April 2015: surplus wind power costs Ontario millions
Energy Minister hiding his head over consumer losses due to surplus power, lots of it wind
Electricity exports cost heading for $2 billion in 2015
The continued costs to Ontario’s ratepayers for the oversupply of electricity generation in Ontario continued in April 2015; we exported another 2 terawatts (TWh) of power to our neighbours. April’s exported TWh brings exports for the first four months of 2015 to 8.65 TWh — that’s enough to supply 900,000 average Ontario ratepayers with power for a full year.
Surplus exports represented over 19% of Ontario’s total demand for the month; that figure doesn’t include curtailed wind, steamed-off nuclear or spilled hydro.
The cost (Hourly Ontario Electricity Price + Global Adjustment) to ratepayers for exported power in April was $223 million. We sold it for 1.57 cents per kilowatt hour, thereby generating only $32 million. Ontario’s electricity ratepayers had to eat $191 million in losses that will find their way to the Global Adjustment pot and the “electricity” line on our bills.
As noted in a prior article, the first quarter of the current year generated losses (costs to ratepayers) of $437 million. So now, with the April figures, those costs to date are $608 million or $135 per ratepayer.
We still have eight months left in the year: at the current pace, our bill to support surplus exports will amount to over $400 for the average ratepayer.
Wind power generation for April represented 39% of the exported volume as it produced about 850,000 MWh (megawatt hours) at an average of $123.50 per/MWh, meaning its cost of $104 million represented almost 50% of total export costs.
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli doesn’t seem to notice our growing surplus*; however, he has directed the IESO to acquire another 500 MW of renewable energy from wind and solar in 2015, and mandated conservation of another 7 TWh by 2020.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.
Editor’s note: speaking at a wind power information evening in Finch, Ontario, on May 6th, Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Don McCabe said there is no surplus of power in Ontario. This is a lot of lost power and a lot of losses to electricity consumers—including farmers—to deny.
Land owners need to be socially responsible when deciding to sign leases for wind turbines, Wind Concerns Ontario tells Ontario Federation of Agriculture president
The following is a letter sent by Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson to OFA president Don McCabe, in response to remarks made by Mr. McCabe at a wind farm information meeting in Finch, Ontario. Several of Mr. McCabe’s comments to the audience, such as that there is no surplus of power in Ontario, were not correct, WCO said in the letter.
As well, while Mr. McCabe’s advice to landowners to “get a lawyer” is sound, Wilson said, the attitude that landowners need to concentrate only on getting everything they want in a lease is isolationist and archaic, and is helping to divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.
“Not one word was said about responsibility to community, and neighbours. This [attitude] does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others,” Wilson said.
The letter was sent to Mr. McCabe, and the Board of Directors for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Dear Mr. McCabe:
It was interesting to meet you last week in Finch, Ontario at the Lions’ Club event, where we both spoke, along with Mr. Levy of CanWEA.
I was relieved to hear your strong advice to those attending and contemplating signing a lease with a wind power developer, to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.” This is excellent advice: as you know, these contracts typically contain dozens of pages of various clauses outlining requirements and limitations…many people do not understand what they are being asked to sign.
I was disappointed, however, in other aspects of your presentation. First, there were a couple of statements made that are not correct and may even be misleading.
Power surplus in Ontario: in my presentation I had suggested that more wind power projects were not necessary, especially not for a form of power generation that is intermittent, produced out-of-phase with demand and is expensive, causing Ontario electricity rates to rise. You countered by saying that Ontario has no surplus of power. This is not correct: the Ontario Energy Minister himself admits that Ontario has surplus power and also says that the province will have a surplus for years to come. See his quotes and the forecast for power rates in a Globe and Mail article here.
“Net metering”: you told the audience that they should arrange in their lease to share in the wind power produced by any turbines on their land. This is not correct—it is unlikely one could get power from the wind turbine on a farm, and moreover, it would be in violation of the contract the wind power developer has with the Ontario government to obtain the Feed In Tariff to do that.
Turbine noise: you suggested to the audience that if the noise from turbines were to bother them, they could make sure that there is a clause in the lease so that the power developer would have to address that. This is extremely unlikely; at present, there are thousands of noise complaints in Ontario that go unresolved by either the developer or the Ministry of the Environment.
