards.

As Buffalo adds manufacturing jobs, Ontario is shedding them. Ontario’s electricity ratepayers are wondering, what will the next nine years bring?

© Parker Gallant, November 10, 2015

1.  Thanks to Scott Luft for his analysis on the Niagara Falls waste.

Trudeau government to spend $6B on renewable energy: Financial Post

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

cropped-ottawa_silhouette_courtesy_city_of_ottawa.jpg

It is worth a reminder that the Ontario Liberal government, despite recommendations from TWO Auditors General, NEVER did a cost-benefit analysis or impact of its renewable power program. Are we going to see the lessons learned in Ontario played out on a national scale?

Financial Post, October 20, 2015

Likely impact in five key areas

Renewable energy

Trudeau has a particularly ambitious plan for renewable energy projects, with a promise to commit nearly $6 billion in green spending over a four-year period and ramping that up to nearly $20 billion over 10 years. The Liberals will also incorporate climate impact analysis into federal contracting, which could get further money flowing into the green space.

All of that will be welcome news for Canada’s renewable energy companies, especially as the previous government focused investment on the oil and gas sector.

“It is fair to assume that the sector will be a big net winner under this government, as they have carved out specific spending in their infrastructure outlays for green energy,” said BMO’s Porter. “Beyond direct spending on the sector, it’s also safe to assume that the government will support the sector heavily through direct measures.”

…………

For more information on who’s advising our Prime Minister designate, read this account on Gerald Butts, formerly a staffer in the office of Dalton McGuinty, now Trudeau’s top adviser:

Butts was principal secretary to Dalton McGuinty when he assumed the premier’s office. Former secretary of cabinet Tony Dean calls Butts the “smartest senior political and policy adviser that I worked with in almost 20 years in government.”

As Butts helped implement a green energy strategy that would phase out coal and sell a tax his leader had promised never to implement, Telford set out with Kennedy to implement the premier’s ambitious agenda in education.

Reasons for Nov 1 hydro rate increase not transparent

17 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Wind? You pay. No wind? You pay. And pay.

Wind? You pay. No wind? You pay. And pay.

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

The OEB hides the truth on rate increases

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) reported their semi-annual bad news via the News Release that always contains depressing announcements about upcoming rate increases.   Couched in words meant to assuage the reader, is this statement: “The price is increasing by approximately $4.42 per month on the ‘Electricity’ line, and about 3.4% on the total bill, for a household that consumes 800 kWh per month.”

The OEB doesn’t issue a press release when your local distribution company increases their rates, part of the “total bill,” so that reference is meaningless.

If you look at the actual price rise from November 1, 2014 to November 1, 2015 the increase is considerably more than 3.4%.   In fact the increase on the charge for the “Electricity” line is 12.8% excluding the HST applied on that increase.   The charge for electricity for the “household that consumes 800 kWh per month” increased by a total of $130.31, not the $53.04 that the OEB infers.   Even using the “average” RPP (regulated price plan) posted on their site and comparing November 1, 2014 to November 1, 2015, you get an increase of 12.5%!

Costs from renewables are one-third of the increase

Looking further that what’s in the OEB News Release, we find that they attribute the increase as follows: “Increased costs from Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) nuclear and hydro-electric power plants make up about 40% of this increase. Costs from renewable generation sources are another driver, representing about one-third of the increase.” I emphasized the last sentence as it doesn’t reflect certain facts about renewable generation (principally wind and solar), including the need to pay OPG for spilled (unused) hydro power, payments to gas plants to idle (ensuring power is available when the wind dies down or the clouds cover the skies), or directions to complete marginal generation (Mattagami’s project cost was $2.6 billion) which produces power when it’s not needed, in the Spring and Fall periods when Ontario’s demand is low.

Millions lost in one day

You need only look back to October 13, 2015, a windy day when the industrial wind turbines were cranking out unneeded power. The reported 3,450 MW of wind capacity was spitting out an average of 2,200 MW per hour, at a cost for the whole day of $6.5 million. Ontario was busy exporting 2,228 MW every hour that day, being paid 1.8 cents a kWh and at the same time, paying wind developers an average of 12.3 cents per kWh—we lost more than $5.5 million. That’s just one day!

Now if the OEB were really transparent, they would bring these issues to the forefront.   At a minimum, the people who write news releases for the OEB should also be required to take some remedial math courses!

Ontario electricity customers should demand that the Ontario Energy Board, whose mission is to “regulate prices in the public interest,” demonstrate factual reporting and provide consumers with the truth about rate increases.

