Wind Concerns Ontario Blog

We're moving...to a full capability website!

2014-04-10T08:17:00.003-04:00

Wind Concerns Ontario is moving its blog(s) to a full capability website.

Please visit us at

www.windconcernsontario.ca

We're still working on building up the features but already we think you'll notice improvements in the Search and Comment functions.

We will be publishing news items as we go but this is your Wind Concerns Ontario information destination!

Feel free to continue to send news tips to freeWCO@gmail.com

Bob Chiarelli: take the hint from Europe and revise renewables agreements

2014-04-08T08:48:00.003-04:00

Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli says he can't go back on contracts with wind power companies. We say he's wrong.
Now, so do countries in Europe as they realize they can't keep afloat while paying so much for renewable sources of power.
Read this by Financial Post correspondent Lawrence Solomon.

North America slow to reverse renewables projects, but its turn will come soon

Financial Post April 4, 2014

Europe taught us to spare no expense in supporting wind and solar projects, the better to help the planet survive. Now Europe is teaching us how to tear down those same projects, the better to help ratepayers, and politicians, survive.
UK Prime Minister “David Cameron wants to go into the next election pledging to ‘rid’ the countryside of onshore wind farms,” the London Telegraph announced this week. He intends “to toughen planning laws and tear up subsidy rules to make current turbines financially unviable – allowing the government to ‘eradicate’ turbines,” the goal being to “encourage developers to start ‘dismantling’ turbines built in recent years.”
Cameron will have no shortage of methods in taking down the now-unpopular wind turbines — in recent years countries throughout Europe, realizing that renewables delivered none of their environmental promises...

Read the full story here.

Kill feed-in tariff program, Ontario, says economist Jack Mintz

2014-04-08T08:38:00.000-04:00

Jack Mintz is the Palmer Chair in the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He weighs in this morning on Ontario's finances.

Canada's sagging middle: Ontario

Ontario’s growth has lagged the rest of Canada, averaging less than 1% annually since 2009
With Quebec’s election over, we can turn to Ontario where a scandal-plagued Liberal government will soon present its 2014 budget – and possibly trigger a spring election. Ontario is sagging under the weight of monstrous public debt, uncompetitive energy prices and rising taxes. Given Ontario’s size, other regions of Canada are being hurt.
Ontario has only one way out: economic growth. Luckily, the American economic recovery will significantly benefit Ontario. However, it won’t be enough. The government needs to get its house in order.
Pushing aggregate demand with deficit spending won’t achieve growth. Economic stimulus might provide some short-term relief but won’t generate sustained expansion. Instead, growth will be attained with supply-side policies by reducing onerous regulations, providing some smart tax reforms and shifting to growth-oriented spending, especially to address the notorious Greater Toronto Area infrastructure problem.
Nor will growth come from expansionary public programs like the proposed Ontario pension plan. Forcing people to hold assets in a government-sponsored plan might be helpful to some but it will be just another form of new taxation for others, who are already have adequate savings for retirement.
Ontario’s growth has lagged the rest of Canada, averaging less than 1% annually since 2009. Employment since 2009 has increased by 375,000 but the employment rate has fallen to U.S.-levels of 61.4% as of March 2014, far less than Alberta’s at almost 70%.
Ontario‘s fiscal picture is also not pretty, with gross debt over $290-billion (net debt is $272-billion), requiring $10.6-billion in taxes to cover interest charges. This expense is enormous, about one-half of education expenditures.
The average Ontario debt interest rate is only 4% but interest rates are expected to rise within the next few years. Each point increase in interest rates will add at least another $3-billion in annual interest expense.
Ontario’s energy prices are soaring. Look at any bill and one can read added delivery charges, regulatory charges, debt retirement charges and HST, resulting in an average price of 12.48 cents per kwh in Toronto for households. Large power customers pay 10.89 cents per kwh in Toronto, less than New York but higher than most eastern U.S. and Canadian cities.
Ontario made real progress in 2009 by adopting the HST to replace the provincial sales tax and reducing Ontario’s corporate and personal taxes to ensure that revenues would not increase. However, the province reneged on tax cuts only two years later.
The Ontario corporate income tax rate is stuck at 11.5%, compared to the promised 2009 legislated rate of 10%. None of this helps the province’s poor investment climate. Ontario’s share of business capital spending is only 32% of Canadian investment, less than its share of population and dramatically less than a decade ago.
Personal income tax rates have also increased to almost 50% at the top end, third highest in Canada. There is a reason why many high-income taxpayers have moved Alberta with its top rate of 39%. Alberta’s rich households, with over $500,000 in family income, account for 15% of Alberta’s taxable personal income. This ratio is two-thirds higher than Ontario.
Add in Ontario sales taxes at a 13% rate (about the average Canadian rate), fuel taxes (Ontario’s at 14.7 cent per litre is one of the highest in the country) and property taxes (Ontario is on the high side especially for non-residential property) – it all adds up to a yoke on growth.
Ontario’s Minister of Finance is in a bind. He needs more growth but he also has to deal with a large debt mountain and an uncompetitive tax system. So what are his options? Here is a five-point plan.
First, focus spending on growth-oriented programs. Transportation infrastructure should be on the top of the list as GTA traffic results in unproductive use of time.
Second, kill off the feed-in tariff program for wind and solar that creates excessive electricity costs for households and companies. This would both improve growth and help reduce administrative costs....