Community input to power projects: In response to several questions from the floor, you did advise people to go to the government website on the new Large Renewable Power Request for Proposal process, but you also suggested to at least one audience member that there is nothing communities can do, if a power proposal comes forward. That is not correct: people can work with their municipal governments, members of their community, and also choose not to sign the agreement required of adjacent property owners.
Contracts: I believe you also suggested to a farm owner who had signed a contract/option and was now having second thoughts that there was nothing he could do. This also is not correct, and would have been another opportunity for you to advise him to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.”
That brings me to the second area of disappointment in your presentation: the overarching theme of your remarks was that if people are going to sign a lease for a wind turbine project they should make certain that they get concessions from the power developer that benefit them. There was not a single mention in your remarks of the need for responsible consideration of other members of one’s community, including fellow farm operators, and neighbours.
This was a very narrow view that demonstrates no balance and instead indicates an archaic, “I can do whatever I want on my land” view. This does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others.
Our concern with this isolationist view of farm ownership is that it will further divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.
OFA needs to clarify its position on this matter, and further, consider advising your membership that when it comes to deciding whether to participate in a wind power project, the responsible course of action is to balance their financial opportunities with the economic, health and social needs of others around them.
We would be pleased to meet with the OFA Board to discuss our concerns.
Wind developers can use farm leases as security for financing the power project
Ontario Farmer, May 5, 2015
by Garth Manning and Jane Wilson
It came as a surprise to many in Ontario when it was revealed that the multi-national power developers behind the K2 wind power generation project near Goderich had secured $1 B in financing, and that this arrangement is now registered on title for the 100 farm properties involved as lessors.
The arrangement is between K2 Wind Ontario Inc. and Mizuho Bank Ltd. Canada Branch. It secures a revolving credit facility of up to $1 billion at 25% on a number of items, including the contracts between landowners and K2 for land and road agreements with municipalities.
Another, smaller example has also come to light: a wind power project south of Ottawa in Eastern Ontario, where the five landowners leasing land for a 30-megawatt, 10-turbine project now have charges on their properties for $70 million.
Immediately, questions arise as to what would happen if the power developers were to default on their loans: would the lender then own the farm properties? How would that affect road use agreements with municipalities?
The fact is, this is a common practice. Property owners can refer to the leases imposed by the developers to review this potential situation, and many others that may affect operation and ownership of their land while leasing land for the power projects.
In an Invenergy standard contract, for example, is this clause: “In connection with the Lessee’s financing of the Project, the Lessee….is hereby given the right by the Lessor…to mortgage its interests in the Lease…and to assign this Lease, or any part of parts thereof, and any subleases as collateral security…”
The proper term for this is a “Charge of Lease” but may also be referred to as a “Demand Debenture.” What it means is, the present value of the wind power contract (i.e., the Feed In Tariff or FIT contract with the Ontario government) is greater than the present value of the lease amount. The difference between those two amounts is security for the loan to the power developer. It is a charge against all contracts favourable to the wind power developer, which may also include road use agreements.
It is like a line of credit for the developer and typically, advances against the amount are tied to certain milestones such as stages of construction.
The critical factor, however, is what it means for the lessors, in other words the farm owners who have leased their land for wind turbines, access roads, substations, transmission lines, etc. The importance lies not so much that the farmer lessors might on default lose their land (the farm land itself is not mortgaged, just the turbine contract on that land) but the damage it does to that property owner if he/she wants to sell, or to renew an existing mortgage, or place a new one, or in any way borrow money for which the lender would want security on his/her land.
Let’s assume a farm owner wants financing for farm operations or improvements. That might now pose difficulty: lenders do not like to be second in line, as they would be where a charge of lease is in place.
If the farm owner wishes to sell, similar difficulties arise: the lawyer for a purchaser in the case of an agreement to purchase will do a title search and discover the Charge of Lease on title, then immediately advise his or her client that the client is entitled to get out of the deal unless the registration of the Charge is removed from title. A purchaser is not expected to assume any risk of this nature.