© Parker Gallant,

October 16, 2015

Overturn wind farm approvals, say Nature groups

12 Saturday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Wolfe Island: high kill rate for birds. Ontario is "tough on Nature" say four Naturalist groups

Wolfe Island: high kill rate for birds. Ontario is “tough on Nature” say four Naturalist groups

Nature Canada News

In an unprecedented partnership, Nature Canada has been joined by Ontario Nature, the Kingston Field Naturalists and the American Bird Conservancy in opposition to a recently approved industrial wind energy project that threatens birds and other wildlife on Amherst Island.

“Ontario’s decision to approve Windlectric’s 26-turbine project on Amherst Island—one of the province’s crown jewels of nature—is another in a string of ‘tough on nature’ decisions to build wind energy projects in Important Bird Areas in the region” said Stephen Hazell, Nature Canada’s Director of Conservation.

“Given Ontario’s failure to consider the cumulative effects of these projects on nature, the Environmental Review Tribunal should overturn the approval of the Amherst Island Project as well as that of White Pines. And given the clear breaches of the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, the federal government should in future apply its environmental assessment process to wind energy projects.”

Purple Martins, one of the species threatened by these projects. Photo Ted Cheskey

Amherst Island, Wolfe Island and the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Areas, all within a few kilometres of each other, are on a bird superhighway during spring and fall migration. They also provide prime breeding habitat for the rapidly declining Purple Martin and several species at risk including Eastern Whip-poor-will, Bobolink, and the long-lived Blanding’s Turtle. 86 turbines were constructed on Wolfe Island in 2009.

Three years of monitoring this project confirmed its reputation as one of the most deadly wind energy projects in North America for birds and bats.

The recent approval of the Amherst and White Pines projects are very bad news for birds, bats, and turtles, and represent the significant industrialization of these ecological treasures. The “new” industrial landscapes will no doubt shock tourists used to the bucolic vistas of the region.

We are all awaiting the final decision on the Ostrander Point project proposal by the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal. Valiantly defended by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, Ostrander Point is Crown land with habitat for rare species of animals and plants on the south shore of Prince Edward County. A proposal to build twelve 150 metre high wind turbines on it was approved, and then successfully appealed by the Naturalists, before passing through all levels of the Ontario judicial system.

Now it is back in the hands of the Environmental Review Tribunal for a final decision.

 

For more information visit http://www.saveostranderpoint.org/.

– See more at: http://naturecanada.ca/news/blog/nature-canada-and-its-partners-raise-their-voices-in-opposition-to-industrial-wind-energy-projects-in-fragile-ibas-in-the-eastern-end-of-lake-ontario/#sthash.RuDpOcug.dpuf

Is Ontario’s push for giant wind farms killing the green energy movement?

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Print

Is Ontario’s rush to wind power killing the green energy movement?

TORONTO, CAN, September 2, 2015

Ontario’s stance as an environmental activist province in Canada and would-be leader in climate change action is taking a beating after the government approved two controversial wind power projects, and continues to fight environmental groups and citizens on a third.

Last week, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approved a 75-megawatt power project on tiny Amherst Island in Lake Ontario. The island is home to several species of wildlife declared endangered or at-risk by the same government, and is also a resting place for migrating birds. The birds attract eco-tourists from all over the world.

The threat of the wind power project to the heritage environment is so great that Heritage Canada’s National Trust named the island one of Canada’s Top Ten Endangered Places.

“There are some places where wind power projects shouldn’t go,” says Michele LeLay, spokesperson for the community group the Association to Protect Amherst Island. “This is one of them.”

Abundance of birds at risk

Also on Lake Ontario, is Prince Edward County where the province recently approved another large wind power generation project for the South Shore. The environmental danger is undeniable, says Cheryl Anderson, of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists: “Data gathered over 20 years confirms the South Shore is a major migratory pathway for an astonishing diversity and abundance of birds. This unique blend of ecosystems supports numerous varieties of rare plants, eight species of at-risk turtles, Monarch butterflies and many amphibian species.  Because of its unique biodiversity, the value of Prince Edward County’s South Shore is unparalleled as an ecotourism venue.”

The Ontario government heads back to the quasi-judicial Environmental Review Tribunal in September, to hear the appeal of a wind power project at Ostrander Point, also in Prince Edward County, halted by the Tribunal in 2013 due to the danger to a rare species of turtle. After several sessions in court, the decision has been returned to the Tribunal where community groups are in the unusual position of spending hundreds of thousands to protect the environment from the Ministry of the Environment.

Prince Edward County Mayor Robert Quaiff is outraged at the approvals and has been trying to see the Premier of Ontario, so far with no luck. In a letter to her he said “efforts to implement the Green Energy Act [legislation pushing wind power] are becoming counter-productive through resulting negative impacts to endangered species, as well as the prosperity and well-being of rural Ontario Communities.”

