Ontario Liberals dole out wind power contracts to donors, says Opposition





Ministry of Energy Handing Out Renewable Contracts to Donor Companies 

QUEEN’S PARK – Ontario’s archaic fundraising rules have continued to make news due to the appearance that large-scale corporate donations are having an impact on the business of the government. Today during Question Period, members of the Ontario PC Caucus highlighted a number of concerning donations from wind power companies, who in turn received government contracts.

“The Minister of Energy is a prolific fundraiser for the Liberal Party, because he needs to meet his cabinet seat quota. It is reported that the Minister of Energy’s fundraising target was as high as $300,000,” said Leader of the Official Opposition Patrick Brown. “That’s not an easy task for anyone. Some could raise that money through hard work, or maybe the minister found other ways.”

Over the last few years, seven renewable energy companies donated $255,000 to the Liberal Party, and in the latest round of renewable procurements all seven of those companies were awarded contracts from the Ministry of Energy.  These contracts occurred despite the Auditor General confirming that the province is overproducing electricity and selling it at a loss.  

Three wind companies, Enerfin, SWEB Developments, and Innergex, who have never donated to the Liberal Party of Ontario applied for contracts in the same round of procurement but didn’t receive any contracts.

“The Premier can deflect from the real reasons these unnecessary contracts are being signed but we all know she’s just paying it forward,” added PC Energy Critic and MPP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke John Yakabuski. “How can the Premier claim this is an impartial process when the companies that don’t donate get nothing and companies that donate a quarter of a million dollars get signed lucrative contracts?”

“Will the Premier tell us, has any Minister of Energy solicited donations for the Ontario Liberal Party from companies seeking grants or contracts with the government of Ontario, yes or no?” concluded Leader Patrick Brown.



CONTACT: Jamie Hofing | 416-325-8505 | jamie.hofing@pc.ola.org

Source: PCPO
Source: PCPO


False promises of electricity bill relief from Ontario energy minister

Time the Energy Minister looked beyond the fund-raising dinner parties.
Parker Gallant: Time the Energy Minister looked beyond the fund-raising dinner parties.

In an effort to determine what track Energy Minister Chiarelli’s electric train is on I took a brief look at his ministerial forecast, “Achieving Balance”.  My interest was piqued by a recent article suggesting China has put a chill on new wind power projects.  As it turns out, China is having trouble because industrial wind turbines are “churning out power that’s being wasted” and they are being forced to curtail wind to ensure stability in some of the country’s grids.

Having recently noted the costs to Ontario ratepayers for just one day when power from wind was being curtailed, I decided to examine costs on a longer term. Thanks to Scott Luft, who does an incredible job of logging estimated curtailments of industrial wind turbines (IWT), I was able to determine the results for the final quarter of 2015.  Total estimated curtailments for the Quarter ended December 31, 2015 were 434,750 megawatt hours (MWh).

An Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) report released a couple of weeks age claimed IWT-generated 3.0 terawatts (TWh) in the last quarter of 2015, so, if one includes curtailed wind, ratepayers were obliged to pay for 3,434,750 MWh. That represents  93.9% of net exports (exports of 5.401 TWh less imports of 1.742 TWh) or 63.6% of gross exports.

What this means is that in the fourth quarter of 2015, wind-generated electricity was all surplus to our needs, without including steamed off nuclear, or spilled hydro!

The 3,434,750 MWh is estimated to have cost ratepayers approximately $460 million. The 3 TWh of electricity IWT delivered to the grid cost about $405 million and the curtailed cost was almost $55 million.  During the quarter, the HOEP1. averaged $1.50/MWh, meaning if all of generated and curtailed wind was a part of the 5.4 TWh exported, it would have generated only a shade over $5 million —that would have reduced the cost to ratepayers to $455 million.   With 92 days in the last quarter of 2015, the money paid by Ontario ratepayers averaged daily was almost $5 million.

Back to Energy Minister Chiarelli’s “Achieving Balance” long-term energy plan, we should be captivated by the promise made: “Significant ratepayer savings will be realized as a result of reduced Feed-in Tariff (FIT) prices, the ability to dispatch wind generation, the amended Green Energy Investment Agreement, and the decision to defer new nuclear.”

Clearly the “significant ratepayer savings” promised by Minister Chiarelli was for the benefit of our neighbours who purchase our surplus electricity at a fraction of the costs to Ontario ratepayers.

It is well past the time for Minister Chiarelli to look at China’s position and to cease any further procurement of IWT generation, or is the Ontario Liberal Party too dependent on party donations from the IWT developers as suggested in a recent article emanating from Queen’s Park?

©Parker Gallant,

April 5, 2016

  1. The Global Adjustment is not levied for exported electricity.

The views expressed are those of the author.

