New wind power contracts means more power we don’t need, say analysts

The more wind power we add, the more expensive Ontario’s electricity becomes, say Tom Adams and Scott Luft

Consumers get it, why doesn't the Wynne government?
Consumers get it, why doesn’t the Wynne government?

Financial Post, March 17, 2016

The costs may be high and the need questionable, but Ontarians signed up to buy a lot more renewable power last week when Ontario’s Independent Power System Operator (IESO) announced the results of the province’s latest procurement. The new deal brings “low prices” for new wind and solar generation, says Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli.

No, not “low” like Ontario’s dysfunctional market price for electricity, which was less than two cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh) over half of all hours in 2015. And not “low” like the average 1.2 cents/kWh rate that electricity bound for New York and Michigan has sold for this year. When the Ontario government says “low,” it means seven to fourteen times as much as that, with the IESO reporting the weighted-average price of the new wind power at 8.6 cents/kWh and new solar at 15.7 cents/kWh.

But the effective cost to consumers for the new power, taking into account the portion of the total output that Ontario consumers will actually use, will be much higher than the costs the government quotes in its press releases.

The system operator’s announcement relies on the fallacy of relative privation. In other words: “this unreliable power is not as costly as some other unreliable power you’ve been stuck with.” For instance, the operator’s press release proclaims, “For context, these prices are lower than the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) rates…”

That’s not saying much. The non-competitive FIT wind and solar program started in 2010. Recall in 2011 Ontario’s auditor general warning the province was paying among the highest FIT prices in the world. Revisiting the issue last year, a subsequent auditor general said the program would add billions of dollars to future bills when compared to contracting solar and wind power purchase agreements through competitive bidding.

But rather than heed such warnings, the government barges on. Under the current version of the FIT program, the government will buy wind power from small projects at a 50 per cent premium over the competitive wind price, and solar power at a 30 to 90 per cent premium over competitive solar prices. Other bonuses available to FIT producers allow them to add even higher charges to the bill by, for instance, finding First Nations to accept ownership positions with their projects.

Whether procured competitively or non-competitively, payments to generators for wind and solar production are only the beginning of the ratepayer impact.

New wind and solar contract holders will likely be paid not only for how much power they actually generate, but for a significant portion of their “deemed generation” — that is, what they didn’t produce but might have had the grid been able to accept all of their production, but instead ended up “curtailed” because the grid was oversupplied.

Limiting generators’ exposure to potential curtailment is one way to attract more solar and wind investment (it was even made retroactive to contracts that originally only covered actual generation). When there’s no wind and no sun, such producers aren’t much good, of course. But, now when the wind really blows or it’s brilliantly sunny, Ontario’s power system is increasingly flooded with far more renewable power than it can use. The IESO manages this excess production by selling its power to export markets (with Ontarians subsidizing American power). But even then, the transmission system is often unable to manage carrying the entire surplus away. That leads to nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, and solar production being curtailed, while generators get paid anyway for what they didn’t produce. In 2015, the auditor general found that from 2009 to 2014, Ontario consumers paid generators $339 million for curtailment. And the more wind and solar power we add, the bigger these expensive surpluses become. …

Read the full article here.

Critics blast Ontario wind farm contract process

“A slap in the face for rural Ontario” says Dutton-Dunwich Mayor

84% of Dutton-Dunwich citizens said NO to proposed wind farm. They got one anyway. (Maybe)
84% of Dutton-Dunwich citizens said NO to proposed wind farm. They got one anyway. (Maybe)

 

London Free Press, March 16, 2016

By Debbie Van Brenk and John Miner

A new process to select sites for renewable energy projects was “open, fair and transparent,” says an evaluator hired to ensure selectors followed all the rules.

But critics are furious the same rules let wind firms with low bids trump municipal objections and the “transparent” process doesn’t yet let them know why.

“We were involved in the process of the initial guidelines . . . and we said there had to be co-­operation and support from the community (for a successful bid),” said Cameron McWilliam, mayor of Dutton-Dunwich. “And we didn’t get it. We got ‘community engagement,’ which is what we’d have with any development . . .

