CanWEA Spins Truths

When presented with a statement that says: “We are pleased to see that more than 80 % of respondents were not at all disturbed by wind turbines, but we would like to see a higher figure.” most people would quickly agree that the remaining 20% of respondents must have been disturbed!

Put that statement in the hands of the wind spinners however, and the claim is made that;

“A June 2012 survey from the Danish Ministry of Energy, Climate and Buildings, however, showed that 83 per cent of Danes support continued development of wind power both on- and offshore.”

This is how CanWEA viewed the commentary on that June 2012 Danish survey and reported on it in a press release on February 8, 2013 where they try to discredit the CBC documentary “Wind Rush” that had been presented the previous day on the “Doc Zone”.  The documentary was critical of industrial wind turbines principally because they cause health problems because of “noise” issues. The documentary didn’t examine the costs to ratepayers, nor the requirement to back up wind generation with fossil fuel generators, nor the effects on the natural environment through the killing of birds and bats, nor did it look at the negative effect on property values that industrial wind turbines have!

The documentary dealt only with the health issues and it was damning, particularly in Ontario where it suggests the government rushed ahead without proper due diligence in respect to siting wind turbines because of inadequate setbacks.  The documentary also featured commentary from highly regarded Dr. Nissenbaum, a member of the advisory group, with the Society of Wind Vigilance.  CanWEA’s press release comments that much of what Dr Nissenbaum has researched “has been reviewed by experts at the first Environmental Review Tribunal.” The apparent illusion they are trying to create with that statement is unknown but I believe the inference is that Dr. Nissenbaum’s research was overwhelmed by the experts of the pro-wind segment.  What CanWEA don’t say in their press release is that those “experts” were hand picked by the Renewal Energy Approval (REA) holder’s high priced Bay Street legal counsel to ensure they would sway the Environmental Review Tribunal.  Despite that the Tribunal found; 

“This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”

CanWEA’s efforts are aimed at stifling debate and to continue the proliferation of industrial wind turbines throughout rural Ontario. They claim in the same press release; “As the voice of Canada’s wind energy industry, CanWEA supports the responsible and sustainable development of wind energy.”

Based on the way CanWEA spin their critique of “Wind Rush” it is the opinion of this writer that “responsible” doesn’t include how they spin information. CanWEA took that negative Danish report indicating that 9% (115 humans) of the 1275 people surveyed who stated they were “disturbed by wind turbine noise “to a major extent,” or are “moderately” disturbed and claim the Danes think wind turbines are great.

Is this the renaissance of the “Marlboro Man” holding a wind turbine instead of a cigarette or can we simply put it down as wind spin?

Parker Gallant,
February 11, 2013

Turbines ‘tarnish property values’

Turbines ‘tarnish property values’ | The Australian:

A FEDERAL magistrate has accepted that wind farms slash the value of surrounding properties, saying she found it “hard to imagine” any prospective buyer could ignore such development.
In a decision believed to be the first time an Australian court has recognised the adverse financial impact of wind farms for neighbours, magistrate Kate Hughes ruled a property would be worth 17 per cent less if a 14-turbine facility were erected next door.
For one part of the property, in regional Victoria, she accepted a 33 per cent fall in value was likely.
The ruling came in a family law case published this month amid separation proceedings for the couple who own the property.
Ms Hughes heard two separate valuers had agreed the wind farm would have a negative effect on the adjacent property, which the couple has divided into three blocks. “The expert value of the three blocks of land varies significantly depending on whether or not it is assumed the proposed wind farm will go ahead,” Ms Hughes said in her judgment.
“The impact of the proposed wind farm is apparent from the valuation report.”

Complete article at The Australian (subscription)

Donations to Ontario’s Political Parties: Earmarked for Favourable Results!