Read the full article here.
Jack M. Mintz is the Palmer Chair, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary.
–

Ontario's Power Trip

Manitoba wind plant cancelled

2014-04-07T17:16:00.002-04:00

Plug pulled on wind farm

Winnipeg Free Press

April 7, 2014
The plug has been pulled on a proposed 175-megawatt wind farm near Manitou that would add more alternative energy to Manitoba and be a boon to farmers, a U.S. firm said.
"There's no prospective view of any future wind farms to be built in the province," said Ed Pakulak, the Canadian spokesman for U.S.-based Competitive Power Ventures (CPV). "The focus is hydroelectric power."

Pros and Cons

The good about wind power

No fuel costs

Short construction time

Low life-cycle emissions

Costs expected to decline

Ease of permitting

Local benefits to communities and landowners

The bad about wind power

Diffuse, intermittent resource

Not suitable for baseload

Prone to lightning strikes

Highly dependent on commodity prices

Cold-weather problems

Critics say the blades are prone to bird and bat strikes

In-lake wind
More wind power might not be on the table for Manitoba Hydro now, but it has looked at the possibility of building a 100-megawatt wind farm not near Lake Manitoba, but in it.
Like offshore wind turbines in Europe and the United Kingdom, Hydro has looked at locating massive wind turbines in Canada's 13th-largest lake, taking up 2,000 to 4,000 hectares.
In a report to the Public Utilities Board, Hydro says there are drawbacks:
The lack of experience with it in North America (there are no offshore wind farms in North America);
The high cost of integrating it with the grid with underwater cables and;
Dealing with winter ice. A 2012 best-guess estimate says it would cost $400-$760 million.
Hydro says large Manitoba lakes have a wind-power class ranking of five to six, some of the best wind available to spin turbine blades.
The report does not make any recommendations and Hydro has not put the idea on its to-do list.

The planned wind farm, next to the 63 turbines at St. Leon, had been in the works for three years, but never advanced past the proposal stage.
Tentative agreements were in place with about 25 landowners for turbines on their properties and with the RM of Thompson. CPV is one of about a dozen wind companies with plans to bring more turbines to the province.
"It had the potential to have a huge impact on our community," Reeve Jason Vanstone said. "It would have increased our municipal revenues by about 45 per cent. It's not only income for our tax base, but income for a lot families in the area."
Landowner Philip Barclay said the wind farm would have created jobs. "The province is supposed to be open for business, but when you try to do something, you get the cold shoulder from a government monopoly."
Proponents say Manitoba Hydro is concentrating on building two new mega-generating stations in the north and believes wind is unreliable during our cold winters.
CPV's decision to pull out of Manitoba comes as the Public Utilities Board studies Hydro's bid to build the Keeyask and Conawapa generating stations and a new transmission line to the United States. Hydro says the three projects will cost about $20 billion, but should pay for themselves with increased electricity exports to the American Midwest, where a number of old coal plants are being retired.

Southgate says 'no'

2014-04-04T10:08:00.005-04:00

Southgate says 'no' to wind farms

Owen Sound Sun Times

April 3, 2014
Don Crosby
In a surprise move Mayor Brian Milne turned over the chair of Wednesday’s council meeting to Deputy mayor Norm Jack to propose that Southgate become a unwilling host to any wind energy projects now and in the future.
“I really wasn’t ready to see the project fall but I really wasn’t ready to support it. I think Brian showed a fair bit of courage in realizing that maybe the community wasn’t behind it,” said Councillor Glen Irwin following the unanimous vote by the five members of council present.
Coun. Dale Pallister had declared a conflict of interest and was out of the room during the vote. Coun. Pat Franks was absent.
Milne told a packed council chamber that discussions with residents indicated a deep division within the community over Samsung’s proposed 120 megawatt, 50-turbine wind project planned for the former Proton Township in the eastern part of the township.
“I think it’s the right thing for our community. . . . I could see the acrimony was going to tear this community apart and it wasn’t going to solve anything. It just decided it wasn’t worth it,” Milne said.
Cindy McNalty was taken aback by council’s sudden support of the strong opposition in the community.
“I’m glad that councillors listened; they were willing to come to the community meeting to receive information and become more informed and listen to members of the community and realize that money isn’t the end all and be all of everything and community cohesiveness is more important than money,” she said.
“It has divided many communities and I can't see us being any different,” she added.
Milne said the promise of...
Read the full story here.

New paper on infrasound from Dr Alec Salt: time to eliminate this problem

2014-04-03T10:03:00.001-04:00

What you can't hear CAN hurt you: Salt

A new paper from Dr Alec Salt, Professor of Otolaryngology at Washington University, on infrasound produced by large-scale wind turbines, long-term effects of exposure to infrasound, and the quality of noise measurement being used by governments and industry.
His conclusion is that: the time has come to acknowledge the problem and work to eliminate it. He also says the wind power development industry needs to be held to a higher standard of health and safety than it currently is.
Read the paper2014 SaltLichtenhan Acoustics Today, and our thanks to Dr Alec salt for forwarding a PDF of the paper for us to share with you.
Wind Concerns Ontario, in our continuing campaign to spark responsibility in the Ontario government for this burgeoning public health problem, will be forwarding the paper to the appropriate officials.
Feel free to share it with your Member of Provincial Parliament.

Please link to the paper via our Wordpress site, here.

2014-04-03T08:49:00.003-04:00

Samsung Project Dead

Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:28 AM by Jon Meyer

Southgate Council votes against the wind project with unwilling host status.

There is audio for this story.
click to open MP3 version
or click the play button to listen now.