“That’s not what we were led to believe were the terms.”

A week after Invenergy got the go-ahead to negotiate a contract with the province for 20 to 25 turbines in Dutton-Dunwich, the municipality is still awaiting word on why it’s getting a project opposed by 84 per cent of the residents who voted in a referendum.

“We don’t have any information as to what the criteria were and what criteria they met,” McWilliam said.

The green energy contract selection process was designed and run by the Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO), a not-for-profit corporation overseeing Ontario’s power system.

Previous rounds of wind energy contracts drew allegations of political interference, including a NAFTA lawsuit by U.S. energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens against Canada. Pickens’ suit, claiming $650 million in damages after his company was denied a contract for a wind farm near Goderich, awaits a NAFTA tribunal ruling.

For this latest round of wind farm procurement, an outside firm was hired as a “fairness advisor.”

The firm, Knowles Canada, in a March 9, 2016, letter posted on IESO’s website, said the procurement in their opinion “fully met provincial standards of an open, fair and transparent process.”

Under the old process of the 2009 Green Energy Act, Ontario set rates it was prepared to pay wind, solar and hydro producers per kilowatt-hour generated.

Under the new process, developers had to submit a price they were willing to accept. Their bid would be weighed along with other ­factors, including community support from municipal ­councils, nearby landowners and First Nations.

An energy developer offering a lower price, but no community support, might still win a contract offer; a developer with community support, but a higher price, might not.

In Malahide, just east of Dutton-Dunwich, for example, council backed Capstone Power Development’s plan to expand its Erie Shores Wind Farm, but the bid was unsuccessful.

“A lot of very, very positive things were working in that project’s favour,” said David Eva, a ­senior Capstone vice-president, ­noting “very strong support” of host municipalities and other features made it “very viable.”

Meanwhile, McWilliam said he’d like to see the numbers now. “IESO is making a big deal about the (open) process, but why can’t they share that? It’s taxpayers’ money.”

His municipality sent a terse email to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, noting council had met him “on numerous occasions” to make the ministry aware residents had “clearly stated they did not want an industrial wind turbine project.”

McWilliam maintains if a municipality doesn’t support a proposal, that should be a deal-breaker.

“It’s a slap in the face for sure for rural Ontario,” he said. “Everybody is scratching their heads.”

Read the full article here.

 

Huron County to probe wind turbine health impacts

First health unit in Ontario to conduct investigation: "if it impacts the health of a community, it's in our jurisdiction"
First health unit in Ontario to conduct investigation: “if it impacts the health of a community, it’s in our jurisdiction”

“We’re treating it as a potential health hazard as if it were a food [poisoning] outbreak or a cancer cluster” — Huron County epidemiologist Dr Erica Clark

Ontario Farmer, March 15, 2016

By Frances Anderson

(reprinted with permission)

Clinton -The Huron County Health Unit is launching an online survey for residents a suffering in the shadow of industrial wind turbines.
Erica Clark, the Health Unit’s epidemiologist, said the survey will be tested in April, and the goal is to launch the survey in May.”
“We’re treating it as a potential health hazard investigation… exactly as if it were a food disease outbreak or a cancer cluster” Clark explained in an interview.
“The health unit’s mandate is population health, so if it’s something that impacts the health of a community, it’s our jurisdiction.”