Ontario’s voters who follow the news are probably aware that “Working Families”, on its website, describes itself as; “a not-for-profit organization that has the support of more than 250,000 members (and growing) representing a cross-section of Ontarians that aims to support, promote and advocate the interests of working families.” Working Families is really not an organization with 250,000 members but is an organization backed by several unions with 11 of them identified on their “about us” webpage.  Perhaps those unions have that many members but to proclaim that it “has the support” of 250,000 is a big stretch in its claim.  If one remembers the 2011 election campaign the efforts expended by the “Working Families” coalition were considerable and estimates in the media indicated they spent upwards of $9 million on various media ads warning of the dangers of electing the Tim Hudak led PC Party. Their campaign and ads harkened back to the “Harris” days and the reputed devastation he and the PC party had caused for “working families”! The ads were in very close harmony with the Liberal Party’s message that reverberated in the prior two elections and was continually used by the Dalton McGuinty Liberal MPPs in the Ontario Legislature to put down their principal opposition party. That same chatter continues although the support that the “organization” gave to the Liberals back in 2011 seems to be shifting to the NDP perhaps as a direct result of Bill 115 which forced a contract on the teachers unions by the Liberals.

The shift in support may be a forerunner to what will happen in the upcoming by-elections that will be held in Dwight Duncan’s and Chris Bentley’s ridings. A look to the past to see exactly where the parties obtain their funding and an examination of donations to the three principal parties from certain sectors for the 2011 year is interesting and discloses some disturbing facts.

Party Donation rules in Ontario are generous as Elections Ontario discloses; “There are three types of eligible contributors: Individuals who are Ontario residents; Corporations carrying on business in Ontario that are not registered charities; and Labour councils and trade unions with bargaining rights for employees in Ontario” and the donation amounts are generous being;

“Eligible contributors can contribute up to $9,300 to a central party in any year and an additional $9,300 for each campaign period.

This open faced sandwich allows corporations with multiple subsidiaries to donate up to $9,300 for each subsidiary and for unions with multiple locals to do the same. If one examines the donations made by unions and corporations (see below definitions) in 2011 it is interesting to see the effects of those rules.

Looking at the contributions to the three largest “parties” in 2011 and to their respective “election campaigns” it is quickly established the Elections Ontario rules are utilized to their fullest. From research it was determined that the (identifiable) unions collectively donated (rounded to the nearest thousand) $1,730,000 to the three parties. Looking at the “green” (those [identifiable] who have received OPA renewable energy contracts) corporations and large corporate entities (those who benefit from major government contracts) one can determine they collectively donated $800,000 to the three major parties.

Looking further at the breakdown of “union” donations it is seen that the Liberal Party received $948,000 (55%) versus $695,000 (40%) for the NDP and $87,000 (5%) for the PC Party of their 2011 donations.

On the” corporate” side the Liberal Party received $466,000 (58%) versus $308,000 (39%) for the PC Party and the balance, $26.000 (3%), went to the NDP.

Collectively the Liberal Party received 56% of the union/green corporate donations, the NDP 28% and the PC Party 16%. So the question emerges; which party is beholden to either or both of these groups?

The Liberals and the NDP received over 125 donations from unions and their locals as should be obvious from the above total union donations. A couple of the more notable ones are the Ontario Elementary Catholic Teachers Association who donated over $78,000 to the Liberals and $79,000 to the NDP but only $2,000 to the PC Party. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation donated $75,000 to the Liberal Party, $44,000 to the NDP and $15,000 to the PC Party. The Liberal Party also received over $60,000 in donations from 11 of the Labourers International Union of North America locals as another example.

On the corporate side two major companies who have benefited from provincial government contracts worth billion of dollars hedge their bets by donating to both the Liberals and the PC parties. Aecon (Mattagami hydro is a $2.6 billion build) donated $25,000 to the Liberal Party and $41,000 to the PC Party whereas Ellis Don (several hospital builds worth billions plus court houses, etc.) donated $74,000 to the Liberal Party and $59,000 to the PC Party. Needless to say the NDP received no donations from either of these major contractors but probably benefited from the unionized trades that both of these corporate entities employ on these government contracts.

What the foregoing demonstrates is that the Elections Finances Act needs an overhaul to prevent this influence peddling. Elections Ontario in their 2010/2011 Annual Report recommended “that an independent task force be established to investigate options regarding how to improve third party advertising rules in Ontario.” Elections Ontario in their report to the Legislature suggested that the review consider the following.

1. Should Ontario adopt third party spending limits?
2.Should Ontario adopt third party contribution limits?
3. Should Ontario try to limit third party advertising spending to the amounts it raises prior to and during an election?

To the best of this writer’s knowledge nothing has been done to curb this electoral abuse and one would hope that the next session of the Legislature gives the Elections Ontario recommendations a priority and establish a task force.

