Green Energy Act architect lying about cost of energy in Ontario, says analyst

“Propaganda with a falsehood in every paragraph”

Energy analyst Steve Aplin takes aim at an Op-Ed piece published recently in the Toronto Star, on his website Canadian Energy Issues.
The Star article, which contained a hilarious error right in the headline, was written by Bruce Lourie, whose connections throughout the Liberal Party of Ontario and the renewables industry are legendary.
“The body of the op-ed constitutes about the worst litany of error-laden BS I have come across in my forays through the Ontario electricity file,” Aplin writes. “It was written by Bruce Lourie, a former director of the Ontario Power Authority and Independent Electricity System Operator, and most importantly, drafter of the Ontario Green Energy Act.”
“It is rare to encounter propaganda that contains a falsehood in just about every paragraph. The Lourie op-ed contains twelve paragraphs. Each one contains at least a minor falsehood, and at least seven contain major ones.”
Aplin also directs readers to a 2012 article on Mr Lourie and his connections written by Parker Gallant, and an analysis by Scott Luft of some of Mr Lourie’s statements.
“We can make electricity cheap again,” Aplin says, “by cancelling the contracts Bruce Lourie got us into.”


What's your reaction?


  • Tracy
    Posted February 26, 2017 2:10 pm 0Likes

    No doubt in my mind the lies are deliberate and are intended to cover the Liberals.
    This guy should be embarrassed to spew such a load of BS, but is not. “Loser” and “ass” comes to mind.
    To deliberately mislead as such, is this legal?

  • winds got to go
    Posted February 26, 2017 4:59 pm 0Likes

    Please go to Latest news seeking answers in the wind . Conservative figure at 128,000 hoary bats killed by turbines.threatening the survival of these bat in Canada and USA . Get ready to fork out more tax dollars for them to sit Idol During migration !!

  • Maks Zupan
    Posted February 26, 2017 7:41 pm 0Likes

    I have not been subjected to such cynical, deliberately misleading lies since my youth under the communist system. Hi time to impeach the individuals who have caused so much harm to the people of Ontario.
    They have disregarded the opinion from the professional engineers and other critical thinkers and chose to serve to the public only the propaganda lies from the wind industry.
    I am not sure my previous comment was processed so I repeat: As a professional power engineer I sent two reports on the “efficiency” of wind turbines to Ms Wynne -understandable to the average person – and never received an answer. Obtainable from the web as : “Letter to Miss Kathleen Wynne : 11 reasons for Ontario to end its wind turbine program ” and “Wind, solar have had chance” by Maks Zupan.

  • Barbara
    Posted February 26, 2017 10:50 pm 0Likes

    Poyry’s Global Pellet Market Report, 2015
    Black & white pellets can and are being used by OPG for green electricity generation in Northwestern Ontario.
    Biomass/wood pellets market development & expansion depends on government political decisions to support or not to support this industry.
    Black wood pellets are used as a substitute for coal. Thunder Bay GS uses black pellets.
    Poyry’s has an Ontario office in the GTA.

    • Barbara
      Posted February 27, 2017 3:59 pm 0Likes

      the NORWEGIAN american, Feb.7, 2017
      ‘From coal to biocoal’
      Re: Arbaflame & Thunder Bay GS
      ENOVA granted NOK 128 million to the production plant at Follum, Norway. ENOVA is a public enterprise owned by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy Norway.
      Read at:

    • Barbara
      Posted February 27, 2017 6:15 pm 0Likes

      Poyry, Jan.15, 2014
      ‘Is Biocoal a bioenergy game changer?’
      “Biocoal introduces a new class of sustainable, biomass fuel for global power and heat generation”
      Link: read the full report.

      • Barbara
        Posted February 27, 2017 9:11 pm 0Likes

        The development of the Biocoal industry depends on being able to obtain financing and long-term contracts to sell this product.

  • Jjoe
    Posted February 27, 2017 8:12 am 0Likes

    Headlines are usually written by someone else not the person who wrote the article. So any mistake there is probably someone else’s. I am in favour of stopping all wind and solar projects that have not yet been approved. However, cancelling contracts will only lead to lawsuits and major costs to the taxpayers of Ontario.

    • Sommer
      Posted February 27, 2017 11:18 am 0Likes

      How would you suggest to protect all of the people who are being harmed by turbines that were sited too close to their homes and are still running?

      • Jjoe
        Posted February 27, 2017 3:59 pm 0Likes

        Firstly, we need good unbiased research. Then we have to locate which wind turbines are too close. Then, I suggest, we buy those out and tear them down. It won’t be cheap.

        • Sommer
          Posted February 28, 2017 10:41 am 0Likes

          Are you familiar with this information? People who have noticed/are noticing changes in their health since turbines were turned on in their neighbourhoods can go to this information and learn what is causing their symptoms.

          • Sommer
            Posted February 28, 2017 5:15 pm 0Likes

            For some reason this link to the Waubra Foundation did not appear. Here it is again.

          • Jjoe
            Posted March 1, 2017 3:45 pm 0Likes

            If the windfarms are compliant with the regs then they are legal. Unbiased measurements need to be taken. Unbiased health studies need to be taken. The defensible actions can be taken. Shutting down turbines/windfarms without rock solid will create lawsuits we, the taxpayers, will lose.

        • Barbara
          Posted February 28, 2017 11:59 am 0Likes

          Pick the low hanging fruit first!