And, she added “to my knowledge, we’re the first health unit that’s started this investigation.”
The health unit couldn’t act in advance of the impacts, Clark said, but there are now 270 turbines in the county, and another 50 “coming soon!” With the turbines up and running, health complaints from residents, di rect ly, and through the Facebook pages of health unit staff, have flooded in.
“It’s got to be exhausting,” said Clark. “Some of the emails I get come in two or three times a day.”
This has helped the health unit create a complaint tracking form that is the basis of the survey.
Clark spoke to Ontario Farmer after a presentation to the County’s Board of Health, by Jeanne Melady and Gerry Ryan. They reviewed health impact statements from residents from 26 properties, reporting negative effects ranging from sleeplessness, nausea and nose bleeds, to tinnitus, chest pain and vertigo. Melady herself used to live in St. Columban, but has since relocated to London. She noted there is little protection for residents from the Ministry of the Environment, which sets the regulations that turbines must meet.
The only place the Green Energy Act references health is the Environmental Review Tribunal, but this requires proof of impact before the turbines are built.
Melady also noted that the wind power lobby got rules regarding infrasound, which is outside the range of audible sound but may impact health, removed from regulations because they knew this was an issue.
So, the only recourse left is an appeal to the provincial Health Protection and Promotion Act which governs the Health Units and requires investigation of something that is harming human health.
About 60 residents crowded into the board meeting to support Melady’s presentation. Among them were Rosemary Pentland and three of the oldest of her seven children. They farm north of Nile – “at the start of the red light district” she says, wryly, referencing the blinking night lights that warn airplanes away from the airspace around the K2 project.
“I’ve told Huron County that they need to be held accountable,” she said.
“I have a wind turbine just past 550 feet away,” she told Ontario Farmer. “I have had an ear ache, and tinnitis ever since they first flicked the switch,” she said.
The children’s symptoms range from headaches to ear aches, and one of the youngest has had daily nosebleeds.
“I want to go where there’s no projects,” said Pentland, but it’s not so simple to move a farm.
One has to go a long way to get away from turbine impact warns Ruth Stauttener. She lives 10 km away from the nearest turbines but “is still subject to the sound of a dull motor,” even after she and her husband turned off every device in the house.
“Earplugs make it worse,” she said. “Atmospheric conditions have a lot to do with it…. It was worse in the fall.”
The intent of the health unit survey is to track the effect of turbines on human health over time, and seasons, as weather seems to have major effect.
The survey format is being streamlined. Residents wanting to participate will call the health unit to register their name, age, and location, and situation within the turbine complex, then will be given a personal code to attach this information to their ongoing reporting of sumptoms.
And, while individual’s information will be kept confidential, the information will be aggregated and Clark has committed to analyse it seasonally and publish the results. “It will be a public document,” she said.
“We’ll be looking at the pattern…. using the information from this first phase to inform the next steps.” ” A Medical Officer of Health has the authority to make orders to protect human health. No one has yet ordered wind turbines halted or adjusted to accommodate human health in Canada, Clark said. “Right now we don’t have evidence that will pass that test.”
“We need better information,” she said. “The survey is a key step.

WWW.ONTARIOFARMER.COM

WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO NOTE: Huron County residents interested in participating in the survey, this note is from the Health Unit: Registration for the investigation will be available on the Huron County Health Unit website, www.huronhealthunit.ca. We will not be contacting anyone about the investigation until after the online complaint tracking form is launched in May 2016. Huron County residents who do not have internet access will be able to register for the paper version of the survey by calling the Huron County Health Unit at 519-482-3416.

Please note that only Huron County residents will be able to participate in the wind turbine investigation.

IESO tries to justify wind power contracts in CBC interview

Spokesman says process is fair and transparent, but Ontario mayors say they’ve been betrayed.

March 16, 2016

CBC Ottawa’s host of the afternoon show All In A Day yesterday interviewed  spokesperson Shawn Cronkwright for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) on the backlash to the recent contract award announcement.

“How do you justify putting wind power projects into communities that don’t want them?” asked Alan Neal.

The answer is interesting.

Even better is the IESO answer to the question, is there anything communities can do now? The Renewable Energy Approval “provides communities to make comment,” the IESO’s Cronkwright said.

“But getting people to comment isn’t the same as addressing concerns,” said Neal.

“I understand the concern, but that’s not how the regulatory process works,” said Cronkwright. (Oh, we know, we know.)

Then he said, concerns have resulted in changes to wind power project and even, in some cases, halting of a project.

This is absolutely stunning: the IESO is pointing to the appeals of Renewable Energy Approvals, which are funded by Ontario taxpayers struggling to protect their health and environment from their own government, as proof the system works! No mention of the fact that the appeal process and indeed all the legislation was crafted with input from the wind power lobby so that, in the words of CanWEA lawyer at a hearing on Ostrander Point, “This [a successful appeal] was never supposed to happen.”