In the case of renewing an existing mortgage or placing a new one, the lawyer for the bank or other lending institution would take the same position — no renewal or new mortgage unless the customer sees that the Charge disappears from title.
This is one of several important characteristics of signing a lease to have wind turbines, and needs to be thoroughly considered. Other legal issues to be carefully considered may include potential liability for the substantial cost of “decommissioning” turbines at the end of the lease, difficulty obtaining insurance on property with wind turbines, loss of autonomy over building on the property and carrying out regular farming practices, and, last, the potential for nuisance suits from neighbours affected by noise or property value loss.
Property owners should consult with a lawyer before signing any agreement.
Garth Manning is a retired lawyer and former president of the Ontario Bar Association, who lives in Prince Edward County. Jane Wilson is president of Wind Concerns Ontario; she lives in North Gower.
Ontario ratepayers on the hook for Ontario deficit
Ontario on the brink of the financial abyss–with electricity ratepayers on the hook for millions [Photo: the whirlpool in Niagara Gorge]
“Building Ontario Up”…to a huge disappointment
A letter directed to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, dated April 1, 2015, suggesting how he might stop the climb in electricity prices remains unanswered.
The budget preview posted on the WCO site April 19, 2015, however, has been verified. The Ontario Budget, “Building Ontario Up,” released by Finance Minister Sousa April 23, 2015 has lots of bad news for Ontario ratepayers.
Prior to the release of the budget, Sousa released a 191-page report: “Ontario’s Long-Term Report on the Economy,” which got no media attention. The report speaks to the wonders of how the current government plans for Ontario’s future will look, but with a caveat: “It is beyond the scope of projections of this nature to quantify the risks of global political disruptions, extreme weather due to climate change, major health emergencies such as pandemics, disruptive technologies or an increase in international conflicts. Any of these factors, in addition to other unforeseen risks, could significantly impact the long-term outlook for the Ontario economy.”
With respect to electricity, it had this to say: “This will mean pursuing lower-cost options to meet energy needs when and where they are needed and other initiatives to reduce the cost increases in electricity now and in the future. Compared to the previous plan, the 2013 LTEP is expected to reduce projected cost increases by a cumulative $16 billion in the near term (2013–17), and $70 billion by 2030.”
The take-away from the lack of a response from Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli is that the Liberal agenda, as it relates to the electricity sector, is written in stone and ratepayers are now regarded as a “revenue tool.” Ratepayers are needed to pay for the agenda, to help balance the budget, and eliminate the deficit, despite the dishonest comment in the preceding quote.
The budget confirmed most of the preview forecast and included areas that extracts after-tax ratepayer dollars, despite the rhetoric in the “Long-Term Report on the Economy.” Non-budget Items, Reduced Spending and Increased Revenue from Ratepayers are three categories reviewed as follows.
►Non-budget Items affecting ratepayers
The budget claims the province is making “investments” falsely by extracting monies from ratepayers as the following quote about the “Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program” (NIER) notes: “the government is committing to ongoing support for northern industrial facilities beyond March 2016, with continued investment of up to $120 million annually.”
The $120 million referenced will be paid by ratepayers, not taxpayers. It’s just one example. The rest include: the newly announced Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) for “low-income” households of $225 million (see below under “Reduced Spending”); the Class A to Class B shift for industrial consumers with peak demand of 3 Megawatts costing an estimated $200 million; the recently approved rate increase by the Ontario Energy Board for the OPG which increased electricity costs $600 million; and the anticipated increases in delivery charges for LDC (local distribution companies) of $600 million. Collectively the foregoing represent over $1.7 billion. This additional cost to ratepayers attracts the Ontario Portion of the HST (see below under “Increased Revenue”).
►Reduced Spending
The Ontario Clean Energy Benefit will officially end December 31, 2015 meaning the forecast in the budget reduces this cost by $220 million; it will be followed in the next budget by a further reduction of $900 million. This reduced spending will than be paid fully by ratepayers and include the HST, raising costs another $145 million putting $90 million into Ontario’s sales tax revenue slot. The budget also shows a cut of $243 million in “Social Service” spending reflecting the advent of the OESP. Total reduced spending next year will be $450 million and in two years, will be reduced by $1.4 billion!