  • Rural101
    Posted February 27, 2017 5:45 pm 0Likes

    Jjoe. First of all virtually all wind turbine are too close to someone’s home since almost all of these projects are sited in rural residential areas. And you can’t just start tearing the ‘too close’ individual turbines down and have a viable functioning project left. Your suggestion is impracticable. Secondly contracts can be cancelled by a change in legislation (not as a directive as McGunity did, thereby creating a $1B buy-out, in order to save his Liberal seats.)
    On March 14 2014, WCO issued this statement:
    Despite statements made to the media by Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli that it would be “illegal” to cancel Feed In Tariff contracts with wind power developers, court documents show that the opposite is true, Wind Concerns Ontario states in a letter to the Minister today.
    “The decision in Trillium vs. Ontario, 2013, clearly states that governments are free to alter policies in the public interest,” says Jane Wilson, WCO president. “As well, a legal opinion from Osler Hoskins Harcourt advises that companies in the renewable power business participate in government subsidy programs ‘at their own risk.’ (if the following link doesn’t work, then just Search on this site under the name of the law firm and you will find the WCO release.)

    • Jjoe
      Posted February 27, 2017 6:23 pm 0Likes

      That’s why an unbiased study about the health impact of turbines is needed. If not, every turbine will be declared a health hazard by someone. Contracts can be cancelled. Outright cancellation would bring court and NAFTA action. Potential billions in damages. Buyouts, again, potential billions. Windfarms would expect to be compensated for future earnings. The windfarm case near Wolfe Island highlighted the risks. NAFTA ruling found in favour of the wind farm promoters. Gas plant cancellation was the preferred option of all three main political parties. Again NAFTA would over rule any provincial law.

  • whooper
    Posted February 27, 2017 8:09 pm 0Likes

    Many turbines could likely be turned off without compensation to the wind companies simply based on noncompliance with their existing REA …IF the government was willing to actually test and enforced a maximum 40 dBA noise limit.

    • Jjoe
      Posted February 27, 2017 8:42 pm 0Likes

      The proof would be in the lawsuits after. Judges may not agree. Or again, straight to NAFTA.

      • whooper
        Posted February 28, 2017 2:46 pm 0Likes

        Even with the sliding scale with inc. wind speed, many turbines are out of compliance, especially if the MOECC applied the 5 dBA tonal penalty to those turbines that produce a sickening tonal “wooooooooooo” along with the whomping and swooshing. It appears the MOECC gives the wind industry a “free pass” for noncompliance whenever the wind is “gusty”, or one hour prior to and one hour after precipitation events and during precipitation events and whenever it is over 90% humidity etc. etc. To make matters worse, the MOECC equipment will not work below 0 C. The original MOECC wind turbine compliance protocol was written by a firm called “Aercoustics” – which works for the wind industry. Go figure!

  • Jjoe
    Posted February 27, 2017 8:52 pm 0Likes

    It looks like the noise limit is on a sliding scale. It can go up to 51dbA. See section 5.1

    • whooper
      Posted February 28, 2017 10:02 pm 0Likes

      Tonal analysis conducted by Bill Palmer of a recording taken today Feb. 28, 2017 in the K2 Wind project:
      “We see the usual (for K2) tonal spike around 450 Hz. A quick (uncalibrated) analysis by Audacity shows the spike at 450 Hz is 14 dB higher than the sound surrounding it. The fact that it is uncalibrated means that the exact values are not necessarily correct, but the 14 dB difference IS correct as calibration would only result in adjusting both values up or down, while the difference would be unchanged.
      The Ministry of Environmental publication NPC-104 requires a 5 dB penalty if a sound is tonal or cyclic.
      4. Adjustment for Special Quality of Sound
      (1) Tonality
      If a sound has a pronounced audible tonal quality such as a whine, screech, buzz, or hum
      then the observed value shall be increased b y 5.
      (2) Cyclic Variations
      If a sound has an audible cyclic variation in sound level such as beating or other amplitude
      modulation then the observed value shall be increased by 5.
      A Sound that is 14 dB above the surroundings is certainly a pronounced tonal quality.
      The compliance protocol notes:
      means a pronounced audible tonal quality of the sound such as a whine, screech, buzz
      or hum.
      In general terms:
      A 3dB tone is audible,
      A 10 dB tone sounds twice as loud as the surroundings.
      A 14 dB tone is even higher, and would clearly meet “a pronounced tonal quality.”
      While the MOECC declined to apply the cyclical variation adjustment for wind turbines, they have agreed that tonal characteristics would be considered.
      Curiously, the MOE Wind Turbine Compliance Protocol ONLY requires the adjustment if the Manufacturer says the turbine is tonal. In this case, the manufacturer says the turbines are NOT tonal, yet repeatedly monitoring shows the turbines clearly ARE tonal. By my humble assessment, the array is operating outside it’s issued Renewal Energy Approval which was based on statements that the turbines are not tonal.
      This is just more ongoing evidence that this array is tonal, and that the adjustment should apply, If a 5 dB penalty was applied to all of the K2 turbines, only homes with a rated sound level below 35 dBA should be permitted by the MOE guidelines. Many homes in K2 are rated at higher than 35 dBA. This would require shutting down some turbines.
      Hence, action should be required by MOECC guidelines.”

  • Barbara
    Posted March 2, 2017 4:00 pm 0Likes
  • Barbara
    Posted March 2, 2017 8:03 pm 0Likes

    Wind Energy Update, Feb.28, 2017
    Click on: ‘PJM grid can handle 35 GW offshore’
    Scroll down and read at:

Add Comment

© Copyright 2022 | WCO | Wind Concerns Ontario

to top