Ontario doesn’t need more wind power

ListowelFairFloat

ONTARIO DOESN’T NEED MORE POWER SAYS WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO

Large Renewable Procurement means higher electricity bills for consumers

September 1, 2014, Toronto— Ontario’s new Large Renewable Procurement process aims to add more expensive, intermittent wind power to Ontario’s power capacity at a time when Ontario doesn’t need the power, and can’t afford new generation, says Wind Concerns Ontario.

In comments made to the Ontario Power Authority on the draft new procurement process for “renewables” such as wind and solar, the advocacy organization said it cannot understand why suppliers for more power are being sought at this time.

“Ontario lost more than $1.5 billion last year because we had power being produced at the wrong time of day for people to use it,” says president Jane Wilson. “We had to sell it off to other jurisdictions like neighbouring U.S. States at bargain-basement prices. And now, we ‘re looking for more? It doesn’t make sense.”

Adding more renewables to the mix will increase electricity bills for Ontario’s already strapped consumers. “I am very concerned about energy poverty,” Wilson, a registered nurse, says. “We are hearing from young people and seniors who say they have reached or exceeded their limits and just can’t pay any more. Why is Ontario scaling back on cheap hydro power, and looking to buy more expensive wind?”

Wind Concerns Ontario also noted concerns about the approval process for wind power projects. At present 85 municipalities in Ontario have declared themselves to be unwilling hosts to the wind power plants, which can reduce property values, diminish attractiveness for tourists, and produce noise and vibration that disturbs sleep and affects health for some residents. Seven projects have been approved since the June election, Wind Concerns says. The cost of those projects works out to $135.7 million a year or $2.7 billion over the life of the 20 year contracts, or an additional $28.28 per household every year.

“Kathleen Wynne, Bob Chiarelli and their government keep saying that they are not going to ‘force’ wind power projects on communities,” Wilson says, “but just last week they approved a huge power project at Plympton-Wyoming in Lambton County—that community has been very clear about its wishes. This new process fails to define what community approval means. Our communities need to know that, now.”

Wind Concerns commented on other issues with the Ontario Power Authority such as a need for power developer to disclose all the impacts of a proposed project to local governments, for their sales staff to adhere to a code of practice, and for wind power contracts to contain measures that allow landowners to change their minds about having turbines on their property.

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups and individuals concerned about the potential impact of large-scale wind power generation projects on the economy, on the natural environment and wildlife, and on human health.

Read the full Wind Concerns Ontario comment to the Ontario Power Authority on the new Large Renewable Procurement process here: Aug23Input into Large Renewable Procurement RFP Framework

wco.president@gmail.com

 

 

Hydro One customers: use less, pay more

Image result for hydro one bill photo

What Hydro One is doing to over a million ratepayers is a shame

People who know me know it’s like Christmas for me when the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) posts the Yearbook of Distributors and it’s true, the data is a big gift!  You can imagine how a banker might react when confronted with the details the OEB releases.  It gets better when you look at it in detail.

Here is my take on the information as it relates to Hydro One, only one of Ontario’s 73 LDCs (local distribution companies). Hydro One is a monopoly that services 1,221,100 customers (according to the Yearbook) in Ontario, and has exclusive rights to the transmission of energy generation.  Caution some of the fact that follow may disturb some readers.