►Increased Revenue from ratepayers
The budget anticipates increased Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PIL) of $315 million. That means the province is anticipating huge profits being generated by LDC that will be directly taken from ratepayers’ pockets. In addition, the province’s portion of “sales tax” (forecast to increase $1.2 billion) on HST revenues will produce another $160 million for the 2015/16 year and in excess of $230 million in 2016/17. Increased Revenue will be $550 million.
Eliminating the double counting on LDC revenue (PIL of $315 versus forecast “Non-budget Item” of $600 million) and “Social Service” spending ($243 million) will saddle ratepayers with costs in excess of $2.1 billionfor budget year 2015/16 and $3.1 billion the following year—that’s without including the costs of the additional industrial wind and solar generation now in the contracting process!
In short
The ratepayers in Ontario should be grateful the reduction in those “projected cost increases by a cumulative $16 billion in the near term (2013–17), and $70 billion by 2030” have been tackled by our incumbent government, or the excesses we have seen, past, present and future from the proliferation of industrial wind turbines and solar panels, would have driven all industry from Ontario and have us freezing in the dark and unable to buy groceries.
As it is, the budget claims: “Ontario remains the leading destination in North America for FDI”(Foreign Direct Investment). That particular claim fails to mention that as much as $25 billion of the “FDI” came from foreign companies rushing to Ontario to sign those lucrative ratepayer-backed wind and solar contracts, guaranteeing them 20 years of subsidies!
The current Liberal government has brought Ontario to the brink of the whirlpool. Unless they change their push for more wind and solar generation “Athens-on-the-lake” (a.k.a. Queen’s Park) and Ontario will be sucked into the abyss.
Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario, today. Todd Smith, MPP for Prince Edward-Hastings, rose in the Ontario Legislature yesterday with a question for Environment Minister Glen Murray. In lieu of the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to rescind approval for a wind power development that would cause serious and irreversible harm to an endangered species, Smith said, would the Minister’s department now stop development on that site and further, stop aiding the wind power developer to destroy the ecosystem on the south shore of Prince Edward County? Minister Murray said he commended the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists for their activism (saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of after-tax dollars spent by Ontario citizens to protect the environment form thew Ministry of the Environment), and offered to meet with the MPP on this issue. See the video of the exchange here.
A turtle that insists on crossing a road has put a stop to a massive wind-energy development in Eastern Ontario.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that a 324-hectare, nine-turbine wind farm proposed for the south shore of Prince Edward County puts a population of endangered Blanding’s turtles at risk of dying out in that region’s wetland. The risk is posed not by the wind farm itself but by 5.4 kilometres of roads to and from the site. Experts said the turtles, which range widely as part of their natural life cycle, would inevitably try to cross those roads, exposing them to vehicles, predators and human poachers.
The ruling restores an environmental tribunal’s 2013 decision that the wind farm, while not posing a serious risk to human health, would cause “serious and irreversible” harm to the Blanding’s turtle. That ruling had been rejected by Ontario Divisional Court partly because the tribunal did not know how many turtles live in the provincially significant wetland.
But the Ontario Court of Appeal said the number of turtles at risk does not matter. “The number of Blanding’s turtles, no matter what that number is, satisfies the criteria” for being deemed threatened and endangered, the court said in a 3-0 ruling written by Justice Russell Juriansz. It cited testimony from Frédéric Beaudry, a wildlife ecologist at Alfred University in New York State, that the number is “likely small.”
The Court of Appeal ruling means the case now goes back to the environmental tribunal to decide what should happen with the project, including whether an alternative plan can be permitted that takes the turtles into account. The company involved, Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP, had proposed at an earlier stage to close the road to public access.
The ruling is a setback for Ontario’s multibillion-dollar wind energy business. “It will mean that, in future, wind companies are going to have to pay attention to some of these environmental effects,” said Stephen Hazell, director of conservation and a lawyer with Nature Canada, which supported the suit launched by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, a local conservancy group.
Mr. Hazell added that other groups with concerns about the impact of wind projects in their own jurisdictions now have “a legal test that in some cases they may be able to meet.”