(Southgate) - The large wind turbine project in Southgate has apparently been stopped.
Mayor Brian Milne says the Samsung, Pattern Energy project needed willing host status from the Township to move ahead.
At last night's meeting, Milne says Council voted unanimously to stop the wind project by declaring itself an unwilling host.
Milne says there was no way the township could resolve a number of issues it had with the project, without more control.
He says it was apparent the project would tear the community apart.
Samsung needed willing host status to move ahead with its 50 turbine, 120-megawatt wind farm proposal.
Milne applauds the Province for giving them that out clause, and the ability to say no.
But Milne wishes the Province gave them site plan control.
Instead, he says council had to say yes, with no conditions.
He says just three weeks ago Southgate was in the process of considering being a willing host.
But Milne says that was only if they could come to terms on a agreement on a number of issues -- which included a good neighbour policy and issues around health and property values.
But Milne says they couldn't come to those terms, and they had no choice but to stop the project.
The decision comes...
Read the full story here.

Southgate to Samsung: NO

2014-04-02T20:10:00.003-04:00

Southgate Council today voted not only not to accept the proposed agreement offered by Samsung but in fact to become an "unwilling host" to the 56-turbine wind power project.

Mayor Brian Milne said Council had heard from the community and listened to all concerns; he also said that the Township had many revisions to the agreement, that Samsung was not likely to accept.

Samsung had offered the Township $180,000 per year for an agreement "without limitation" that would have granted them building permits, road access and whatever they needed to develop the power project.

Each of the Samsung turbines had the potential to "earn" the company $775,000 per year; the company had also not made provisions for decommissioning the wind power project at its end.

David Suzuki says he's OK with wind farm near his cabin

2014-04-02T17:33:00.001-04:00

David Suzuki: Supporting wind power makes sense

by David Suzuki on Apr 1, 2014 at 4:07 pm

I have a cabin on Quadra Island off the British Columbia coast that’s as close to my heart as you can imagine. From my porch you can see clear across the waters of Georgia Strait to the snowy peaks of the rugged Coast Mountains. It’s one of the most beautiful views I have seen. And I would gladly share it with a wind farm.

Sometimes it seems I’m in the minority. Across Europe and North America, environmentalists and others are locking horns with the wind industry over farm locations. In Canada, opposition to wind installations has sprung up from Nova Scotia to Ontario to Alberta to B.C. In the U.K., more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of the country's most prominent environmentalists, have argued wind power is inefficient, destroys the ambience of the countryside and makes little difference to carbon emissions. And in the U.S., the Cape Wind Project, which would site 130 turbines off the coast of affluent Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has come under fire from famous liberals, including John Kerry and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.
It’s time for some perspective. With the growing urgency of climate change, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t shout about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the “dangers” of windmills. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity will face this century. Confronting it will take a radical change in the way we produce and consume energy—another industrial revolution, this time for clean energy, conservation, and efficiency.
We’ve undergone such transformations before and we can again. But we must accept that all forms of energy have associated costs. Fossil fuels are limited in quantity, create vast amounts of pollution and contribute to climate change. Large-scale hydroelectric power floods valleys and destroys habitat. Nuclear power plants are expensive, create radioactive waste and take a long time to build.
Wind power also has its downsides. It’s highly visible and can kill birds. But any man-made structure (not to mention cars and house cats) can kill birds—houses, radio towers, skyscrapers. In Toronto alone, an estimated one million birds collide with the city's buildings every year. In comparison, the risk to birds from well-sited wind farms is low. Even the U.K.’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says scientific evidence shows wind farms “have negligible impacts” on birds when they are appropriately located.
...

Read the full account here.

UK PM warned not to "appease" wind farm opponents

2014-04-02T17:27:00.003-04:00

Cameron told not to appease minority of Tory MPs opposed to windfarms

Renewable industry and green campaigners concerned prime minister is considering new controls on onshore turbines

Rowena Mason, political correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday 2 April 2014 17.05 BST
Jump to comments (295)

David Cameron is thought to be 'of one mind' with some of the loudest opponents of onshore windfarms. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Green campaigners urged David Cameron yesterday to stop trying to appease a minority of windfarm opponents in his party with proposals for further curbs on onshore turbines.
Supporters of wind power were alarmed after it emerged that the prime minister was considering including new controls on onshore generation in the next election manifesto, such as a cap, further cuts to subsidies, more planning restrictions or limits on noise from turbines.
A Conservative source indicated that Cameron is "of one mind" with some of the loudest opponents of onshore windfarms and wants to go further in cutting government support for them.
Critics accused the prime minister of pandering to the right of his party before the election, as there remain many Tory backbenchers who dislike onshore windfarms and Ukip has declared its opposition to windfarms on principle.
Although the coalition has already set out cuts to financial support for windfarms and given communities greater rights to veto developments, Downing Street plans for further controls are already under way. It is understood that Cameron and George Osborne proposed a cap on the electricity output of onshore windfarms to Nick Clegg just over a week ago, meaning no more would be built beyond existing ones and those already granted permission. This was rejected by the Lib Dems but could form part of a Conservative pledge in the runup to the next general election.
Chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association, Thomas Becker, said he feared the political confusion over onshore wind was creating a "vicious" climate for investment.
"In our opinion, leaders in Europe, including in the UK, need to make up their mind whether they would like wind infrastructure. We're not selling washing powder. We're establishing things that last for 20, 30, 40 years. That's a huge investment and the political insecurity that [comments] like this creates is very vicious to our industry, in that investors and developers shy away.
"There is a tendency in which energy policy is...
Read the full story here.