Evidence of how the tap is turned on or off can be found in the recent Liberal leadership conference. As most of the candidates running for the leadership bid found out the well from the various teachers unions had run dry. Ms Wynn received donations of a paltry $28,000 from 12 unions (none from the education sector) whereas she received $25,000 from the Insurance Bureau of Canada alone and $22,000 from the “green” developers. No doubt the Insurance Bureau contribution influenced her response to the Leader of the NDP, Andrea Horwath when she proposed a 15% cut in auto insurance premiums.

The time has come to take the influence peddling out of the party donations pot and place it squarely with the Lobbyist Registry where it will at least be somewhat transparent!

Parker Gallant,
February 11, 2013

Health Canada Releases Revised Research Design for the Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study

Following is Health Canada’s press release announcing revisions to it’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study; the release includes the link to the Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment

Health Canada Releases Revised Research Design for the Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study:

OTTAWA -Today, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health, announced Health Canada published a revised research design for the wind turbine noise and health study, which is being carried out in collaboration with Statistics Canada.
The proposed research design was posted on the Health Canada website in July 2012 for public comment and over 950 comments were received during the 60 day public consultation period. After an evaluation of feedback received during the consultation, the Expert Committee introduced changes to the research design including an assessment of infrasound and changes to the questionnaire administered by Statistics Canada. The Expert Committee includes specialists in areas pertaining to noise measurement, health assessment, clinical medicine and epidemiology. 

“Our Government is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadian families, and this study is in response to questions from residents living near wind farms about possible health effects of low frequency noise generated by wind turbines,” said Minister Aglukkaq. “The Expert Committee has carefully reviewed and evaluated the feedback received during the public consultation and has taken it into consideration when developing the revised research design.”
Study results are anticipated in late 2014. An initial target sample size of 2,000 dwellings will be selected from 8-12 wind turbine installation facilities in Canada. In addition to taking physical measurements from participants, such as blood pressure, investigators will conduct face-to-face interviews and take noise measurements inside and outside of some homes to validate sound modelling.
The revised research design is available on the Health Canada website. A summary of the public comments received during the consultation period and the responses from the Expert Committee are also available on the website.

City of Kawartha Lakes Council to send strong message against wind turbine project

“If you let three in…you’ll be letting in hundreds…the only safe places in Ontario will be Muskoka, Caledon and King City.”

Several members of Manvers Wind Concerns show up at City Hall to oppose wind turbine project
(KAWARTHA LAKES) They were on their feet applauding when it was over. City of Kawartha Lakes council voted 15-2 in support of a staff recommendation urging the Province to refuse an application for the Sumac Ridge wind turbine project in Manvers Township.
“They’re coming – unless you can stop them.”
That’s what Paul Reed of the Manvers Wind Concerns group told City of Kawartha Lakes council on Tuesday (Feb. 5), as dozens of people packed the public galleries in council chambers.
At a special council meeting, there were 18 speakers on the agenda. The overwhelming feeling is that wind turbines have a negative impact on health, property values, wildlife habitat and overall quality of life.

Continue Reading at mykawartha.com

Some things Never Change: Old news about Wind Energy, Same Old Problems

If one is to believe the constant and consistent views emanating from CanWEA, AWEA, and all the other WEAs (wind energy associations) from around the world, wind energy is great: wind is free, wind is non polluting, wind is non-evasive, wind turbines are ascetically pleasing, wind turbines are a tourist attraction, wind does not kill as many birds as cats, noise from wind turbines doesn’t cause health problems and wind turbines don’t cause property values to fall and above all wind development creates jobs.