During the initial hearing, conservationists argued that the wind project would have adverse effects on a number of species, including migratory birds, but the final decision came down to the Blanding’s turtle alone because of its extreme sensitivity to human activity, particularly roads.
With a bright yellow throat, a gentle disposition and an expression that resembles a perpetual smile, the species makes a tempting target for poaching, even by well-meaning individuals looking for an unusual pet. But Blanding’s turtles usually die once they are captured or released in a different location.
Ponderously slow to grow and mature, females of the species generally do not reproduce until they reach 18 years of age. Even then, they may only lay eggs every other year. The turtle’s long life span offsets its slow replacement rate – adults may live 90 years or more – but only in places when individuals have a good chance of avoiding lethal encounters along the way.
“Losing a couple of females can, in the long run, do a population in,” said Dr. Beaudry, a world expert on the species.
He added that he had no doubt the turtles would be crossing the roads if the wind project went ahead, as they typically travel for kilometres from the places where they hatch in search of food or mates.
Blanding’s turtles are considered globally endangered. Small populations are found in scattered pockets from the American Midwest to Nova Scotia.
OWC editor’s note: counsel for the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists was Eric Gillespie, environmental lawyer based in Toronto. Ottawa Wind Concerns has Mr Gillespie’s firm on retainer.
Here, from energy economist Robert Lyman, a discussion of the recent announcement of a “cap and trade” arrangement for Ontario.
Various politicians and academics in Canada have recently called for the introduction of a carbon tax as a means of stimulating a reduction in greenhouses gas emissions. This is welcome news to provincial governments like that of Kathleen Wynne in Ontario that are desperate for new sources of funds. The central arguments for a carbon tax, in terms of economic theory, are that such a tax would create a price disincentive affecting the use of all fossil fuels sources of energy (i.e., oil products, coal, and natural gas) and that it would be more even-handed and economically efficient than the current complex system of subsidies, incentives, and regulatory mandates that are now used in almost every sector of the economy to discourage fossil fuel consumption and emissions.
British Columbia, it is claimed, has already found success with a carbon tax of about seven cents per liter on gasoline. Allegedly, this caused gasoline consumption in the province to drop from 2008 to 2012, even as British Columbia economic performance overall was one of the best in Canada.
Such arguments, in my view, are based on wishful thinking and poor understanding of the institutional context within which carbon taxes have been implemented. Here are ten reasons why imposition of a carbon tax in Ontario would be a very bad idea.
Provincial government, Hydro One both to blame for the mess
West Carleton Review
To the Editor:
Your April 9 edition of the West Carleton Review contained a number of articles and letters to the editor regarding our sad state of affairs with regard to Hydro in Ontario.
Hydro in the last century has become one of our essential services, and as the ice storm of 1998 demonstrated, our lives revolve around electricity to power everything in our homes and even the gas stations that fuel our vehicles.
However, in Ontario the distribution, sale and production of hydro is treated as a political spectator sport with boondoggles, lies, smart meter errors, overpaid employees and corruption being the order of the day.
Even the Auditor-General (AG) has taken this government to task regarding hydro, but the Minister, Bob Chiarelli, tries to shame the AG by stating that it is a complicated file and she doesn’t have the knowledge required to ascertain the problems at hydro, let alone recommendations on how to fix them, a fact that was quickly debunked when we found out that the AG used to work for Manitoba Hydro.
I feel it is the minister that is “out of his league” on this file.
And now the same minister and government want to implement a low-income plan to help pay for the most expensive electricity in North America by further increasing the cost of electricity to the millions who will not qualify for this subsidy since the bar has been set so low as to be mostly ineffective and unavailable to most customers of hydro. This certainly appears to be nothing else but a PR exercise on the part of the government.
There is no good reason why we should have installed so many wind turbines or solar farms, both of which need an alternative back-up source of electrical power, since both wind and sun are unreliable sources of continuous energy available on demand.
The fact that there is no available mechanism to store surplus electrical power produced by wind or solar, Hydro One sells it on the open market at a substantial loss. Unfortunately, the current government has tied their hands for quite a few more years with multi-billion dollar contracts to foreign companies to supply either the turbines or the solar panels.