  • Total Hydro One full-time employees as at December 31, 2013 was 5,641, plus what are referred to as “non-regular” employees numbering 2,109.  In 2002 Hydro One had 3,933 regular employees, so full-time employees have grown by 1,708 (up 43.4%).
  • In 2002, Hydro One had 1,219,614 customers; at year-end December 31, 2013, they reported 1,221,100 customers but they apparently needed 1,708 additional full-time employees to service those additional 1,486 customers.   (The number of “non-regular” employees for 2002 was not available.)
  • Total “Purchased Power” by the 73 local distribution companies in 2013 was 125,306 million kWh and by Hydro One was 25,829 million, or 20.6% of the total. Yet Hydro One services 24.7% of all Ontario ratepayers.
  • The average OMA (operations, management and administration) costs for the 73 local distribution companies was $325.00 per ratepayer, but for Hydro One’s customers it was $495.60—that’s $170.60 more, or 52.5% higher.
  • If one removes the hard data for Hydro One and calculates the OMA for 2013 for the 72 LDCs the average comes to $269,  meaning Hydro One’s OMA is 84.8% higher. For 2012 it was only (I use the term lightly) 65.4% higher.
  • Gross Income (net of Power Purchased) was $3.418 billion for all 73 local distribution companies but for Hydro One it was $1,323 billion or 38.7% of all the Gross Revenue from those 24.7% of ratepayers.
  • Net Income, after PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) was $624.6 million for the 73 local distribution companies and $258.3 million for Hydro One—that represents 41.3% of Net Income for only 24.7 of all ratepayers.
  • Average monthly kWh (kilowatt hours) consumed per customer was 2,112 for all customers of the 73 local distribution companies, but only 1,764 kWh for Hydro One’s customers. That means Hydro One’s customers consume 16.5% less kWh. But… (see the next bullet for the other shoe to drop).
  • Average Power & Distribution Revenue less Cost of Power & Related Costs per customer annually for all customers for the73 local distribution customers was $691.35; for Hydro One (24.7% of all ratepayers) it was $1,084.10— a difference of $392.75 or 56.8% higher for Hydro One ratepayers.
  • Average Power & Distribution Revenue less Cost of Power & Related Costs per total kWh purchased for all 73 local distribution companies was 0.027 cents/kWh; for Hydro One customers it was 0.051 cents/kWh, a difference of 0.024 cents or about 89% higher.
  • Line losses, which we are all billed for, vary and those averaged 4.1% for all 73 local distribution companies; but for Hydro One they amounted to 6.8% or 69.5% more.
  • If one adds the 900 employees Hydro One outsourced in 2002 to Inergi to for their customer service/billing process to the 3,291 reported to be employed in their LDC unit, and then add that number to the 10,022 employees all 73 LDCs reported, Hydro One employees represent 38.4% of all LDC employees, while servicing only 24.7% of all ratepayers.
  • If one calculates the number of customers per employee of the foregoing it works out to 2,914 customers per Hydro One employee and 5,532 for the other 72 LDCs. In other words, employees of the other LDCs support 2,616 more ratepayers per employee compared to Hydro One.
  • Why are Hydro One employees paid more on average if they service 47.3 % fewer ratepayers?

There are a lot more damning statistics that even a mediocre mathematician could use to demonstrate how Hydro One is the least efficient of the 73 LDCs. I believe it is obvious that there are standards applied to municipally owned LDCs that simply do not apply to Hydro One.  They are given carte blanche by the regulator, the OEB,  to run roughshod over 24.7% of all of the ratepayers of the province without consequences.

The Ontario Ombudsman’s report, expected in the fall of 2014, will highlight the mess of Hydro One’s billing system; what will the Ontario Liberal Government do to correct the blatant mistreatment of over a million ratepayers by Hydro One?

©Parker Gallant

August 27, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Hydro One: are you kidding?

HydroBill

by Parker Gallant

If you check in with Hydro One to see how those “smart” meters work when coupled with the outsourced Inergi billing and customer service system, you’re in for a shock!

The Hydro One outsourced service is apparently not working out too well, and the constant rumours and stories about smart meter replacement seems to be an indication that the devices are not as smart as they were supposed to be!  Put the two together, allow people to voice their complaints to Andre Marin, Ontario’s Ombudsman and the result is thousands of complaints. Many of them are truly bizarre.

Here is a snip from the outsourcing agreement from the 2002 year-end MDA (Management Discussion & Analysis) of Hydro One:

“On March 1, 2002, we commenced an outsourcing services agreement with Inergi LP (Inergi), an affiliate of Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Canada Inc. Under this agreement, Inergi provides, among other things, customer service operations, supply management, pay operations, information technology, and finance and accounting services over a ten-year term. As part of this outsourcing arrangement, approximately 900 of our employees were transferred to Inergi. The initial fee payable to Inergi will be approximately $130 million in the first full year of the contract declining to approximately $90 million in the tenth year of the agreement, net of inflation adjustments and subject to decreases based on external benchmarking analysis every three years. Because this outsourcing arrangement provides for a defined competitive and continuously improved price for the outsourced services, we believe that it will allow us to continue to reduce our cost base and improve our competitive position. As part of this agreement, we are still responsible for the capital expenditures associated with these services.”

Surely a recap of Hydro One’s new billing system is also appropriate; this note can be found in the 2013 2nd Quarter MDA of Hydro One under the heading Future Capital Expenditures:

“Other capital expenditures are expected to be approximately $200 million in each of 2013, 2014 and 2015. These expenditures include investments to replace our end-of-life customer billing system with a new CIS and smaller projects related to the continued realization of increased productivity from our enterprise-wide information system.”

I have already highlighted the problems with Hydro One’s new CIS (Customer Information Service?) in several articles including one just before the launch of the Ombudsman’s investigation.  (Find it here!)

Other articles focused on those smart meters including one I wrote (found here) indicating that the smart meters were actually being replaced way back in 2010 shortly after they were installed at a cost of  $700.54 each.

Hydro One recently released their 2014 2nd Quarter results and a August 14, 2014 article in the Toronto Star had this quote from the Director, Corporate Communications, Daffyd Roderick: “ ‘Many Hydro One customers have electric heat,’ said spokesman Daffyd Roderick, ‘and had trouble keeping up with bills that were 20 to 30 per cent higher than normal. That boosted the number of accounts in arrears, and the amount they owe.’ ”

Had Mr. Roderick checked his own press release he would have quickly noted it stated Hydro One’s cost of power was 18% higher as were Hydro One’s Operating costs when the first two quarters are compared to the prior year.   The fact is, increased consumption because of the cold winter played only a minor role in causing the accounts to be in arrears.

We can all hope that  Andre Marin’s report will tell the truth, rather than the spin put out by Hydro One.

©Parker Gallant,

August 25, 2014

Stay tuned for the next installment on Hydro One as more interesting facts are disclosed and we will have a look at how well that 2002 outsourcing agreement has reflected itself in the reduction of their “cost base.”

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Parker Gallant will be speaking in Exeter and Grand Bend on August 26th

Parker Gallant on Hydro One: explaining the unexplainable

saveONenergy Coupons!

Norfolk Power: a good deal for somebody. Not you.

If you are, or could be in future a Hydro One customer there is no reason to cheer about their 2014 second quarter news release … unless you are a ratepayer in Norfolk.

Hydro One’s news release of August 14, 2014 stated the company has received an “approval to acquire Norfolk Power Inc. (Norfolk Power).” The sale price announced last year was $93 million.  For the ratepayers in Norfolk that acquisition will mean a five-year holiday from distribution rate increases.

But there is more: Hydro One is now committed to paying 30.4 times the annual profit of Norfolk Power for the year ended December 31, 2013. That price is referred to as the P/E (price/earnings) multiple. The purchase price by Hydro One is pure insanity as the P/E of utility companies trading in the market has traditionally been in the 10/15 times P/E range.  Why is Hydro One using taxpayer dollars to benefit only the ratepayers and taxpayers of Norfolk, and why did the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) bless the purchase?

The Hydro One press release had lots of bad news: even though revenue was up by $163 million for the quarter it was due principally to the cost of power increasing by $140 million for the additional 0.2 TWh (terawatt hours) purchased.   Doing the math on the extra 0.2 TWh shows a price of $700 per MWh (megawatt hour) or the equivalent of 70 cents per kilowatt hour.   That jump pushed the cost of power for the first six months of 2014 for Hydro One customers — up by 17.8%, and 20.5% for the recent three months.

Why is Hydro One paying so much for the additional power? Are all the other LDCs in the same position?

More bad news: Hydro One’s net income was down by $53 million (32%) in the last three months and $70 million (16%) in the first six months of the current year.  Comparing the second quarter, 2014 with the same quarter in 2013 shows that profit for Hydro One’s transmission business was up slightly, but profit for the distribution business dropped by $45 million or 53%.  What that means is Hydro One will be applying to the OEB for a rate increase for the distribution side.

This was also in the news release, related to the drop in net income:  “The reductions in net income were primarily due to higher operation, maintenance and administration costs resulting from increased aging of accounts receivable as a result of a combination of the impact of cold winter weather on customer bills based on increased electricity consumption and prices, as well as our customer service recovery initiatives.”

Translation: they are connecting the reduction of net income to “increased aging of accounts receivable” which is a stretch, unless they ramped up administration costs to collect delinquent ratepayer bills!  That might have something to do with the flawed billing system under investigation by the Ombudsman.  Or, it could have something to do with “energy poverty” as more and more Ontarians can’t pay the ramped up electricity and distribution costs.

Whatever the answer, it has obviously been caused by one or a combination of all three of these issues which are symptomatic of poor management of expenses,  faulty execution of the revamped billing system, and higher energy prices.

Higher prices are the direct result of the push for large-scale renewable power sources by the incumbent Liberal government.

Customers of Hydro One deserve an answers … and the truth.

©Parker Gallant

August 22,2014

The views expressed are those of the author.

HydroOne Logo

Achtung, Ontario! Renewables are a money pit

Not working out so well
Not working out so well

Germany’s experiment with wind farms and solar power a failure

Writing in the Financial Post today (not online yet), economist Brady Yauch says Ontario could have chosen a better model than Germany for a program to foster power generation from “renewable” sources. Germany, Yauch writes, “has a $412 billion lesson for Ontario.”

On the surface, there have been jobs created and renewables (including HYDRO and biomass) now produce 13% of Germany’s electricity, but “scratch a bit below the surface and an entirely different picture emerges—one with households being pushed into ‘energy poverty’ as renewable subsidies lead to soaring power bills, handouts to the country’s big businesses and exporters so they can avoid paying those subsidies and a systematic bankrupting of traditional utilities.”

“Germany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade,” Yauch reports.  “Households now pay the second highest rates for electricity in the EU–second only to Denmark, the world leader in wind turbines.”

The rise of renewable power has resulted in a comeback for coal in Germany, increasing to 45% of output in 2012.

Yauch concludes by saying, “The energy situation in Germany has become so disruptive and so politically untenable that the government has recently done everything it can to pull back on subsidies and other support for renewable energy, much to the dismay of renewable producers that still can’t survive on their own.

“Far from being a success, Germany’s rush into renewable energy has crushed households, taxpayers and utilities.

“Ontario needs a better model.”

Our question: Will Ontario listen? As Tom Adams said in the documentary Down Wind, “So much money has been spilled…” it will be almost impossible to go back.

In the meantime, Ontario ratepayers and rural-small-town communities pay the price for this wrong-headed and completely unfounded policy.

Wind farms: more expensive than we thought

Sun, wind and drain

Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

SUBSIDIES for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the hope that they will one day undercut fossil fuels and drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. The idea seems to be working. Photovoltaic panels have halved in price since 2008 and the capital cost of a solar-power plant—of which panels account for slightly under half—fell by 22% in 2010-13. In a few sunny places, solar power is providing electricity to the grid as cheaply as conventional coal- or gas-fired power plants.

But whereas the cost of a solar panel is easy to calculate, the cost of electricity is harder to assess. It depends not only on the fuel used, but also on the cost of capital (power plants take years to build and last for decades), how much of the time a plant operates, and whether it generates power at times of peak demand. To take account of all this, economists use “levelised costs”—the net present value of all costs (capital and operating) of a generating unit over its life cycle, divided by the number of megawatt-hours of electricity it is expected to supply.

The trouble, as Paul Joskow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out, is that levelised costs do not take account of the costs of intermittency.* Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables. Electricity demand also varies during the day in ways that the supply from wind and solar generation may not match, so even if renewable forms of energy have the same levelised cost as conventional ones, the value of the power they produce may be lower. In short, levelised costs are poor at comparing different forms of power generation.

To get around that problem Charles Frank of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, uses a cost-benefit analysis to rank various forms of energy. The costs include those of building and running power plants, and those associated with particular technologies, such as balancing the electricity system when wind or solar plants go offline or disposing of spent nuclear-fuel rods. The benefits of renewable energy include the value of the fuel that would have been used if coal- or gas-fired plants had produced the same amount of electricity and the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions that they avoid. The table summarises these costs and benefits. It makes wind and solar power look far more expensive than they appear on the basis of levelised costs.

Mr Frank took four sorts of zero-carbon energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear), plus a low-carbon sort (an especially efficient type of gas-burning plant), and compared them with various sorts of conventional power. Obviously, low- and no-carbon power plants do not avoid emissions when they are not working, though they do incur some costs. So nuclear-power plants, which run at about 90% of capacity, avoid almost four times as much CO{-2} per unit of capacity as do wind turbines, which run at about 25%; they avoid six times as much as solar arrays do. If you assume a carbon price of $50 a tonne—way over most actual prices—nuclear energy avoids over $400,000-worth of carbon emissions per megawatt (MW) of capacity, compared with only $69,500 for solar and $107,000 for wind.

Nuclear power plants, however, are vastly expensive. A new plant at Hinkley Point, in south-west England, for example, is likely to cost at least $27 billion. They are also uninsurable commercially. Yet the fact that they run around the clock makes them only 75% more expensive to build and run per MW of capacity than a solar-power plant, Mr Frank reckons.

To determine the overall cost or benefit, though, the cost of the fossil-fuel plants that have to be kept hanging around for the times when solar and wind plants stand idle must also be factored in. Mr Frank calls these “avoided capacity costs”—costs that would not have been incurred had the green-energy plants not been built. Thus a 1MW wind farm running at about 25% of capacity can replace only about 0.23MW of a coal plant running at 90% of capacity. Solar farms run at only about 15% of capacity, so they can replace even less. Seven solar plants or four wind farms would thus be needed to produce the same amount of electricity over time as a similar-sized coal-fired plant. And all that extra solar and wind capacity is expensive.

A levelised playing field

If all the costs and benefits are totted up using Mr Frank’s calculation, solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive. Hydropower provides a modest net benefit. But the most cost-effective zero-emission technology is nuclear power. The pattern is similar if 1MW of gas-fired capacity is displaced instead of coal. And all this assumes a carbon price of $50 a tonne. Using actual carbon prices (below $10 in Europe) makes solar and wind look even worse. The carbon price would have to rise to $185 a tonne before solar power shows a net benefit.

There are, of course, all sorts of reasons to choose one form of energy over another, including emissions of pollutants other than CO2 and fear of nuclear accidents. Mr Frank does not look at these. Still, his findings have profound policy implications. At the moment, most rich countries and China subsidise solar and wind power to help stem climate change. Yet this is the most expensive way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Meanwhile Germany and Japan, among others, are mothballing nuclear plants, which (in terms of carbon abatement) are cheaper. The implication of Mr Frank’s research is clear: governments should target emissions reductions from any source rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy.

* “The Net Benefits of Low and No-carbon Electricity Technologies“, by Charles Frank, Brookings Institution, May 2014

† “Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity-Generating Technologies“, by Paul Joskow,  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 2011

From the print edition: Finance and economics

The Ontario government’s ‘bogus’ benefits: higher costs for citizens

Energy Minister Chiarelli: building Ontario UP with higher costs--works for me
Energy Minister Chiarelli: building Ontario UP with higher costs–works for me

Minister Chiarelli’s bogus benefits

Bob Chiarelli, Ontario Minister of Energy, made another  announcement about the energy sector and the Municipal Energy Plans or MEP.  Launched a year ago, the MEP has had five municipalities take the money from the Ministry to do Municipal Energy Planning. The relaunch offers $90,000 towards development of a plan, as did the last one.

The press release stated:  “These plans complement regional energy planning and help municipalities by focusing on unique community needs and goals.

There are 440 municipalities in Ontario and  yet, fewer than 1% of them jumped on Bob’s program, demonstrating meagre support for the ministry’s attempt to convince municipalities it has fixed their complaint about the Green Energy Act and the loss of local land-use planning. In fact, as we know, 85 municipalities have chosen to declare themselves Not A Willing Host to large-scale wind power generation projects — in other words, the “unwilling” outnumber the “willing” by a factor of 16:1! Most politicians would see this as some kind of message from the people, but not the Wynne-led Liberals!

Acceptance by those five municipalities of the grants cost ratepayers $450,000 but this pales next to the billions cost us from the other ideas crafted by ministers Duguid, Smitherman, Duncan, and Chiarelli and the guiding outsiders like Rick Smith (former ED of Environmental Defence), Kris Stevens (OSEA), Bruce Lourie (Ivey Foundation), to name a few.  Ratepayer money is shovelled into the pockets of mainly foreign wind and solar developers, while Ontario loses jobs and “energy poverty” grows rapidly.

Let’s compare what support goes towards the Liberal supporters, and who has had their support cut by Hydro One, PowerStream, Toronto Hydro, etc.

Where ratepayers and taxpayer money flows for the electricity sector:

$1.1 billion annually!  The minimum amount of money required to pay the salaries of the 10,800 employees at Hydro One and OPG that were on the 2014 “Sunshine List”

$483.4 million!  The money budgeted by the Ontario Power Authority for “Conservation” initiatives in 2014 to get us to install CFL bulbs, pick up that old fridge, etc.

$2.8 million!  Earnings of the top 5 executives at H1 for the year ended December 31, 2012

$2 million!  The average pension benefit for one of the 10,800 Hydro One or OPG employees on the “Sunshine List” if they retire when they are 55 and live to 84 years old

$6.9 million!  What we are paying to erect meteorological stations to measure how much electricity wind turbines and solar panels might have produced so we can pay them for not producing

$3.5 billion!  What Ontario’s ratepayers are on the hook for to pay wind and solar developers for each year over the next 20 years to produce intermittent, unreliable power

$10 million!  What the Trillium Foundation handed out in grants in 2012 to environmental groups

$1.1 billion!  What ratepayers and taxpayers paid to move those two gas plants

$1 billion annually!  What ratepayers subsidize to export excess electricity

$6 million!  An estimate of what taxpayers and ratepayers have paid for the legal teams that the Ministry of the Environment use to defend their Renewable Energy Approvals

$5 billion!  What taxpayers will have paid to get the 10% reduction on electricity bills referred to as the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit to the end of 2015

$480 million annually!  What ratepayers paid in 2012 towards retirement plans for employees of OPG, H1, IESO and ESA according to the pension report that the Liberals hid until after the election

$1.6 billion!  What it cost to put “Big Becky” under Niagara Falls for marginal electricity

$2.6 billion!  What it will cost to build the Lower Mattagami expansion, that will deliver marginal electricity!

$400 million!  The approximate annual cost  “residential” ratepayers pick up in their electricity bills to provide a supplement to “large industrial user,” referred to as Class A customers.

This doesn’t include Ontario’s taxpayer and ratepayer contributions to the obscene waste that the Liberals have created in this portfolio, but if one totes up the annual costs it comes to  $9 to10 billion.  That money has achieved a very small increase in the province’s ability to generate electricity.  The wind and solar push should be recognized as the biggest waste in the above list — delivering marginal intermittent power at the wrong time of the day and year.  The model adopted by the Liberal government in Ontario has driven up electricity rates making Ontario  number 1 for electricity costs”.

The “fair society”?

The recently approved Budget had a section titled,   “Fostering a Fair Society” in which there was a subsection headed  “Cutting Electricity Costs”. The Budget brags about “Removing the Debt Retirement Charge from Residential Bills” but says nothing about eliminating the “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit,”   which increases the average electricity bill by over $115 annually and does nothing to foster a “fair society.”

If fairness means alleviating energy poverty, what has the government done? Well, it established the LEAP (low-income energy assistance program) which in 2012 handed out $3.9 million — money from ratepayers, actually, to assist low-income ratepayers whose power has been cut off by their local distribution companies! The Liberal government took almost $10 billion dollars from all Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers and returned $3.9 to help about 8,500 people.

On the other side of the balance sheet in the energy portfolio, ratepayer and taxpayer dollars made a lot of insiders in the wind and solar power industry very happy with huge subsidies for giant power projects: little benefit for great cost.

Parker Gallant

August 4, 2014

The opinions are those of the author.

Wind farm issues hit the country fairs

ListowelFairFloat

Country fair season is beginning and with it, opportunities for rural communities to make known their dissatisfaction with the Green Energy Act in Ontario, and the invasion of wind power developers.

Yesterday, a float at the Listowel Fair demonstrated community concerns about hydro bills, health and property values, as a result of a proposed wind power project in North Perth. The Elma-Mornington Concerned Citizens group also launched a weather balloon* to show fairgoers the actual height of the turbines proposed for their community.

A weather balloon is worth 1,000 words
A weather balloon is worth 1,000 words

*Need a weather balloon for an event? We may be able to help. Email us at windconcerns@gmail.com

 

Letter to WCO from Premier Wynne

Received by email today, a response to our letter of June 19.:

Thank you for taking the time to share your kind words of congratulation. It is an honour and a privilege to continue serving this great province as Premier.

I have noted your comments on behalf of Wind Concerns Ontario and have shared a copy of your correspondence with my colleague the Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for his information.

My colleagues and I are committed to building a brighter future for all the people of Ontario. We understand that being fiscally responsible is fundamental to our future, and that building a fair and inclusive society is at the heart of a more prosperous Ontario. These are the principles that will guide us as we work with you, and all our partners, to make Ontario a better place to live, work and raise a family.

When it comes to building opportunity for the people of Ontario and securing our province’s future and well-being, my colleagues and I want to hear everyone’s voice and listen to everyone’s input. That is why I am grateful for your ideas and suggestions.

Thank you again for your kind words. Please accept my best wishes.

 

Kathleen Wynne
Premier of Ontario