Community group says Suncor wildlife assessment not adequate

2014-04-01T16:23:00.003-04:00

Anti-turbine group says assessment falls short

By Paul Morden, Sarnia Observer

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 2:51:30 EDT PM

Tundra swans in flight. OBSERVER FILE PHOTO

A Plympton-Wyoming group opposing Suncor Energy's plans to build a wind farm in their community says the company's study of the potential impact on migrating tundra swans is inadequate.
But, the company says it met provincial requirements in its application for environmental approval for the 46-turbine Cedar Point Wind Energy Project.
That application is currently being reviewed by Ontario's Ministry of Environment.
"As part of the application for ministry approval, Suncor completed a natural heritage assessment to assess any potential impacts to significant habitat necessary to sustain wildlife, including birds," said ministry spokesperson Kate Jordan.
That assessment will be considered as part of the review, she said.
"No decisions on the proposal has been made,"Jordan added.
The group, We're Against Industrial Turbines, Plympton-Wyoming (WAIT-PM,) has been going through Suncor's application documents and issued a press release pointing to a one-day site observation report that included a swan count carried out in 2012.
"I don't think they gave an adequate look at it," said WAIT-PW spokesperson Ingrid Willemsen.
"I think they need to look at an appropriate time for migration, and see that they wouldn't interfere with the flight patterns."
The Lambton Heritage Museum said Tuesday that thousands of swans could be seen in farm fields on the nearby former Thedford bog, a traditional stopover on the swans' spring migration to nesting grounds in the Arctic.

Read the full story here.

Forbes: IPCC deliberately excludes important climate data

2014-04-01T10:21:00.003-04:00

March 31, 2014

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

95 comments, 81 called-out

Comment Now

Follow Comments

By Joseph Bast

This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today(March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO₂levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO₂levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO₂ levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO₂concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO₂ enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. ...

Read the full story here.

Southgate gets flawed 2010 report as proof property values don't decline

2014-03-31T17:48:00.000-04:00

In the Agenda posted for this week's Council meeting in Southgate, Ontario, where the community is pondering a proposal for a huge wind-solar power generation project by Samsung, is the 2010 report prepared for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, the lobbyist for the multi-billion-dollar wind power development business in Canada.

This would be funny if it weren't so outrageous.

First the report by appraisers Simmons and Canning, is so deeply flawed it is hard to know where to begin. Oh wait, yes we do: Wayne Gulden, who holds an MBA in executive finance, critiqued the report back in 2010 when it came out. Other studies funded by the wind power industry have problems, he says, "but Canning is downright dishonest." Read Mr Gulden's critique of the report here.

A better list of studies may be found here.

Readers may also wish to read the study by Heintzelmann and Tuttle of Clarkson University, who maintain the EVERY wind power development should be subject to a full cost-benefit analysis, AND that communities should demand property value guarantees. Another useful study is that of Sunak and Madlener of Aachen University.

The fact that this is the level of information that is being presented to the citizens of Southgate as they are being pressured to make a decision of such magnitude for their community, is emblematic of how this industry operates: deny, hide, and do everything with the full cooperation and encouragement of the current Ontario government.

Parker Gallant on the Ontario Sunshine List

2014-03-31T15:57:00.001-04:00

The sun shines for Ontario public sector employees in the “electricity sector”

The 2013 “Sunshine” list released a week ago set a new record with 96,500 names on the list of public sector employees earning over $100,000 annually and an average of $127,433 each. Looking specifically at the employees in the “energy” sector (OPG, Hydro One, IESO, OPA, OEB, Ministry of Energy) you find that 12,300 names on the lists.

It should be pointed out that the 2013-2014 budget brought in by Finance Minister Sousa indicated the Energy Ministry budget was $1,119,650,400. Doing the math on those 12,300 employees at the “average” remuneration of $127,433 gives you a total of about $1,567 million, exceeding the budget by $427 million. The budget doesn't include public sector employees at OPG or Hydro One where the bulk of those on the “Sunshine” list work, and where ratepayers pick up the tab.

OPG reported at year-end December 31, 2013 they had 10,270 employees and 7,960 (77.5%) of those employees made the list. Hydro One reported they had 5,641 employees as of December 31, 2013 and 3,771 (67%) made the list. It also doesn't include IESO (326 on the Sunshine list) or the OPA (87 on the list) or the OEB (102 on the list), but all of those costs are picked up by the electricity ratepayers. (It should be noted that the number of employees at the latter three are not reported in their latest annual reports nor could the information by found on their websites.)

Another interesting fact about the “Energy Ministry” is that budgeted expenditures placed them in 10^th position well behind the big ones like Health, Education, Community and Social Services, Training, Colleges and Universities and even behind the Attorney General's budget. Those 12,300 names on the list represent 12.8% of the Sunshine list but the Energy budget represents less than 1% of total budgeted expenditures of $109 billion. It includes the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OECB) of $1.040 billion which is paid for by the taxpayers. If that amount was deducted from the Ministries’ budgets, it would come in at $79 million; that’s because, unlike all of the other 26 ministries, it is the ratepayers who pick up almost 100% of the $20 billion plus costs of generating and distributing electricity.

Of course, the sunshine list doesn't include any employees from private sector generators like Bruce, Brookfield, NextEra, Samsung or other solar and wind developers...

To read more Parker Gallant, please go to our special tab for his columns at this tab.