In my estimation, the only solution to the mess created by this government is to buy power from reliable and affordable sources of electricity producing jurisdictions, such as Quebec Hydro or Manitoba Hydro.
Hydro One cannot be trusted to produce the required amount of affordable power required and this government, regretably, has created most of the current (no pun intended) mess it finds itself in on the hydro file.
Ontario will follow the EU at its peril — power rates will soar while industries depart
As the Ontario government announces new unilateral climate policies, Canadian policymakers would be well advised to heed the lessons of Europe’s self-defeating green energy debacle.
The European Union has long been committed to unilateral efforts to tackle climate change. For the last 20 years, Europe has felt a duty to set an example through radical climate policy-making at home. Political leaders were convinced that the development of a low-carbon economy based on renewables would give Europe a competitive advantage.
European governments have advanced the most expensive forms of energy generation at the expense of the least expensive kinds. No other major emitter has followed the EU’s aggressive climate policy and targets. As a result, electricity prices in Europe are now more than double those in North America and Europe’s remaining and struggling manufacturers are rapidly losing ground to international competition. European companies and investors are pouring money into the U.S., where energy prices have fallen to less than half those in the EU, thanks to the shale gas revolution.
Although EU policy has managed to reduce CO2 emissions domestically, this was only achieved by shifting energy-intensive industries to overseas locations without stringent emission limits, where energy and labour is cheap and which are now growing much faster than the EU.
Most products consumed in the EU today are imported from countries without binding CO2 targets. While the EU’s domestic CO2 emissions have fallen, if you factor in CO2 emissions embedded in goods imported into EU, the figure remains substantially higher.
Of all the unintended consequences of EU climate policy perhaps the most bizarre is the detrimental effect of wind and solar schemes on the price of electricity generated by natural gas. Many gas power plants can no longer operate enough hours. They incur big costs as they have to be switched on and off to back-up renewables.
Most products consumed in the EU today are imported from countries without binding CO2 targets
This week, Germany’s energy industry association warned that more than half of all power plants in planning are about to fold: Even the most efficient gas-fired power plants can no longer be operated profitably.
Every 10 new units worth of wind power installation has to be backed up with some eight units worth of fossil fuel generation. This is because fossil fuel plants have to power up suddenly to meet the deficiencies of intermittent renewables. In short, renewables do not provide an escape route from fossil fuel use without which they are unsustainable.
What the Easter Bunny brought Ontario’s neighbours
Ontario goodies for somebody…just not you
Ontario’s ratepayers won’t care much for what the Easter Bunny delivered over the long weekend.
Over Friday, Saturday and Sunday on the weekend of April 3, 2015, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) reported we exported 250,500 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity to our friends and neighbours, but they gave us only $6.21 per/MWh for power that cost us at least $90 per/MWh to produce.
The exported power over those three days was equivalent to almost 24% of total Ontario Demand of 1,009,700 MWh.
On top of that, IESO indicated via their Planned Outage Report they constrained, spilled, idled or steamed-off another 238,000 MWh from a variety of generators which represented 23% of total Ontario Demand. Between exports and the outage requirements, ratepayers picked up the tab for 488,000 MWh or 51% of power we didn’t have a demand for.
So, why are we all told to conserve more?
Wind over that weekend generated about 58,000 MWh and represented 23% of exports. The cost of production was $7.1 million ($123 per/MWh) for which we were paid $360K ($6.21 per/MWh) — that’s a loss of $6.7 million.
Ratepayers also picked up the cost of the other 192,500 MWh exported at a cost of $17.5 million and the constrained production at a cost of about $12 million.
$36 million in losses
In those three days, Ontario’s electricity customers paid for all this and saw no benefit. Yet we are obligated to pick up almost $36 million in losses. Doing this every day would results in annual costs of $3 billion, with no benefit!
We need the Liberal government to tell the Easter Bunny to stay home next time and dole out the Easter treats to Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers, instead of our neighbours.
Energy Minister hiding his head over consumer losses due to surplus power, lots of it wind
Ottawa Wind Concerns 