 

Listen to the March 15 podcast here.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/ontario/ottawa-all-in-a-day/

The wrong people profit from wind farms, says homeowner

‘Grossly unfair’ for government to steal our futures, says Kemptville letter writer

Nowhere near Toronto and Queen's Park: wind power projects reduce rural property values
Nowhere near Toronto and Queen’s Park: wind power projects reduce rural property values

Ottawa Citizen, March 16, 2016http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/letters/your-letters-for-wednesday-march-16-water-windmills-women

Re: New Eastern Ontario wind farms a betrayal, mayors near Ottawa say, March 11.

Home ownership is the biggest investment a person can make.  Many people depend on the value of their homes to underwrite their futures, whether it be generating capital for their kids’ educations, serving as a stepping stone to a better home, or even financing their retirement. Folks who choose to live in rural areas already face challenges in marketing their properties, compared to their city cousins.

With the looming prospect of giant wind farms in their backyards, they are now told they must accept unanticipated decreases in their property values without complaint because “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Rural dwellers also pay comparatively huge electricity transmission costs – and, ironically, will likely continue to do so even with the gargantuan structures towering over their homes. It is also likely that their municipal tax burden will not be adjusted to reflect the decrease in their property values.

It is grossly unfair for an all-powerful government authority to callously steal rural homeowners’ futures so that a corporate entity can profit from huge government subsidies and distant cities can meet their rapacious energy consumption needs. At the very least, these folks should be compensated for their loss.

Perhaps a good starting point would be to waive the “welcome tax” levied by the provincial government on home sales for those located within a set radius of wind farm installations, thus boosting the marketability of affected properties. Another measure would be to give these homeowners a discounted rate on their electric bills, or even the same remuneration provided to the farmers who profit from having such installations on their lands.

Burton Blais, Kemptville

 

Florida drops electricity rates again, Ontario’s continue to rise

Florida: plenty of natural gas-fired power. No wind
Florida: plenty of natural gas-fired power. No wind

A Canadian snowbird tells me that Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) announced they once again reduced their rates and now brag their electricity rates are lower than 10 years ago.  This is quite a feat when measured against other basic needs in Florida, such as the cost of food — up 26%; housing —  up 20%; and healthcare, up 40%.   According to the US Energy Information Administration  (EIA) the all-in Florida rate (including delivery costs) was 11.49 cents/kWh as of December 31, 2015.

Contrast that news with Ontario and a look back at the prescribed Ontario Energy Board (OEB) November 1, 2005 rate (electricity only); it was 5.32 cents/kWh.  The OEB site notes at November 1, 2015 it had climbed to an average of 10.7 cents/kWh. The change from 2005 represents an increase of 101% . And that doesn’t include delivery, regulatory and HST, which have had the effect of doubling our rates.

FPL has more residential customers (4.8 million) than Ontario (4.5 million) and those FPL customers consume more electricity per capita than all other states (1,000 kWh per month) except Texas, yet the average annual bill is only $1,900.   It should be noted FPL’s parent company is Nextera Energy Inc. which has a subsidiary in Ontario (Nextera Energy Canada) with more than 600 megawatts (MW) of industrial wind turbines (IWT) capacity, and a contract guaranteeing them in the neighbourhood of $135.00 per MW hour for their generation.  If one calculates the potential revenue of those 613.8 MW at a generation level of 30% of capacity, it can be expected to represent annual revenue of almost $220 million and, over the 20-year span of the contract, would generate about $4.4 billion.

Presently Nextera’s Florida subsidiary FPL has zero MW of wind power in Florida and a limited amount of solar-based power, but claim “its highly fuel-efficient power plant fleet is one of the cleanest among all utilities nationwide.” Also :  “FPL’s fossil fuel fleet set a new record for its fuel efficiency in 2013, bringing its system-wide heat rate down to 7,657 British thermal units (BTU) per kilowatt hour”.