GMC owner writes to GM on the wind farm ad

2014-03-31T11:12:00.001-04:00

Many of us have seen the advertisement on TV for the Sierra truck, which opens with the statement that wind farms store the power they create until it's needed. False!
Many of us have written to the Advertising Standards Council to correct this, and demand the ad be revised (it hasn't been).
Best placed people are those who already own GM products. Here is a letter sent to GM and the Council by Wind Concerns Ontario member Robert Service.

I currently own a Sierra 2500HD Diesel and soon will be replacing my truck. Therefore, I pay close attention to TV advertisements for GM trucks and competitor models. I expect these ad campaigns to be truthful.
I was astonished, therefore, when I saw your latest ad for the Sierra line of trucks.
The truck is pictured in front of a wind turbine installation and the voice-over says: "wind farms generate power and store it until needed."
This is a lie.
Wind power has to be dumped at a loss to surrounding jurisdictions because the power cannot be stored for future use.
GM has been notified that the ad contains a lie and yet it has been kept in rotation.
There is an economic cost associated with misleading your customers. If I can’t trust your ad campaigns, how can I trust the specifications of your products.
This ad has just raised Ford and Dodge Ram trucks to be the first and second choices for my replacement vehicle - they haven’t lied to me in any of their ads.

If you wish to file a complaint with the Advertising Standards Council online, go here. You must have actually seen the ad, and be able to refer to where and when you saw it.

Australian Medical Association: you've got mail

2014-03-31T08:18:00.001-04:00

Since the Australian Medical Association came out with its "surprising" (Dr Robert McMurtry's reaction) statement on wind turbine noise and health, people from around the world have been writing to provide the AMA with more information, and demand a retraction, reports Wind Victims Ontario.

A full report of the global reaction may be found here including copies of letters that have been sent.

The Waubra Foundation in Australia has a full list of letters sent, in alphabetical order; if you wish to contact the AMA, be sure to visit the Waubra Foundation link first, and copy them on your correspondence.

Here are some sample letter:

AMA Statement: Responses of Concerned Professionals, Citizens, & Impacted Residents

03/30/2014

22nd March, 2014
The Australian Medical Association Position Statement: “Wind Farms and Health” 2014 has provoked instant national and international condemnation from those who have first hand knowledge of the damaging impact of wind turbine noise, including impacted residents, researchers, and professionals providing either clinical care or acoustic services.

Some people are writing privately to the AMA, urging them to remove or update the ignorant AMA position statement, whilst others would like their views made public. As the Waubra Foundation becomes aware of letters written to the AMA and receives permission to reproduce them, they are being posted below.

The Waubra Foundation’s Open Letter to the AMA is here.
Gardner, Mrs. Ann Nine Questions for the AMA
My name is Ann Gardner and I have lived and worked happily and healthily for 34 years, on my husband’s and my farming property in south-west Victoria until October 2012, when the first only 15 turbines of the Macarthur wind farm began operation, and threw our lives and those of many others, into turmoil.
At the time of writing this letter I am suffering terribly from the infrasound emitted by the 140 turbines located FAR TOO CLOSE to our property.
I have a bad headache. I have a very strong pain shooting up through the back of my neck and into my head. I have extremely sore and blocked ears and very painful pressure in my nose. I have pressure in my jaws and my teeth. My heart is POUNDING .….. I can feel the vibration going through my body, through the chair, like an electric charge. I have just taken yet another two tablets to try and alleviate the pain.
I am also exhausted, as last night, along with every other night, I spent more time awake than asleep. The infrasound in our bedroom, was appalling .….. I could feel the vibration through the mattress and the pillow, like an electric charge through my body. My head felt as if a brick was on it, and the pressure and pain in my nose was extreme. I have always been a very sound sleeper, that is until October 2012. I am now lucky if I am able to get two or three hours sleep each night, in my own home.

Gallandy-Jakobsen, Greta. AMA Concerned About Machines Instead of Human Beings
Do you remember your oath as a member of the medical profession?
At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

Enbom, Dr Hakam, MD, PhD. Otoneurologist, Angelholm, Sweden
"Thus the conclusion is that low frequency sound and infrasound from wind power has the qualities to trigger increased sensitivity and eventually migraine headache or other migraine-symptoms – such as vertigo or tinnitus (without headache)."

Hopkins, Dr Gary D. Emergency Physician, South Australia
"I am rendered speechless by your irresponsible, ill researched, ill advised and reckless statement that those who might suffer physical effects from the presence of turbines are suffering a psychological condition (anxiety). Indeed your very statement itself causes anxiety in those likely to be effected ( “who will believe me when I tell them I feel sick ” ? )."

McMurtry, Professor R. Researcher, Expert Witness, Former Dean Medical School, Ontario, Canada
"I am writing to comment on the AMA Position Statement. The position statement is surprising. It is not well informed, references are absent and the authors of the document are undisclosed. Many of the phrases and claims in the document faithfully reflect wind industry claims, claims which cannot be substantiated.
Review of the existing evidence in which direct assessment of exposed individuals has been carried out uniformly reveals adverse health effects2. The common denominator of complaints consists of sleep disturbance, inner ear disturbance and stress response. These are serious adverse health effects. These adverse health events have been reported globally in the media and grey literature."

Palmer, William. Professional Engineer, Ontario, Canada
"I wish to express to you my grave concern that the Position Statement as it is issued is not consistent with the Code of Ethics of the Australian Medical Association
There is obviously a need for discretion, but this information is from the public record:

A gentleman in his 50’s who stood at a public meeting to declare he was suffering no adverse health effects from wind turbines near his home suffered a cardiac arrest and died within one week of his declaration.
A young lady in her 30’s suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest and died.
Another gentleman in his 60’s had a cardiac arrest while out fishing and could not be revived.
Another gentleman in his 60’s suffered a cardiac arrest while driving and passed away.