The concern about Ontario’s pro-wind agenda and resulting environmental damage is not limited to the southern parts of the province. Canada is known around the world for its iconic landscapes in the Algoma region around Lake Superior, now also the site for unbridled wind power development. Hills and valleys made famous by Canada’s Group of Seven artists are now scarred by clear-cutting of trees, flattening of ridges, and the construction of roads and turbine foundations.

George Browne of Lake Superior Action Research Conservation (LSARC) says the devastation to the wilderness is immense. Wilderness, he says, “is a rare and unique feature, understood by many to represent the grandeur of nature; vastness is an essential part of the aesthetic appeal of the landscape. It is worthy of conservation.”

Approval of projects in fragile areas will tarnish green energy industry

Nature groups believe that Ontario’s inappropriate choices for wind power development will actually harm the green energy movement. Ontario Nature and Nature Canada jointly stated: “We sincerely believe [approval of the Amherst Island project] will further tarnish Ontario’s green energy industry, and ultimately undermine future projects in less controversial areas. The opposition of this project in the naturalist community is palpable. The risks of killing large numbers of raptors, swallows and bobolinks is high. Approval will further alienate a segment of Ontario’s population from the green energy agenda and tip an already fragile balance.”

Ontario is guilty of hypocrisy says Ontario’s premier community coalition, Wind Concerns Ontario. “The government’s recent decisions show they have lost their way,” says President Jane Wilson. “Killing birds and despoiling wilderness is not the way to save the environment.”

END

Contact: Wind Concerns Ontario www.windconcernsontario.ca

Email us here.

Prince Edward County South Shore: major pathway for migratory birds

Prince Edward County South Shore: major pathway for migratory birds

Nation residents to fight wind farms

08 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

500 residents crowd community centre: “this will destroy The Nation”

"Save The Nation" banner says it all [Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario]
“Save The Nation” banner says it all [Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario]

More than 500 residents of the municipality of Nation, about 45 minutes east of Ottawa, met on Wednesday night to learn more, and discuss action on two wind power proposals for their community: a 150-megawatt project by EDF, and a 75-MW project by Leader Resources.Among the speakers was Carmen Krogh, known internationally for her research on the impacts of wind turbine noise emissions on human health. A particular concern for Krogh, she expressed that evening, is the effect of the wind turbine emissions on children. Despite clear guidance from the World Health Organization and other bodies in public health about exposing children to possible harm, Ontario has proceeded to build wind power projects in communities close to homes.

Other speakers detailed the environmental impacts of the proposed wind turbine arrays, and commented on the degree of impact on the community for very little benefit.

Organizer Julie Leroux commented that the public was left out of a decision by council to support wind power; after signing an agreement to be an unwilling host as a member of the United Counties of Prescott-Russell, Nation then approved a motion of support for a wind power project by Sierra Nevada, in 2013. Nation’s mayor has gone on record in the agricultural media as saying he supported the current EDF proposal, and that Nation is a “willing host.”

We are not, said Leroux.

The community group Save The Nation requested time to make a presentation to Council but was not scheduled to do so now until August 31st; the deadline for wind power proposals under the new process is September 1st, the next day.

Questions and comments afterward were a clear demonstration not only that the community is already well informed on this issue, they are passionate about protecting their way of life, the social fabric of Nation, and the agricultural economic base.

“This will destroy the Nation, if it happens,” said one gentleman.

Another, who had travelled to Wolfe Island to see turbines to educate himself (Note: a better trip would be to Brinston, south of Ottawa, where EDP is operating 3-MW turbines in the South Branch power project), said he was shocked at the environmental impact of the wind power machines. “The foundations for these things are huge,” he said, “and they will never go away.”

If the wind power projects are approved said one young farmer, who said he was speaking for others in his demographic of 20s and 30s, it will destroy the local economy and way of life in Nation. “We’re leaving,” he said simply.

Organizers for the event and members of Save The Nation  said that no members of Nation council attended the meeting as far as they knew but MPP Grant Crack’s executive assistant was there.

Breaking News: Wind Concerns Ontario has learned that Nation Council will be discussing the community reaction to the wind power proposals on Monday, August 10.