Clearly, the reason Ontario’s electricity rates for residential households climbed 101% while FPL’s has declined, is linked to our politicians who are determined to add 10,700 MW of renewable energy in the form of wind, solar and biomass at contracted rates, well in excess of competing jurisdictions.  Add to that the need to back up wind and solar with gas plants and it is easy to see why the lack of a cost/benefit analysis has driven so many Ontarians into energy poverty.

If the next several years of Liberal rule, provincially and federally, bring Ontario more costly intermittent and unreliable generation sources; consumers will be further driven to make the choice between “heat or eat” and our industrial base will continue to lose good jobs.

Let’s pull the plug on costly energy sources until Florida and the rest of the world catches up!

© Parker Gallant

March 15, 2016

 

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

Canada’s energy poverty increasing says Fraser Institute

Money poured into unreliable green energy projects like wind turbines to blame

 

March 15, 2016

Energy is the basis of our modern lives.

It fuels our economy, generating the economic production that underpins the high living standards Canadian households have achieved. But energy costs have been rising for Canadians in recent years, potentially placing bur-dens on Canadian families.

From 2010 to 2013, electricity prices have risen by an average of 1.31¢ per kWh, with increases of over 4¢ occurring in some Canadian cites. Electricity prices are also higher in Canada than in the United States, with wide variances in the amount of tax ap-plied contributing to this difference. Prices have risen for gasoline as well, increasing by 53¢ in real terms from 1994 to 2013. Canadians also pay on average 31.2¢ more for gasoline than their American counterparts. Growth in energy prices has outpaced both income growth and the rate at which household energy intensity is declining.

This study begins by estimating the average energy expenditure as a percentage of total expenses across Canada and seven regions. Estimates throughout the paper were calculated in two ways: first, including energy used just in the home—electricity, natural gas, and other heating fuels; and second, these sources of energy plus gasoline, an important energy expenditure that has often not been factored into previous analyses.

Energy use within the home represents a relatively modest portion of total expenses. The Canadian average in 2013 was 2.6%, ranging from a high of 4.0% in Atlantic Canada to a low of 2.1% in British Columbia. Adding vehicle fuel to energy expenditures has a substantial impact on the percentage of expenditures being devoted to energy. In 2013, the share of the average Canadian family’s expenditures devoted to all energy goods was 5.8%. Atlantic Canada was again the highest, with 8.2% of expenditures on average being devoted to energy.

This study also used a benchmark measure of 10% or more of expenditures going to energy goods—commonly referred to as “energy poverty”—to determine how many Canadian households are facing relatively high energy costs. Energy poverty is an issue because of the effect high energy expenditures has on consumption and discretionary income, thereby placing a burden on households. When a household’s high energy bills force them to substitute away from consuming other goods, this is in a sense a deprivation of access.

When only energy used within the home was included in the calculation, 7.9% of Canadian households were classified as being energy poor in 2013, up slightly from 7.2% in 2010. Atlantic Canada had the highest incidence of energy poverty in 2013—20.6% of households—while British Columbia had lowest, 5.3%. Energy poverty using this basket of energy goods has risen in most Canadian regions since 2010.

When the gasoline expenses of Canadian households are also included in the calculation, the incidence of energy poverty increases substantially. In 2013, 19.4% of Canadian households devoted at least 10% or more of their expenditures to energy. Alberta had the lowest incidence of energy poverty in 2013 at 12.8%. Five out of seven Canadian regions experienced a decline in the incidence of energy poverty from 2010 to 2013 when gasoline expenditures are included.

Estimates of energy poverty were also calculated for income quintiles. Energy poverty disproportionately affects lower-income Canadian households. The incidence of energy poverty in 2013 was estimated to be over 15% of households in each of the two lowest income quintiles. Including gasoline expenditures further exacerbates energy poverty in the low income groups and uncovers a prevalence of high energy spending amongst middle-income Canadians.

The high incidence of energy poverty in Canada, particularly when gasoline ex-penditures are included, should be of central concern when policies regarding energy are being devised. Policies that raise prices could exacerbate problems faced by families who are in energy poverty or those on the cusp of energy poverty. – See more at: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/energy-costs-and-canadian-households-how-much-are-we-spending#sthash.dmgvkemN.dpuf

See the report here.