The CanWEAs of the world tell us to look at Germany, Spain or Denmark as prime examples of their preaching. The latter of course is the modern birthplace of electricity generation from wind turbines and hosts two major manufacturers; Vestas and Siemens. According to a recent article Vestas and Siemens together employed slightly more then 12,000 people in 2010. Now if one travels back a decade ago, another article “The Danish Dilemma” published in 2002, reported that there were almost 14,000 people employed in the wind turbine manufacturing sector in Denmark. At the end of the year 2000 Denmark had installed wind capacity of 2300 MW and at the end of 2012 this had grown to 4,162 MW yet the number of jobs had dropped.  Despite the foregoing evidence from the “birthplace” of the modern wind turbine market, CanWEA in their “WindVison 2025” paper, was forecasting 52,000 jobs if Canada would simply target the 20% level of production they alluded was the amount of electricity the Danes generated from wind turbines. The trouble is the Danes only consume about 7% of the electricity generated from wind turbines and the rest is exported at cheap prices because it generally presents itself when its not needed. Germany is the main beneficiary of that cheap power and sells expensive power back to the Danes when those wind turbines are fallow.
Many of our ruling elected politicians actually believe the rhetoric from the CanWEAs of the world about job creation, emission free renewable energy, particularly when wind turbines are mentioned. The Ministry of Energy has consistently ramped the job numbers up in their press releases beginning from the day former Energy Minister, George Smitherman claimed Ontario would create 50,000 jobs by the end of 2012 through the the Green Energy Act. The last press release that spoke about jobs was from current Energy Minister, Chris Bentley dated December 14, 2012 where he claimed 28,000 jobs had been created. Trying to find those jobs however is impossible whereas examples of jobs reputedly created and then lost are quite visible. One example is WindTronics where the Provincial Liberals handed them a grant of $2.7 million in September 2009 but by March 2012 they had left Ontario to do their manufacturing in Michigan.  Another is Siliken who closed their Windsor solar manufacturing plant in May 2012 and yet another is DMI who closed their tower manufacturing operation in Fort Erie. Collectively those three closures represented 600/1,000 jobs which this writer assumes are still included in the 28,000 claimed by Minister Bentley.

Of course the falsehood about job creation is only one aspect of renewable energy and for rural Ontario the bigger issues relate to health and the effect on property values when those turbines suddenly pop up. The WEAs of the world all claim no effect is felt for either of those issues but from the dated “Danish Dilemma” report it would appear that those claims have been around for well over a decade. The wind proponents, using their wealth, have managed to hide the negative news from the gullible politicians. The following is an excerpt from that decade old Danish report that shows those effects on health and property values have been around for quite a while:

Mounting disquiet
In addition come complaints from the immediate neighbours of wind turbines, electricity consumer organisations, and knowledgeable and less knowledgeable citizens. There are warnings to solicitors and estate agents about reduced property values close to turbines (LNtV, 2000a) and also mounting protests against specific site developments (Andersen, 2001a). In this country of only 5.3 million people, over 600 complaints to the Environmental Complaints Board about wind turbines were submitted between 1998 and August 2000, of which 60 cases were upheld. In rural areas, most complaints related to impacts mainly associated with aesthetic and environmental considerations, shadow cast, glinting effects and noise, although a few cases were concerned with infringements of local regulations (Pihl-Andersen, 2000).

The IWTs being erected in Ontario would dwarf most of the 6,200 turbines (Danish Energy Agency) that were then located in Denmark at the start of this century and germinated those 600 complaints. Those 6,200 turbines had a total rated capacity of about 2,400 MWs meaning their average individual capacity was less then 400 kWs or only 50% of the iconic 350 foot 700 kWh Exhibition Place turbine. Their height was approximately 50 metres (195 feet) which is less then half of most 1.5 MW turbine heights. The 2 MW or 2.5 MW industrial wind turbines being erected throughout Ontario are taller still; reaching over 500 feet in many installations. To put the latter in context for people in urban communities, the City of Toronto has only 28 buildings taller then 500 feet.

Now for many people in Denmark the problems caused by those [little] wind turbines back in the late nineties led to regulations being established by some of the Danish counties as the following excerpt from that “Danish Dilemma” report indicates: 

In an assessment of the location of a turbine in the landscape an evaluation must be made of the interaction between the turbine and landscape elements such as churches, burial mounds, characteristic landscape forms and the distance to groups of buildings”]. Turbines may no longer be erected within 500 metres of dwellings.”

So even though some Danish counties were establishing 500 meter setbacks over a decade ago, for wind turbines half the height and a quarter of the capacity of current IWTs, the best Ontario’s politicians and bureaucrats could come up with for setbacks was 50 meters more!

It becomes painfully obvious that the concept of research never crossed the minds of those Ontario bureaucrats or their Liberal political masters when they were rushing to set Ontario’s ratepayers up; to reward the developers, cause health problems, reduce property values, kill birds and bats, damage our tourism industry and drive our electricity bills up! In Denmark over a decade ago they even upheld 10 percent of the complaints submitted, whereas in Ontario thousands of complaints are simply ignored by the Ministries of Health, Natural Resources, Environment and Energy.