Photos show wind farm devastation of Algoma

30 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Wind Concerns Ontario, July 30, 2015

Toronto photographer documents wind farm destruction in Ontario’s North

Wind is green, wind is good: photo shows blasting for access roads and turbine foundations in Algoma Highlands Photo: Gord Benner
Wind is green, wind is good: photo shows blasting for access roads and turbine foundations in Algoma Highlands Photo: Gord Benner

Toronto area resident and photographer Gord Benner took a circle tour of Lake Superior this summer and was astonished to see the damage being done by wind “farm” construction in Ontario’s formerly pristine North, especially the iconic Algoma region which was so often the subject of paintings done by the Group of Seven. The Algoma region attracts visitors from around the world.

Today, Benner says, they will see roads and transmission lines, and turbines to generate power where before there was Nature.

Benner writes:

“We started the Lake Superior Circle Tour at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and proceeded clockwise through Wisconsin and Minnesota. Didn’t see any wind turbines until after we entered Ontario. The IWTs [industrial wind turbines] installed near Dorion were not visible from the highway, but sure enough, there they were along the most scenic section of the Trans Canada Highway 17, from Lake Superior Provincial Park south to Sault Ste. Marie. Cottages and camps that we visited at Bow, Negick and Trim Lakes were surrounded by these huge machines.

“Sadly, nature, tourism and Group of Seven landscapes are taking a real beating.”

With woodlands cut away, and hilltops blasted flat, the damage caused by wind “farm” construction will be irreversible.

windconcerns@gmail.com

Huge turbines dwarf the landscape; here, a truck travels over a new road built for the power project in Algoma
Huge turbines dwarf the landscape; here, a truck travels over a new road built for the power project in Algoma

 

The truth about ‘saving’ electricity

12 Sunday Jul 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Ottawa-based energy economist Robert Lyman has taken a critical eye to advertisements on energy conservation

This week, people living in Ottawa are being bombarded with radio and newspaper advertisements proclaiming that the electrical energy they “saved” over the past six years was enough to “power our arenas”.

How about some “truth in advertising”?

There is a big difference between reducing your energy use and “saving” money. When a residential householder in Ontario reduces electricity use, that may temporarily reduce his or her electricity bill, but it does not reduce the costs that are incurred by the various companies that are involved in generating, transmitting and distributing electricity. All of those companies are government-owned and regulated utilities. Unlike private companies that, faced with reduced demand for their services, have to cut back production and costs, the electrical utilities are completely protected by their regulated rate structures. When sales go down, they simply apply to the regulator (the Ontario Energy Board) to raise their rates per unit of sale, denominated in kilowatts per hour (kWh). So, the price for the consumer just goes up after the next rate hearing.

But it gets worse, far worse.

When the Ontario government advertises about “saving energy,” it is not talking about saving consumers money. It is talking about— in theory— reducing the costs associated with generating and transporting electrical energy to consumers. Reducing demand usually refers to two things: reducing the overall average use of electricity and switching the use of electricity from the peak periods of day and season to other times. Reducing the average use over time reduces the amount of generating capacity of all kinds that the electrical utilities need to build. Reducing the peak uses can, in theory, cut the amount of peaking capacity (electrical energy generation capacity that stands idle to be used when needed) that has to be built.

So, in theory, Ontario wants us all to use less electricity so that its utilities won’t have to build more expensive generating plants and transmissions lines. This is where things start to get bizarre. You see, back in 2002, people were justifiably worried that Ontario would not have enough generating capacity. So the province started to add more, and more, and more. In fact, Ontario has added more than 12,400 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity since 2002. As of March 2015, the Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) had 18,458 MW of in-service generating capacity, not counting the significant amount of solar powered capacity that is contracted by the several distribution utilities in the province. The Ontario Auditor General, in his December, 2014 report, found that, while IESO is required to maintain an operating reserve of between 1,300 and 1,600 MW for contingencies, since 2009 the available surplus has been between 4,000 and 5,900 MW.

Meanwhile, IESO is busily contracting for immense amounts of additional capacity, mostly to meet the dictates of the 2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act. In 2015 alone, newly contracted supply of renewable energy sources (wind, solar and biomass) totaled 1,700 MW, raising the amount of IESO contracted (but not necessarily built) supply to 21,000 MW. This contracted supply is on a path to reach 23,000 MW by the 2018–2022 period. Demand continues to fall every year.

With massive and costly oversupply and a legislated mandate to continue contracting for more, what does IESO do? Does it cut back on its “conserve, conserve, conserve” campaign? Why no, it ramps it up. The present focus is on two strategies — programs and pricing. The programs include plenty of advertising and financial inducements to get people to use less electricity, programs that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are charged to — you guessed it — Ontario electricity ratepayers.

The pricing strategy is delivered though the use of “smart meters” and time-of-use pricing is to gouge ratepayers until they yell “uncle.” The rate for on-peak service went up on May 1, 2015 to 16.1 cents per kWh.