North Frontenac mayor prepares for next wind farm fight

Mayor is ‘upset’ with procurement process for large renewable power projects, says they shouldn’t be going where they’re not wanted

North Frontenac Mayor Higgins

Kingston Whig-Standard, March 13, 2016

Elliot Ferguson

PLEVNA — North Frontenac Mayor Ron Higgins was quick to express his opinion of Thursday’s Ontario government announcement of the contracts for new renewable energy projects.

“No Wind turbines for NF or AH. So happy,” Higgins wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning, referring to a trio of wind energy projects proposed for North Frontenac and neighbouring Addington Highlands Township that were not awarded contracts.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) released Thursday a list of 16 contracts that have been offered to companies. Neither of NextEra Energy Canada’s Northpoint I and II projects nor RES Canada’s Denbigh wind energy project were on the list. By the afternoon, Higgins was still happy but the reality that this round of contracts was the first of three large renewable procurements in the coming two years had dawned on him.

“No IWT’s for NF or AH. Still need to prep for next round of RFPs,” he wrote on Twitter.

“Generally I’m thrilled with what happened with the decision with our township and Addington Highlands. But just reading how these were awarded I’m still upset with the whole process,” Higgins said Friday. “They are putting wind turbines in unwilling hosts when there were lots of opportunity to put them in places that wanted them.”

Speaking in Kingston last Monday, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli said municipal agreements were critical to companies having successful bids for renewable energy contracts. Citing open consultation and equity participation, Chiarelli has seen more rural municipalities willing to work with the green energy companies.

“It’s almost impossible for a proponent to win a contract without having some kind of agreement with the municipality,” Chiarelli said. “Over the course of the last four or five years, although it’s been difficult for a number of people, we’ve gotten to a place now where it’s much more acceptable and will be integrated into the system a lot more easily.”

In early June last year, citing public opposition to wind energy proposals, North Frontenac council unanimously voted to declare the township “not a willing host” for the proposed wind energy projects. Last month, North Frontenac became the 19th municipality to endorse a resolution originally passed by Wainfleet Township council calling for the provincial government to cancel plans to approve new wind energy projects. North Frontenac added solar projects to the original Wainfleet resolution.

Higgins said in February that if either of the NextEra projects were approved, the township would automatically appeal the decision. He didn’t say then what the township’s appeal would be based on, but on Friday he said he asked the IESO to disqualify NextEra’s Northpoint projects because he said the company did not fulfilled some of the mandatory requirements that were part of the request for proposals. …

Read the entire article here.

Ontario’s hidden taxes: Parker Gallant

This past weekend, Wind Concerns Ontario held its Annual General Meeting and a strategy session for members in Wellington, Ontario.

Among the presentations was this from Parker Gallant, on the Wynne government’s hidden taxes.

Premier Wynne: I have to get the money from someone! That means YOU
Premier Wynne: I have to get the money from someone! That means YOU

Ratepayers and Hidden Taxes

 The “Water” Tax:                                                                                        Annual Costs

Fuel charges for Hydroelectric Generating Stations:                                       $345 million for 2015

From OPG’s Annual Report:

“Hydroelectric generating stations in Ontario are subject to taxes and charges as prescribed by Ontario Regulation 124/02 under the Electricity Act, 1998 (Ontario Electricity Act). All OPG hydroelectric generating stations are subject to GRC Property Tax, which is determined by applying graduated tax rates, ranging from 2.5 percent to 26.5 percent through four levels of production, to the station gross revenue. GRC Property Tax payments are made to either the OEFC or to the Ontario Ministry of Finance.”

 

The “Social Assistance” Tax                                                                         $175/225 million estimated

The Ontario Electricity Support Program or OESP to support low income households commenced January 1, 2016 should rightly be a budget item of the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services but the Ontario Liberal Party made it a part of the Energy Ministry. The OEB estimated support for the 570,000 households (2014) living in “energy poverty” in the province would require a budget of $200 million. It is not clear if the OESP will replace the LEAP program of about $10 million annually.