At least the residents of Denmark have retained some democratic rights unlike Ontario where we have seen ours exorcised by the current authoritarian government.

Parker Gallant,
February 5, 2013

Uncertain future for Ontario wind under new premier

Apparently some in the wind industry found Kathleen Wynne’s campaign “ominous”

Uncertain future for Ontario wind under new premier | Windpower Monthly:

CANADA: The future of the wind industry in Ontario looks increasingly uncertain following the election of the new leader of the province’s ruling Liberal Party.
Kathleen Wynne will succeed Dalton McGuinty as Ontario’s Premier having campaigned on, among other issues, getting greater community buy-in for wind projects before they proceed.
Wynne’ election comes just weeks after the World Trade Organisation upheld complaints from Japan, the US and the EU, and found Ontario’s local content rules under its renewable energy feed-in tariff programme were discriminatory .

Despite Wynne’s ominous campaign..

The entire article can be read at Windpower Monthly:

Coming to your Hydro Bill: An Export Subsidy and Class “A” Charge

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) put out their press release January 11, 2013 that summarized the state of our electricity system for the year 2012. The release included statistics on where our kilowatt hours (kWh) came from, how much we consumed, how much we produced, what they cost us and how much we exported and imported. The release talks about kWh and also uses the term TWh (terrawatt hours) which is equivalent to 1 billion kWh.

During 2012 Ontario consumed 141.3 TWh, a slight decrease from 2011 when we consumed 141.5 TWh and our generators produced 151.8 TWh from various generation sources including nuclear, hydro, gas, coal, wind and other. As several articles have noted wind outproduced coal with production of 4.6 TWh versus 4.3 TWh from coal. Environmentalists cheered the news claiming a victory for what they perceive as somehow winning a race, or a gold medal, but they fail to acknowledge key aspects of their claimed right to ascend the podium. Wind production is treated special with wind granted “first to the grid” rights whereas coal is relegated to “last to the grid rights”. Coal is only called on to produce when we need it to protect the integrity of the system and avoid blackouts.  The victory is therefore a hollow one, boosted by those steroids given the developers.  Further, coal was there when we needed it, coming off the bench to stop the grid from being overwhelmed on those hot summer days when the giant blades on those turbines were just too weak to spin.  Those 4.3 TWh that coal produced cost Ontario’s ratepayers about $100 million or about 2.6 cents per kWh versus over $600 million or about 13 cents per kWh for the wind production. Coal also didn’t need to be backed up by gas generation which wind needs when it fails to produce.
Wind also has a penchant for producing when we need it least being very productive in the Spring and Fall when our peak demand is at its lowest levels. As an example in April wind has operated at 41% of its capacity but we didn’t need it. In July it produced at only 14%.  As a result of these bad habits wind production is often surplus to our demand and it or other generation must be either sold in the export market or clean hydro is spilled to protect the grid. We also steam off nuclear power (but still pay for what it might have produced) or pay those gas plants for simply sitting idle.

The IESO report noted that in 2012 Ontario exported 14.6 TWh of surplus power out of our total production of 151.8 TWh (2011 it was 149.8 TWh).  If one quickly looks at what cash that might have generated for the ratepayers of Ontario it is a simple process to calculate. The IESO press release discloses that the wholesale price for electricity averaged 2.41 cents per kWh in 2012 equivalent to $24.1 million per TWh so exports generated revenue of about $351 million. The cost of those exports averaged 7.37 cents a kWh hour or $73.70 million per TWh according to that press release. So the cost to ratepayers to produce those exports was $1.076 million meaning Ontario’s ratepayers provided subsidies of approximately $725 million. That subsidy was equal to approximately 0.5 cents per kWh and is included in the “electricity” line of our hydro bills.

In addition to the foregoing, the ratepayers of the province picked up additional costs meant to provide cheaper rates to our largest industrial users. Starting in January of 2011 consumers were divided into two classes with large industrial electricity consumers referred to as Class “A” and the rest of us as Class “B”. What this class definition did was shift 5% of the GA (Global Adjustment) costs from large industry to households and small/medium sized commercial users. While 5 % doesn’t sound like a lot it is both significant and growing. The GA is the pot into which billions of dollars accumulate and includes the excess cost of wind, solar, gas, nuclear and other long term contracts. The GA is primarily the accumulation of the additional amounts paid to the generators in excess of the wholesale price (2.41 cents per kWh in 2012). As an example if we pay a wind developer 13.5 cents a kWh, 11.09 cents per kWh found its way into the GA. In 2011 the GA was $5.310 billion and in 2012 it was $6.456 billion. So in 2012 the GA grew by $1.146 billion or about 0.8 cents per kWh and is now almost double (at 4.6 cents per kWh) the wholesale price.  If we look at the 5% the Class “B” customers picked up for 2012 it is about $320 million or 0.2 cents per kwh of total consumption.