Despite all this activity, the surplus continues to grow. So the power is exported. In 2014, Ontario’s exports totaled 19.1 terawatt hours (TWh), sold at a loss of $1.4 billion. If current trends this year continue, export sales will reach an all-time high and an all-time maximum loss of about $2 billion. You already know who will pay for that.

In effect, every kWh saved is another kWh exported and more money lost. Keep that in mind when you hear the ads.

Robert Lyman

Ottawa

“Cosmic math”: wind developers hold open house in Eastern Ontario

09 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

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

Ontario Farmer

By Ian Cumming

St. Isidore–With a September 1 deadline to apply to the Ontario government for a share of the provincial allotted windpower megawatts (MW), four wind companies held public information open houses in three eastern Ontario counties, detailing their area proposed projects.

Two of these were: the RES Canada presentation in Vankleek Hill for the 15-turbine, 40 MW Gauthier project on June 22, and the EDF EN Canada presentation for the 14-MW project in St. Isidore on June 23.

With EDF having a large number of solar and wind proects in 19 countries throughout the world, including scattered throughout the United States plus Alberta and Quebec, the company is looking to expand its presence in Ontario, says David Thornton, from stakeholder relations at the company.

Wind developer exec former McGuinty staffer

Thornton started as a staffer in Premier McGuinty’s office, was the former campaign manager for the Ontario LIberal Party, and over six years at Queen’s Park, was senior policy advisor for renewable energy at the Ministry of Energy, and also senior policy advisor for land use planning and municipal affairs at Municipal Affairs.

Thornton and his staff fielded questions from the audience.

“Who do you work for?” Thornton asked Sylvia [sic] Gagnon. “I work for no one,” Gagnon replied. “I live in North Glengarry and I’m against the invasion of our beautiful farmland by these monstrosities.

“I came here for answers and instead I’m talking to a lot of slippery people.”

The over 160 farmers signed up for the St. Isidore project “are more than who will get windmills,” said Thornton to Ontario Farmer. “That’s the way these projects work.”*

However, “all these farmers who sign up will be paid something, whether they get a windmill or not,” added Mark Gallagher from EDF.

The concept of also paying local supportive residents who have signed up a minimum of $1,000 per year** “was something I brought from Ireland,” said Gallagher. “They do that over there, pay people on a per acre basis.”

EDF pays the municipal taxes on the windmills, said Gallagher *** which would come to $150,000 per year on a project smaller than what they are proposing in St. Isidore.

He noted that, on top of that, they are committed to invest heavily in sports grants and other community projects over the next two decades. ****

The one farmer who held out from EDF, having 700 acres in the St. Isidore area as part of his 5,000 acres in two counties, gave a quick walk through scanning the posters and [said] “I’ve seen enough, I’m going home,” he told Ontario Farmer.

This is going to end badly

He said his instincts are telling him “this is going to end badly.

“It’s a business model based on a falsehood that can’t sustain itself. Some day people won’t be able to pay more on their hydro bills.”

The night before, in Vankleek Hill, the RES Canada presentation had fewer posters but the issues and the concerns for those attending were exactly the same.

“I have no idea where the Liberal government is getting the money for these things,” said local mayor [Champlain] Gary Barton at the RES presentation. Barton, unlike his counterpart in St. Isidore is not embracing the proposed project in his area.

However, under the Green Energy Act, “there is nothing I can legally do,” said Barton.

He recalled a specific face-to-face meeting several years ago [that] involved him and another local mayor with then Ontario Energy minister George Smitherman, expressing concerns about a large solar project in their area.

“He told us there is nothing you can do,” said Barton.

Electrical engineer Stan Thayer was at the RES presentation noting, “I’m not against anything. When I was at McGill in the 1970s we worked with solar panels and wind mills. I understand all this.

“But, I can’t afford it,” said Thayer. “Plus, the BS being presented to the public is wrong,” he said.

Cosmic math

“No one has shown me facts from any windmill, no matter the size, making a profit,” said Thayer.

“They are using cosmic math,” he said. “Because we don’t know where they are getting their numbers. They don’t add up, multiply or divide.”

 

EDITOR NOTES:

* It’s the way they work now: the new procurement process requires sign-off from adjacent landowners so developers are paying people.

** $1,000 a year for noise, vibration and changed property value?

*** Taxes on wind turbines (they are NOT “windmills”) are capped under the Green Energy Act at $40,000 per megawatt, in spite of the fact the turbines cost $2-3 million. The property tax revenue is less than 20 or so houses.

**** The wind developers get to choose where the money from their “vibrancy” or community funds go, and they like to choose sports so they can have their name plastered all over it as advertising.