Mayors, citizen groups meet with Environmental Commissioner on wind farms

Citizens, municipal and provincial politicians and environmental groups met with Ontario Environmental Commissioner yesterday, detailing environmental, health and economic impacts from wind power projects and thousands of complaints about turbine noise. The Commissioner says she can’t do anything

Prince Edward County councillor Steve Ferguson and Mayor Robert Quaiff, and Warren Howard of Wind Concerns Ontario at the meeting table in Toronto yesterday [Photo: Todd Smith MPP]

April 5, 2016 TORONTO—

Wind Concerns Ontario was one of the presenters at a meeting in Toronto Monday with Ontario’s new Environmental Commissioner Dianne Saxe. The meeting was organized and led by MPP Lisa Thompson,  environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) introduced its presentation by stating that our members of the coalition of community groups and individuals are about the impact of industrial- or utility-scale wind power development on the economy, environment and human health. “That sounds like three things, but it isn’t,” President Jane Wilson told the Commissioner. “The environment is everything: it is the economy, it is the natural environment, and it is health.”

Warren Howard, in speaking for WCO, detailed the fact that Ontario’s noise regulations are inadequate to protect health, which is borne out by research including the Health Canada noise study and the Cape Bridgewater study, to name two. He said that WCO learned from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change that there are more than 2,700 files of noise complaints. Details have been requested under Freedom of Information from the Ministry but not produced after a year; the matter is now in the hands of Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner.

Wind Concerns told the Commissioner that it is not merely audible noise that is the problem but infrasound/low frequency noise that produces unique sensation among some individuals exposed to the emissions. The group referred to several individual locations as examples of problems such as Prince Edward County where an eminent acoustics specialist testified before the Environmental Review Tribunal that virtually everyone in that community would be exposed to the turbine noise emissions. WCO also mentioned the Niagara project where thousands of homes will be within 1.5 km of 77 industrial-scale turbines. By conservative estimates, as many as 1,000 people could be affected by exposure to the noise emissions.

WCO concluded its presentation by asserting that the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change is not fulfilling its mandate of ensuring a “healthy environment” for Ontarians. Wind Concerns asked the Commissioner for a full review of Ontario’s noise regulations under Section 61 under the Environmental Protection Act.

Other presenters made striking presentations including Barbara Ashbee of Victims of Wind, City of Kawartha Lakes councilor Heather Stauble, Prince Edward County councilor Steve Ferguson and  Robert Quaiff, Mayor of Prince Edward County, and Deputy Mayor Dutton-Dunwich, Bob Purcell. Representatives of citizens’ groups from Bruce County and Huron County also presented reports of environmental and health problems. There have been so many complaints of poor health from turbine noise emissions in Huron County, people told the Commissioner that, where the Health Unit has launched a formal investigation .

Mayor Quaiff detailed several environmental concerns about the two wind power projects proposed for Prince Edward County, saying that not only were the power plants to be built on land where endangered Blandings turtles and Little Brown Bats are found, the sites are also on important migratory pathways for birds. “Questions are not being answered,” he said, about the effects of materials used in turbine construction such as the reinforced steel bars and concrete foundations, which will leach into the water table. He added that the turbines will have a negative impact on the wineries locally, and the bird-watching areas. “The South Shore is the last undeveloped shoreline on Lake Ontario,” he said. “I think it should stay that way.”

MPPs Todd Smith, Laurie Scott and Jeff Yurek were also at the meeting.

In her closing remarks MPP Lisa Thompson said that while everyone wants to do the right thing for the environment, key parts of the wind power process are “not working.” “What is working,” MPP Thompson said, “is we have an Environmental Commissioner and I hope we can move forward.”

Commissioner Saxe said that her office is dealing with hundreds of issues and can realistically handle only five or six a year. She acknowledged “the passion” expressed in the meeting today but in the short term, she couldn’t do anything, and in the long term “we’ll have to see.”

MPP Thompson said that this serious issue is affecting “so many communities” that she hoped the Commissioner’s office would review all the information in the submissions presented.

(C) Wind Concerns Ontario



$13 million wasted on windy last day of March: Ontario pays to get rid of excess power

These spring windy days are costing you: Ontario’s Wynne government  pays millions for power it can’t use including wind, produced exactly when we don’t need it.

More than $13 million wasted on windy last day of March

By Parker Gallant

March 2016 left like a lion with the wind roaring mightily. Wind on March 31st could have generated over 90% of its IESO posted capacity of almost 3,900 MW— but it didn’t.  Demand  was relatively low in Ontario that day, with users requiring only 359,000 MWh. That meant the IESO folks were busy getting nuclear to steam off (about 26,000 MWh), spilling hydro, and actively curtailing wind.

Curtailed wind generation on that day exceeded both Ontario’s net exports of 31,400 MWh, and wind-generated electricity actually delivered to the grid.   Our exported surplus was sold at a negative average price of the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) as we paid New York, Michigan, Quebec, and others $1.71/MWh to take our excess power.