None of these individuals’ deaths were expected"

Papadopoulos, George. Pharmacist, Yass, NSW
"Both AMA position statements reflect an abstract position that does not examine reality.
It seems that the AMA perceives information and open discussion as a threat to the mental wellbeing of the modern Australian.
The harm wind turbines can cause has been described by NASA scientists in the 1980’s. The response by Sarah Laurie to the AMA is very comprehensive and makes the case clear"

Reider, Dr Sandy MD, Primary Care Physician, Vermont USA, has treated impacted residents
"As a rural primary care physician (graduate of Harvard Medical School in 1971) in northern Vermont, USA, I have observed first hand the adverse health effects experienced by individuals living too close to the two large wind projects that have been brought online in the area over the past few years."

Tibbetts, Dr. Jay J. MD, Primary Care Physician, Wisconsin, USA, has treated impacted residents
"Over the past four years the Board has studied the deleterious effects of IWT’s on human health.
We have the Shirley Wind Farm in our county. It consists of eight 500’ 2.5 megawatt IWT’s. The effects on our citizens living in the immediate vicinity i.e. 2–3 mi. of the nearest turbine has been devastating. Ear pressure , pain, tinnitus, vertigo, headache, nausea, chest pain pressure, abdominal pain, poor concentration, sleep deprivation, irritability and depression are some of the symptoms our citizens are experiencing. These symptoms are not unique to our facility but are reported world wide and a direct effect of ILFN. Three families from Shirley Wind have abandoned their homes and several others would move save for financial reasons."

West Grey launches website

2014-03-31T08:08:00.001-04:00

Fighting against a huge wind power development slated for West Grey, citizens there have launched a new website (which features a petition to repeal the Green Energy Act, and are planning public events.
Visit the website here for more information.

Chiarelli, MacLeod and Horwath to speak on energy issues (in the same room!)

2014-03-28T17:28:00.001-04:00

Keynote Political Addresses at Electricity Distributors Association Annual General Meeting

Where:		Fairmont Royal York, Concert Hall, Convention Level (Toronto)

When:		Monday, March 31

Details:		Senior representatives of all three major Ontario political parties will address hundreds of electricity industry delegates from across the province next week. NDP Leader Andrea Horwath will speak at approximately 9:15 am; followed by PC Green Energy Act Critic Lisa Thompson at approximately 9:45 am; while Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli will address delegates and guests as part of the evening gala with his remarks beginning at approximately 8:30 pm. Energy remains one of the most vigorously debated of all provincial policy files. This event is an opportunity to gain insights on the energy policies the parties will carry into the next election.

Southgate Twp to ask for comments on giant Samsung wind power deal

2014-03-28T15:24:00.000-04:00

Comments Welcomed on Southgate Wind and Solar

By Janice MacKay on March 28, 2014

Southgate is going to open its website to people wishing to comment on the municipality becoming a Willing Host for solar and wind power.
There is considerable public opposition to a major wind and solar proposal now before council from Samsung Renewable Energy.
Southgate is working on an agreement with Samsung before deciding to becoming a Willing Host.
Samsung Renewable Energy and its affiliate, Pattern Energy, are proposing to build 40 wind turbines in the east half of Southgate and a 700-acre solar farm in the northwest part of the township.

Editor - Midwestern Ontario Email Janice MacKay

Blog editor: a check of the Southgate website today indicates there is no link yet to a comment function. However, you may view the wind and solar draft agreements here.

Samsung offers Southgate millions to accept power plant with few conditions

2014-03-28T09:27:00.000-04:00

So here is the new definition of community support under the Wynne government; of a community needs money badly enough, turning down a multi-million-dollar wind power project won't seem like such a bad things. (Never mind you could be left holding the bag at the end of it for all costs....)

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Southgate Township, near Mount Forest, could land big bucks if it agrees to host Samsung’s wind and solar farm 75

By John Miner, The London Free Press

Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:10:45 EDT PM

Cashing in or selling out?
In an unprecedented deal that could become standard fare under new provincial rules for green energy projects, a Southwestern Ontario township could rake in more than $5 million if it gives its blessing to a wind-farm plan.
But at least one opposition group says Southgate, near Mount Forest, would be selling out its residents and principles if it agrees to willingly host wind turbines and solar installations.
Southgate Township has been offered a deal with Samsung in which the company would make annual payments that would total $5.1 million over 20 years in exchange for a council resolution expressing support for a wind and solar farm within its boundaries.
Under Samsung’s offer, the money would go into a “community vibrancy fund” that could be used by the municipality for a wide variety of projects, including roads, recreational facilities, job training, social events and property tax relief.
Samsung is proposing to build a wind farm with about 50 industrial wind turbines and a solar farm in Southgate.
The proposed deal has been denounced by Wind Concerns Ontario, the umbrella organization fighting against wind farm projects across the province.
“We were quite surprised by what was in it,” said Jane Wilson, the organization’s president.
The group’s objection is based on everything else Samsung specifies goes with the resolution of support — unconditional granting of road use agreements, building permits and severance applications.
“The municipality shall ensure that any municipal approvals with respect to the project approvals are carried out by the applicable staff of the municipality with due diligence, promptly and without delay,” Samsung’s draft of a tentative agreement specifies.
“Basically what Samsung is saying is ‘Whatever we want, you are going to give us and here is what we are going to pay,’ ” Wilson said.
...