If one couples the export support we provide of 0.5 cents per kWh with the 0.2 cents per kWh ratepayers pick up for the big industrial users it equals 0.7 cents per kWh which co-incidently is the same rate we pay for that other line on our hydro bills; the never ending “Debt Retirement Charge” (DRC) and in total added another $1 billion plus to our bills in 2012 under the “electricity” line!

Maybe its time for our local distribution companies to add an additional line to our electricity bills that highlights just how much we pay each and every month for those subsidies. There is hope that we may eventually see the dreaded DRC disappear however, there is little hope that the EAS (exports and class A subsidy) will. Looking ahead we will see it grow annually, much as it did during 2012.

Now that the Finance Minister and former Minister of Energy, Dwight Duncan has demonstrated how to make $3 billion disappear from our Provincial deficit he could perhaps find some more of that financial magic dust to rid our electricity bills of the GA which is accelerating as fast as he says the deficit is decelerating!

Parker Gallant, 

January 23, 2013

Blaming the victims of Big Wind (Curt Devlin) – WTS

Wind Turbine Syndrome | Blaming the victims of Big Wind (Curt Devlin):

Just as we blame the poor for their poverty, we seem compelled to blame the victims of Big Wind for their own illness.  Apostles of the wind industry, like Dr. Dora Mills, Dr. Robert McCunney and Australia’s Professor Simon Chapman, are only too happy to furnish the tacit explanations needed to justify blaming these victims for their own plight.  These typically include psychosomatic causes, hypochondria, delusions, and other forms of mental illness.  Interestingly, these “diagnoses” are always arrived at without benefit of examining a single patient, conducting an independent study, or even speaking with those suffering adverse health effects.
It is guilt is by reason of insanity.  In this inverted logic, the victims are to blame, not the turbines.
In some cases, we are told the illness associated with these toxic monsters is actually caused merely by the negative perceptions created when someone is ill-disposed to renewable energy—as though anyone could be against such an idea in principle.  This is the always-handy nocebo effect.

The justification for blame is particularly absurd and reprehensible because it flies in the face of a simple fact. Most of the people who become ill were actually in favor of wind energy; that is, until they gained firsthand experience of turbines spinning near their homes.
Why are so many ready to blame the victims of wind? Why so willing to receive these explanations without skepticism, without demanding the same scientific rigor demanded of wind critics? Dr. Ryan’s work is especially useful on this question. The answer is simple; it is a convenient form of social denial. People prefer blaming victims over taking responsibility for confronting the real issue.

Read Curt Devlin’s entire article at Wind Turbine Syndrome:

Cheap Canadian Imports contribute to historic low New York electricity prices

A report out of New York state notes 2012 had the lowest electricity price in years – and then speculates on the reasons of low 2012 pricing, and the cause of high rates today.

New York’s electricity prices reach historic lows – The Buzz: Business news – Capital Region business, industry news – timesunion.com – Albany NY:

The average price of wholesale electricity in New York state last year was the lowest recorded since the advent of a competitive power market 12 years ago.
The New York Independent System Operator, a nonprofit collaborative that runs the state’s wholesale electricity markets, says the average price per megawatt hour of electricity in the state was $43.23 last year, more than $5 lower than the previous low set in 2009.
Interestingly, wholesale prices in the Capital Region and all the way down to New York City and Long Island reached $150 per megawatt hour on Wednesday, which is unusual. It is possible that a problem with a transmission line could have caused the spike. The high pricing later spread all the way to the Finger Lakes.

Continue reading at The Buzz: Business news

The answer to today’s high rates is in overall demand in a number of connected markets.  Most significantly, Quebec is setting consumption/demand records today.

The anwer to the low average rates has a lot to do with low natural gas pricing – but cheap imports from Quebec and Ontario are also relevant.


Original version posted at Cold Air Currents