We also paid wind power generators in the neighbourhood of $120 per MWh to curtail an estimated 40,500 MWh.

Our production costs for the month of March are collectively estimated at $117/MWh, suggesting the Global Adjustment (GA) will average about $112/MWh and the HOEP will average around $5/MWh. That means the cost of the day’s full generation of 400,224 MWh (Ontario Demand + exports) at an estimated $46.8 million. Included in that figure are costs for net exports,  steamed off nuclear, spilled hydro, curtailed wind, and idling gas plants, needed to back up wind and solar.

The one-day costs included in the $46.8 million are: an estimated $1.5 million for Bruce Power to steam off nuclear; $3 million to pay idling gas plants; $3.7 million to pay for our exported surplus; and about $4.8 million for curtailed wind.

Without including costs for spilled hydro, the total costs for energy not needed for just one day came to about $13 million.  We should be grateful the sun wasn’t shining too or we would have been paying for solar generation at even higher prices.  We also saved about $15/MWh or $600,000 March 31st by curtailing wind generation or the $13 million daily cost would have been higher.

Now, try to imagine how that $13 million might have helped out our health care system, perhaps by retaining nurses at many hospitals such as Windsor, North Bay, etc., where recent staff reductions have occurred. No wonder an Ontario Health Coalition study a year ago stated:  “we have been deeply disturbed at the devastating cuts we are seeing to needed public hospital care all across Ontario.”

The money that should be earmarked for health care is finding its way into the pockets of the mainly foreign wind turbine and solar panel developers instead of actually helping out Ontarians.

Time to scrap the acquisition of more intermittent wind and solar generation and earmark the money where it belongs. Ontarians don’t want to see $13 million wasted daily, just to pretend wind and solar are better than emission-free nuclear and hydro.

©Parker Gallant,

April 3, 2016

parker-gallant- (2)

Wind power “all about the money”: Vermont editorial

Environmental benefits of wind power development very small, but negative impacts on economy and environment are high, says an editorial in The Caledonian Record, Vermont.

Laurel Mountain wind 'farm': all about money, nothing for environment
Laurel Mountain wind ‘farm’: all about money, nothing for environment

Caledonian Record, April 2, 2016

On Thursday the Vermont Senate passed a measure professing to give communities more say in siting wind and solar projects. The bill would allow cities and towns to direct the location of renewable energy projects without giving them veto power.

It’s a response to public outcry that renewable energy projects are often built over strong objections from host municipalities. Critics of the existing process say the Vermont Public Service Board is a rubber stamp and abets big energy developers as they steamroll communities.

It’s hard to argue the point. Since Vermont codified its commitment to renewable energy projects, the PSB – in every case – has found renewable projects to be for the “public good.” Even when it means tearing holes in mountains that would never be allowed under Act 250 (which energy projects aren’t subject to).

Those holes, according to pro-renewable lobbyist Olivia Campbell Anderson, are worth it in Vermont’s blind pursuit of green energy. Anderson insists these mega-projects are necessary “to reduce climate pollution and increase self-reliance.”

Since Anderson is in the business (and it’s really BIG business), she of course knows the following things:

1) The small benefit of wind energy can’t ever justify their overall inefficiency or heavily subsidized expense.

2) Wind projects are a bad fit for Vermont’s climate, make no sense economically, and yield zero impact on net carbon footprint.

3) Well-known and understood transmission and infrastructure limitations mean the New England grid operator has to limit the amount of power it can absorb from Vermont’s boutique projects.

4) Taxpayers and ratepayers are getting fleeced at every turn of the turbine.

No green jobs, no environmental benefit

5) There aren’t “green jobs” associated with power generation.

6) After a quarter decade, and billions of tax subsidies through the wind Production Tax Credit, wind farms aren’t competitive anywhere in the United States.

7) Developments are irreconcilable with the spirit, and the letter, of Act 250 land protections. Which is precisely why Shumlin and his energy cronies have resisted every attempt to impose Act 250 requirements for wind and solar projects.

8) Wind tax credits (as one critic explained) “are nothing more than a cost imposed on all taxpayers in order to accommodate development of a politically well-connected, high-priced, low-value resource that cannot meet our electric capacity needs.”

9) Most of the state’s carbon footprint derives from vehicles and heating our homes in winter. As such, expensive and inefficient wind projects yield no meaningful effect on aggregate carbon emissions.

10) Wind energy is notoriously intermittent and unreliable, requiring fossil-fuel powered backup plants when the wind doesn’t blow.

11) Vermont sells all of its Renewable Energy Credits out of state, meaning Vermont hosts a whole bunch of industrial developments but gets to claim none of the energy produced by them. So much for “self-reliance.”

12) Shumlin’s grand plan that calls for Vermont’s energy use to come from 90 percent renewable sources by 2050 is not only un-achievable, but the tax subsidies that it will require in the intervening failed effort to reach it will cost Vermont taxpayers an unforgivable and unsustainable fortune.

The only winners with wind power are the developers

13) Wind is only a winner for developers – earning tax credits, naked subsidies, and guaranteed (fixed) consumption by ratepayers.

14) Wind projects distort energy markets and require such intensive energy to develop that nobody believes them to actually be “green.”

15) Wind development is the ultimate zoning issue and has enormous impact on surrounding communities.

16) Communities are being torn apart by bad public policy, big government subsidies and a misguided pursuit of “green energy.”

So despite all Anderson’s lofty talk of saving the world from global warming, these renewable energy projects have always been about the money. Throw up a bunch of renewable energy projects, hustle the tax credits and subsidies, and charge ratepayers exorbitant fees for intermittent power. Communities and mountains be damned.

Based on all of these facts, it would seem like the Senate’s recent bill is more in keeping with our notion of the “Vermont Way.” Namely, that bureaucrats, foreign investors and hotshot energy lobbyists shouldn’t have more say about what happens in our communities than the people living there.

But we actually think that John McClaughry said it best in an email he sent this week to Caledonia County Senators Joe Benning and Jane Kitchel.

He wrote: “give towns more input” is an absolute fool’s errand and there is NO need to find tax dollars to feed this foolishness. Simply take away the Big Wind Production Tax Credit (2.3 c/kwhr) and there will NEVER be another wind turbine built in Vermont. A one page tax bill would do the job. Can’t ANY of our 180 legislators figure this out?”

Great question, John.

Green energy done badly: stories from around the world


April 2, 2016

We present a collection of stories that review the manner in which strategies that are supposedly positive for the environment have been enacted (usually without any sort of cost-benefit or full impact analysis), and what the results are to date.

From Terence Corcoran’s review in The Financial Post, to a review of German energy policy (this is a sad, sad story worthy of Dickens), an article in Prince Edward County’s Wellington Times (one of the last independent newspapers in Canada) on a wind power developer’s arrogance, and last, an opinion on what the real effect on the local environment green energy policies are in reality, the collection deserves a read … and consideration by the Ontario government.

Will they? In the words of the team of academics lead by the University of Ottawa’s Stewart Fast, writing recently about the disastrous implementation of the Green Energy Act on Ontario communities, “Our recommendations will unfortunately remain unaddressed, without further consideration or assessment of the lessons that could be learned.” [Fast et al. Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes, January, 2016]

Terence Corcoran, The Financial Post, “Clean, green, and catastrophic.” (Note: our Parker Gallant provided some figures for this article.)

Handelsblatt (Global edition) “How to kill an industry”. (Thanks to energy economist Robert Lyman in Ottawa for sending this in.)

Rick Conroy, The Wellington Times, “There’s always a catch.” (“The wolf has been sent to find out what’s killing all the lambs …” Conroy writes.)

Last, this letter to the editor of Ontario Farmer, excerpted here.

“Off-grid will make a bad situation worse for reluctant grid payees”

A farming friend recently took me on a “crop tour” of rural businesses that are partially or fully off-grid. We saw a sawmill, a pressed-steel manufacturer, a maker of wood-burning stoves, a cabinet-maker and an ethanol plant. Finding it progressively more difficult to remain profitable in the agricultural business with skyrocketing electrical costs, my friend is seriously looking at more cost-effective alternatives. If going off-grid works for others, perhaps it will work for him.

“Off-grid” means that these business owners are no longer victims of usurious hydro rates the Ontario Green Energy Act (GEA) has imposed on the vast majority who obtain electricity from Hydro One and other such utility companies. Are these enterprises trailblazers illuminating a path to greater energy independence for other beleaguered hydro ratepayers?

Or are they creating an even greater financial burden for those who remain on the grid?

And what may be the environmental impact if a great many businesses follow suit?

Operating the Ontario power grid has become exorbitantly expensive under the GEA. It is becoming ever more expensive as greater numbers of windmills spring up to further sully our rural landscapes. … Operating costs of a centralized generation and distribution system are borne by all users. The more users there are, the less share of fixed costs each user pays. Businesses fleeing to off-grid energy alternatives leave fewer users on-grid bearing fixed costs; thus, each user pays more. While going off-grid may financially benefit those who do it, greater economic burden falls on those remaining on-grid, and most have no choice.

Fossil fuels are the primary energy source for off-grid users. Electricity to run their businesses must be generated by some sort of power plant, typically an internal combustion engine driving and electrical generator. It’s far removed from the most cost-effective or environmentally friendly way to generate and distribute electricity —the way we used to do it — but the GEA has made grid power so prohibitively expensive off-grid generation has become economically viable for major energy users.

Dave Plumb

Belmont, Ontario