Read the full story here.

MacLeod demands to know truth on gas plant and hard drives

2014-03-27T18:36:00.004-04:00

PC Energy Critic and MPP Lisa MacLeod demands to know the whole truth and nothing but about the hard drives. (Note the Speaker chastising the Minister of the Environment, James Bradley.)

Can you answer beyond a "shadow of a doubt"???

Video here

Parker Gallant on Hydro One: service for our customers!

2014-03-27T17:40:00.002-04:00

The promises pile up at Hydro One; so do complaints

Hydro One: aiming to improve $ervice to customers

Energy Minister Bob Charelli announced on March 7 that Sandra Pupatello was to be the new Chair of Hydro One. We wouldn’t have thought she needed the work: Ms Pupatello is already CEO of Windsor Essex Economic Development Corporation, and will retain that job. The prior CEO of that corporation pulled in $160,000 annually so Ms. Pupatello, with an additional $150,000 for chairing Hydro One, will give pocket a possible combined income of over $300,000.

This appointment, along with that of Bernard Lord to Chair at OPG, is being touted as the way to cure all ills at these two provincial Crown corporations, both of which have received a lot of attention. OPG was castigated by the Auditor General in her 2013 annual report for high salaries, too many managers, and a gold-plated pension plan. Hydro One is under investigation by the Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin. Now, “investigation” by the Ombudsman is not the same as “under investigation” by the OPP, but Mr. Marin has a way of getting to the heart of a matter that seems to attract media attention. Since the February announcement the Ombudsman's Office reports it has received in excess of 6,500 complaints, and is getting over 200 calls per day.

Some of the complaints were astounding. One of the publicly disclosed complaints from Beaver Valley Ski Club occurred before the Ombudsman announcement. The club got a shocking bill for $37,000 in the summer of 2013, complained and got an apology along with a revised bill for $37 million. Other individuals were billed for thousands of dollars and had their power had been shut off; still others, on a automated payment plan, had their accounts debited for thousands of dollars for incorrect bills.

I am not surprised. I have written several articles about Hydro One and their excesses that have been glossed over since the Liberals gained power. Several years ago, I asked for and received, a hard copy of Hydro One's “Conditions of Service” (CoS) and was shocked to receive a 100-page document. The CoS has grown to a 134-pagelegal nightmare that can be found on the Hydro One website. (If you do key word searches on the CoS you will get 14 hits for “non-financial default,” 45 hits for “rate class,” 8 hits for “Hydro One's discretion” and a definition: “Energy Meter” means “a meter that measures a Customer’s energy consumption.” Why does a monopoly owned by the province need a 134-page CoS?

After receiving Hydro One's announcement about their new billing system, I described it as a $160-million revenue grab. Their 2012 annual report disclosed “other” capital expenditures of $350 million and in that report was this statement: “These expenditures include the replacement of our customer billing system to address end-of-life requirements and to further productivity realization from our enterprise-wide SAP platform.” That doesn’t seem to have happened but now apparently there is hope as the Toronto Star article on Pupatello's appointment carried this quote: “ ‘We are going to fix it,’ Pupatello said of the overbilling problem.”

Shortly after Andre Marin announced his investigation of Hydro One's billing mess, they released their 2013 annual results reporting a fourth consecutive annual record profit of $803 million coupled with a record amount of revenue. The press release of February 14, 2014 carried quotes from Carm Marcello, President and CEO, along with several notes.

First was a weak explanation and apology for the “new customer billing system.” The apology finished with the laughable “We want to assure our customers that ultimately, they will only pay for the electricity they use.”

To achieve that, we would have to believe in the ability of the “smart meters” to, as noted in the CoS, “measure[s] a Customer’s energy consumption.” With Hydro One's admission that they have had to replace thousands of smart meters, [full disclosure: including both my son's and my own “smart meters”) I’m not so confident! The ability of the new billing system to interact with the smart meters is key to the Ombudsman's investigation and the thousands of complaints he has received.

Other notes included the fact that Hydro One's staff worked 385,000 overtime hours on storm-related work, including 250,000 hours on weekends and holidays to restore power. That might explain why their operations, maintenance and overhead costs increased by $35 million (almost 4%) but they still managed an increase of $58 million (+7.8%) in after PIL earnings.

Is the $923 million reported as “Accounts receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)” a true figure? I have to ask, because on such things like the Beaver Valley Ski Club $37 million mistake, the over 6,500 complaints received by the Ombudsman's office as of March 19^th, 2014, and the overtime racked up for the Christmas ice storm. Was that overtime cost accounted for? On the billing cycle, Hydro One allow 19 days from their billing date to payment date which would suggest if all bills were paid “on time” without penalty, outstanding bills would account for $321 million, yet receivables at year end would indicate “past due” accounts are double that amount. That makes one wonder how much of those past due bills are represented in complaints to the Ombudsman!

Other notes include the reasoning behind capital expenditures of $1.394 billion which are “to improve system reliability to address our aging power system to improve service to our customers, and to facilitate the connection of new, clean generation.” Hydro One has failed on the first target but has done the job on “new clean generation” — ratepayers’ bills keep rising!

March 27, 2014

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

Breach of trust charges: McGuinty chief of staff

2014-03-27T12:12:00.002-04:00

Breaking news from Ottawa

Police allege criminal breach of trust against McGuinty chief of staff over gas plants scandal

By Keith BONNELL, OTTAWA CITIZENMarch 27, 2014 11:54 AM

The OPP allege that David Livingston, former chief of staff to Dalton McGuinty, committed criminal breach of trust in giving an outside tech expert access to 24 computers in the premier’s office.