 

The “Net Zero” Tax                                                                                      $2/300 million estimated 

Settlement with both the Power Workers Union and the Society of Energy Professionals was claimed to be a “Net Zero” wage settlement but disclosure in both the Hydro One and the OPG Annual Reports indicate that both will receive lump sum payments for the first two years of the respective contracts and starting in the third year those employees will receive annual awards of Hydro One shares equal to 2.7% of their wages. Those annual awards of Hydro One shares will extract the value from their sale that would have gone to the province for “infrastructure” spending. It is worth noting that the share sale committed Hydro One to dividend out 75% of Hydro One’s annual earnings.

The “Realty Tax” subsidy                                                                            $200 million (?) estimated 

Dwight Duncan when Minister of Finance decreed industrial wind turbines should be taxed at only $40,000 per megawatt of capacity or approximately 1.5% of their capital cost and only about 1/10th of their annual revenue base meaning all other industrial/commercial/residential taxpayers are forced to pay extra for the services they might cost the various townships including road repairs and possibly decommissioning.

 

The Electric Vehicle subsidy                                                             $4/5 million estimated

While the EV subsidy is not absorbed by ratepayers it is a taxpayer cost. It is ironic that if you can afford to purchase a high end Tesla automobile at a cost of $100,000 plus you are able to obtain a grant of up to $10,000 from the Province. Why are people earning minimum wage supplementing people who can afford these vehicles?

Read the full presentation here: AGM2016ParkerGallant

 

 

 

 

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

Wind power resistance groups meet in Prince Edward County this weekend

Wind Concerns Ontario and member community groups meet this weekend

Industrial-scale wind power doesn't help the environment, community groups say
Industrial-scale wind power doesn’t help the environment, community groups say

Coalition building

Wellington Times, March 9, 2016

Rick Conroy

Jane Wilson says a shift has occurred over the past five years in the way wind energy is talked about in Ontario. The chair of Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of groups opposed to wind energy in this province, senses greater awareness of the negative impacts of industrial wind energy among voters, the mainstream media, and politicians.

Wilson will be in the County this weekend, chairing Wind Concerns Ontario’s annual general meeting and speaking at the CCSAGE (County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy) meeting on Sunday.

“Everyone wants the best for the environment,” said Wilson, “but the way the Ontario government has gone about it has been viewed as undemocratic and destructive to both the economy and to consumers’ pocketbooks.”

Soaring electricity bills, persistent charges of mismanagement by the province’s Auditor General, and mounting evidence of the toll industrial wind turbines are exacting on wildlife—particularly endangered bats and turtles — is changing the conversation. Nevertheless, the damage already inflicted on consumers and the natural environment will be long-lasting, predicts Wilson.

“This [the December 2015 report] was the second Auditor General report that found that Ontario failed to do any cost-benefit analysis before embarking down this path,” said Wilson. “Perhaps if that had been done we wouldn’t be paying among North America’s highest electricity rates, and we wouldn’t be enduring these harmful environmental effects.”

“What has been happening in Prince Edward County has been very instructive,” said Wilson. “The [Environmental Review] Tribunals have uncovered deep problems.”

Wind Concerns Ontario is holding its annual general meeting for members in Wellington on Sunday morning — a first for the County. In the afternoon, Wilson will speak to a gathering of CCSAGE at the Waring House in Picton.

The WCO chair laments the way renewable energy has been thrust into rural Ontario –and local decision-making removed.

“It is tearing some communities apart,” said Wilson, who lives in North Gower just outside of Ottawa. She points to once peaceful and quiet communities divided by the money developers use to lure municipal support.

“It’s not illegal,” said Wilson, “but developers are now dangling many thousands of dollars in front of small rural councils, essentially telling them that if they want this money, they must pass a resolution of support.”

“People wish Ontario had pursued renewable energy goals more cautiously,” says Wilson, “that they had started with small projects — and measured their impacts. They could have helped Ontarians with geothermal heating or innovative conservation steps.

“If they had put money into these types of projects rather than filling the pockets of huge corporate wind power developers, I think we would be in a different place.”

(C)Wellington Times 2016