OTTAWA — Police are pursuing a criminal charge of breach of trust against the right-hand man of former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty in an investigation sparked by the controversy over deleted gas plant emails.
Authorities say they believe McGuinty’s former chief of staff, David Livingston, gave an outside tech expert access to 24 computers in the premier’s office — access it’s suspected was used to permanently delete information.
By allowing someone who was not an Ontario Public Service employee to alter government computers, police allege, Livingston breached the public trust.
And while just what exactly the outside expert may have done to the computers in the premier’s office is not fully known, police now have two dozen hard drives in hand and are trying to see if they can figure it out.
The case against Livingston is detailed in the “information to obtain” (ITO) Ontario Provincial Police used last month to request a search warrant for a storage facility in Mississauga, where the government hard drives were being stored.
Some of the allegations are being made public for the first time after the Citizen and other media went to court to have the police document unsealed.
The accusations have not been tested in court, but a judge has ruled it is in the public interest to make them known.
Police allege that during the transition period after McGuinty had resigned from office under a cloud of allegations over the cancellation of gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville, Livingston arranged to get special computer access so that one user would be able to access the computer profiles of the entire premier’s office.
Police allege that Livingston had to go through bureaucratic hurdles and the incredulous questioning of staff to get this special high-level clearance — the kind of access usually reserved for IT staff.
He is then alleged to have given it to his executive assistant, Wendy Wai, a woman who the police document says knew very little about computers.
The police document suggests Wai was just a token staffer. It raises the possibility she was given the computer access so that her account could then be used by an outside expert who had the savvy to put the newly obtained privileges to good use.
This outside expert was connected to the government, in a way, police allege.

Read the full story here.

Blog editor note: Ontario citizens observing the gas plant hearings on the days senior McGuinty staff were being questioned will have noted a single familiar face in the back of the hearing room: former Ontario Liberal Party president and CEO of GDF Suez (formerly AIM PowerGen) Mike Crawley.

MP Cheryl Gallant on the Green Energy Act

2014-03-26T17:03:00.006-04:00

Cheryl Gallant, MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke in the House of Commons yesterday:

...My constituents are infuriated over the skyrocketing costs of electricity that are a consequence of the provincial Green Energy Act, which his brother enacted under the authorization and architecture of Mr. Gerald Butts, who is now the key advisor to the Liberal Party leader.

If we want to have any idea of how energy costs are going to increase nationwide, we only have to look at what is happening to our hydro bills in Ontario to get a taste of that.

Further, this all started with the introduction of wind turbines. One of the first companies to reap the windfall is now also the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is a way of funnelling good taxpayers' money into government coffers, thereby funnelling it to their individual party interests. All the while, it is forcing Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers, hydro payers, out of their homes and into debt. They have to choose between heating or eating.

MP Reid writes to Ontario: negative impact of wind power on Amherst Island

2014-03-26T16:59:00.000-04:00

MP Scott Reid filed comments with the EBR on the proposed wind power development on Amherst Island.

I am writing to bring to your attention to the substantial concerns expressed to me by residents of Amherst Island with respect to the Amherst Island Wind Energy Project, developed by Windlectric Inc., a subsidiary of Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. (EBR Registry number 012-0774) .

I would like to highlight for you the concerns I understand have been raised with you by the Township of Loyalist, of which Amherst Island is a part, and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority regarding the unsatisfactory level of detail or evidence in the consultants’ reports to justify the project without causing serious damage to wildlife and habitat.Amherst Island is the largest island lying entirely within Lake Ontario. It is an historic and uniquely beautiful place that is home to conservation areas and a mix of agricultural and residential land usage. Accord ing to Nature Canada, Amherst Island is home to a globally significant wildlife habitat and conservation area known as Owl Woods which serves as an important migratory location for wintering hawks and owls – species that require particular care in dealing with when proposing wind turbine projects.

Amherst Island is not a large piece of land, however. The Windlectric proposal to install up to 37 turbines, when viewed in relation to the island’s land area of approximately 70 km2 , would seem to me to pose a significant visual and physical imposition on the island, its natural beauty, and the prospects for the future enjoyment of its use, and a potentially disruptive influence to wildlife and its habitat. The enormous size of these turbines – considerably taller than those on nearby Wolfe lsland—is of considerable significance as well.
A letter submitted to you on February 27, 2014 by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, of which I have a copy, provides details respecting their concerns as protectors of (and land title holders to) Owl Woods and as an important nature conservator in eastern Ontario. The organization’s position speaks for itself and I am confident that their views will be taken into account. I am particularly disappointed that the Cataraqui Region · Conservation Authority’s position that meaningful consultations and alterations to Windlectric’s plan should be undertaken has not been acted upon.
I also have concerns respecting the potential for the wind energy project to have a negative impact on the heritage tourism economy of Amherst Island, and over the possibility that, while a handful of landowners may benefit from the sale or lease of lands for the project’s use, the land value of the property owned by the remainder of the island’s residents will be significantly and irreparably lowered–without compensation–should the project proceed.
Taken together, I would argue that the likelihood of significant, long-term damage to Amherst Island’s environment and wildlife habitat, its economic life, and its property values outweighs the purported benefits of the proposed wind energy project. I urge you to take these concerns into account.
Scott Reid, M.P.
Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington