Auditor General's review of renewable energy is flawed, misleading and based on discredited studies

Yesterday, this news release crossed the Canadian Newswire.

ONTARIO HIGHLANDS FRIENDS OF WIND POWER

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUDITOR GENERAL’S REVIEW OF RENEWABLE ENERGY IS

FLAWED, MISLEADING AND BASED ON DISCREDITED STUDIES

Grey Highlands, ON, March 7, 2012 – Ontario Highlands Friends of Wind Power released a report today,

A Critique of the Auditor General’s Report on Renewable Energy Policies. (http://www.windisgood.ca/

newsrelease.html.

The report concludes that the Auditor General’s value-for-money audit of Ontario’s renewable energy

initiatives (http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en11/303en11.pdf) is flawed and misleading.

Author Malcolm Hamilton, an electrical engineer, former senior management consultant and retired wind

developer, said the Auditor General’s flawed audit is the result of “shoddy work.”

“I was astonished when I read the Auditor General’s report. I expected a balanced, helpful analysis that

would correct some of the myths and misinformation about wind generation and shed a spotlight on

Ontario’s options for renewables, going forward,” Hamilton said. “That is not what we got.”

Mr. Hamilton found that the Auditor General and his team:

• exaggerated the problems and costs of integrating wind generation into Ontario’s electricity

system;

• misrepresented the relative cost of wind power generation and its impact on the cost of electricity;

• ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence that properly sited wind turbines have no adverse

impact on human health, and in the process, dismissed the considered opinions of Ontario’s Chief

Medical Officer of Heath on this issue. Finally they

• relied on out-dated, discredited, biased reports to assess the government’s green energy job

creation projections and health impacts.

People rely on the accuracy of Auditor General’s reports. They will repeat his errors. Mr. Hamilton

recommends that the Auditor General order a third party review of his audit immediately to correct the

flaws in his report.

Hamilton said, “The Auditor General must have known that his report would become part of the significant

but ill-informed public dialogue on renewable energy. It is unusual for him and his office to become

involved in political issues. For this reason, I believe the Auditor General needs to correct the public record

and, this time, get it right.”

“Ontario’s electricity system badly needs upgrading,” he said. “Deciding how we get our power in the future

must be based on solid fact, not conjecture, or opinion. It is simply too important to get wrong.”

Public opinion polls have shown the majority of Ontarians support wind energy for its environmental,

economic and social benefits. A debate based on facts is important to ensure we all understand the

contribution wind is making as Ontario builds a stronger and cleaner electricity system. An accurate report

from the Auditor General is fundamental to this conversation.

Ontario Highlands Friends of Wind Power is a network of people, organizations, and businesses

interested in wind development who want to share information about wind power generation and about

projects and plans for wind generation in their communities.

Visit our blog at http://ohfowp.blogspot.com/

Council's stance on wind project doesn't represent everybody

County Live.ca

January 26, 2012

by Nicole Kleinsteuber

This blog entry concerns Prince Edward County and the County Sustainability Group.  For original article click here.


Local wind supporters addressed council Tuesday night requesting they defeat a motion to submit a series of concerns to the Ministry of Environment and Gilead Power.

“We do not find it to be relevant to the original motion, reflective of sound science or representative of the greater good,” said John Thompson, past president of PEC Federation of Agriculture.

The motion states the municipality believes Ostrander Point is an inappropriate site for the proposed wind farm and should not be approved for a list of reasons. Concerns ranged from unresolved adequacy of the proposed setbacks of turbines from residents homes to infrastructure having negative impact on birds, wildlife and the environment.

Rob Williams, a member of the County Sustainability Group agreed with Thompson when he addressed council. The local group wants the community to adopt green initiatives, including windmills.

“Informing the ministry of the municipality’s belief is one thing,” said Williams. “Requesting that the belief that Ostrander Point is an unsuitable site must be addressed to the satisfaction of the County of Prince Edward is quite another. It blocks any opportunity for the ministry to grant approval.”

Williams said most of the reasons in the motion have not been critically evaluated by council or staff and are rife with subjective complaints.

“Exaggerated localized threats to humans and wildlife are given prominence yet the far greater threats from climate change, against which clean sources of renewable energy like wind are our primary defence, are completely ignored,” said Williams.

Williams said the concerns are a thinly disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto on any approval decision by the ministry.

“It is a direct challenge to the ministry’s authority,” said Williams. “It will severely compromise the credibility of council as a reasonable partner and hence diminish council’s stature and influence in future ministry decisions.”

“I’m quite intrigued by the information that we received saying that this is a disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto,” said councillor Robert Quaiff. “Absolutely, that was the complete intent. It was for this municipal council to take a line and draw it in the sand and all declare once and for all whether or not we support the industrial wind turbine location at Ostrander Point.”

Councillor Jamie Forrester wanted to know how councillor Quaiff came to the conclusion that the entire municipality is against the Ostrander Point location.

“I’m not quite sure how we can make that assumption one way or another,” said Forrester. “There hasn’t been any surveys with results backing up the statement.”

Councillor Bev Campbell agreed that the introductory paragraph should be rephrased.

“That paragraph doesn’t belong with matters to be addressed,” said Campbell. “We want Gilead and the province to provide us with mitigation measures to the items we’ve listed.”

Campbell said she wasn’t in favour of deleting the environmental concerns pertaining to the Important Bird Area, wildlife and endangered species. Campbell said the portion pertaining to negative human health impacts, reduced quality of life and noise emissions should be omitted from the list.

Councillor Brian Marisett said the sections about health studies should be left out.

“I don’t think it’s possible for a study to come out with conclusive proof that’s going to satisfy all of the residents regardless of what position they’re taking,” said Marisett. “I’ve heard this debate since 2002. Experts from this side and experts from that side on and on. Everyone is claiming that they’re the authority on the issue and I don’t think we’re ever going to get there.”

But councillor Terry Shortt disagreed, stating these are concerns from a portion of the community.

“They should be included,” said Shortt. “We have a divided community. Part of that community is in support of wind energy and part of the community is not.”

Council decided to amend the original motion to read the province and Gilead to provide mitigation measures for the following concerns.

“It’s some improvement,” said Thompson in an interview. “They’ve taken out the most offensive part. You can’t say the county doesn’t think that it’s an inappropriate site. It’s not possible to say it in all honesty. That information isn’t available.”

Thompson also requested council to bring in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s decision to suspend new feed in tariff contracts for wind until their issues are resolved into the debate. Thompson said there are inconsistencies in last week’s press release that said the OFA wants to suspend all wind developments across the province.

The concerns the OFA wants addressed surround the price to be paid for wind power, the inefficiency of wind energy, setbacks and induced currents, health and nuisance issues and the removal of municipal input for projects.

OFA President Mark Wales agreed the call for a suspension should be clarified.

“A lot of people understand what we’re saying and for those who don’t we need to clarify that point,” said Wales in an interview. “The OFA isn’t against wind energy. It’s time to put a pause on the process, don’t issue any new projects until concerns are dealt with. The projects that are in the works are going to go ahead.”

Wales said these issues have to be resolved to ensure the success of all projects.

Is MPP Bill Walker playing the role of judge and jury?

This is a guest blog by Roger Short:

In an article published by the Meaford Independent on January 19th, recently elected MPP, Bill Walker has waded into the matter of wind power and who should have the control over review and permitting decisions.

In his role as MPP, he is required to represent all people in his riding, not, as this article suggests, just those who make the most noise.

If he dug a little more deeply, he would find independent surveys showing that there is solid support for renewable energy in the area and beyond.

Not only that, but there are lengthy and thorough processes which proponents must follow to get final approval for any potential project.

Opponents of wind power in organisations like Wind Concerns Ontario and others have, as their stated objective, the elimination of all wind turbines in Ontario.  They have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to achieve this goal, and their style and tactics have frequently silenced any and everyone who dares to challenge them. 

Opponents never even recognise or engage such matters as the deaths and health bills from fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, nor on the Ontario nuclear record of never coming in on time or on budget for any project to date. Recent experience shows that on large refurbishing projects, expenses have exceeded estimates by $ billions as well. 

Coming from the nuclear industry, Mr. Walker is probably fully aware of these facts, yet outcomes like these aren't addressed - and yet they affect all Ontarians.

The renewables business, with its clearly demonstrated job creating ability, new technology and potential to improve both local economics and local farmers, should be reviewed in an objective fashion by those who represent us.  

Pacific Breezes Part II

This is the continuation of the guest blog by Roger Short.

So, how has Hawaii gone about its intent to get wind power and other renewables into its strategic plan?

1. Start with a clear goal in mind:

         -The state's official position is to have 40 percent renewable energy sources, including biofuel, geothermal and wave energy, in place by 2030.

         -Hawaii is not alone in going this way. Other Islands are looking to more ambitious goals up to 60% by 2030.

2. Be up front about expectations

         -"We may not be able to guarantee better rates, but we can guarantee stable pricing," 

3. Don't ignore side benefits like reduction of coal and oil consumption.

4. Layout a timetable and the process, e.g.

         -"The project developers expect to complete a final environmental impact statement in September or October.  The environmental study must address questions raised by members of the public, including concerns about noise."

         -"The Planning Commission is the county agency that would accept the project's final environmental impact statement. Then, it must get state and county permits before construction can begin."

5. Hold productive meetings that lead to good press support, such as this quote from the Maui News:

         "A good portion of the meeting was about the benefits of clean energy"

6. Monitor the impact of renewables, if any on their key business, tourism.  There has been no impact on tourism.

And here's a sample of the projects that have followed the above six steps and have been approved:

         -Hawaii PUC has approved an agreement between First Wind and Hawaiian Electric Company for the utility to purchase wind energy produced by the proposed 69 MW Kawailoa Wind Project on Oahu’s North Shore, 12/13/11.

         -Maui Electric has received approval from the Hawaii PUC on a 20-year contract for the company to purchase wind power from Sempra Generation's Auwahi Wind project on Maui, 6/16/11.

         -Sempra Generation has entered a 20-year contract -- subject to PUC approval -- to sell wind power to Maui Electric from the Auwahi Wind project on Ulupalakua Ranch, 4/7/2011.

         -The Kahuku Wind project commences commercial operations, 3/24/11

A more complete list of the wind projects can be found at this site.        

A new study has found that large-scale wind and solar projects can be integrated on Oahu's electric grid, eliminating the need to burn approximately 2.8 million barrels of low sulfur fuel oil and 132,000 tons of coal each year, while maintaining system reliability, 3/17/11

 * * * 

If only the citizens of Ontario were to follow this shining example, the Province could be well along with its plans too.

Melancthon council seeks cap on wind turbines

This sounds like a pretty sensible idea.  We're assuming that Council is looking at an average density over the entire municipality, as opposed to one turbine per a specific square mile. Melancthon has approximately 120 square miles of land within its borders.  Using the suggested rule, Melancthon would be able to restrict the number of turbines to 120.  As the article highlights, they are currently host to 111 turbines with the possibility of a further 60.

We wonder what the landowners associated with those proposed turbines think about the idea?  The population of Melancthon is approximately 3000.

Orangeville Banner

December 07, 2011

Bill Tremblay

How many turbines are too many for a municipality? That’s the question Melancthon council hopes the province will some day answer.
The township’s council recently approved a resolution asking the province to set a limit to the number of industrial wind turbines within a municipality.
“Somewhere, somehow, there has to be a system that says enough is enough,” Mayor Bill Hill said. “Hopefully, it opens a dialogue door.”
In search of support for the cap, Melancthon forwarded the resolution to its fellow Dufferin County municipalities, Grey County, the Inter-Municipal Turbine Working Group, as well as the ministers of energy, environment, municipal affairs and housing, agriculture, and Premier Dalton McGuinty.  Mulmur and the township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh have supported the resolution.
Hill added council would seek an audience with provincial ministers at a conference this February.
“We’re trying to get some control back, or input back into this process,” Hill said. “We’ve tried many different things that haven’t worked.”
Melancthon is currently home to 111 turbines and as many as 60 more windmills may be constructed within the municipality.
“We’ve done our bit. Somewhere along the line there has to be some way we can say enough is enough,” Hill said.
The resolution asks for the cap to be based on a municipality’s size and create a one turbine per 2.5 sq. km restriction.
“It’s not really scientific, it’s based on a turbine per square mile,” Deputy Mayor Darren White said. “We tried to look at not limited too much area and not preventing too much future development.”
Industrial turbines require a setback of at least 550 metres. White said the turbines, combined with the setback, are limiting the opportunity for new development.
“If you look at an aerial map we are substantially covered already,” White said. “Every community needs to be able to grow.”
Hill added he would like to see the resolution included in the province’s review of the Feed-in Tariff program (FIT) that is currently underway.
The Ministry of Energy has issued a call to Ontarians to share their thoughts on the program.
Ministry of Energy spokesperson Paul Gerard said the FIT review would give municipalities’ opportunity to help shape the future of renewable energy in the province.
“The FIT review will consider local consultations,” Gerard said in an email. “The review will build on the success of the program and continue to ensure long-term sustainability, transparency and predictability for industry and investors.”
White, however, believes the province is not listening to municipalities’ concerns.
“They are not willing to talk about a cap or any planning authority for the townships whatsoever,” he said.
“I’m willing to sit down and talk to them and listen to their logic and they can listen to my logic. Hopefully, we can work from there.”

Did Ontario AG rely on discredited Exxon-funded study?

Adam Scott

Environmental Defence

I was going to write about this, but Adam did a much better job.  Adam rightfully says that the AG's report accords the oil industry reports a credibility that was manifestly undeserved.  By doing so, the report seriously diminishes the AG's credibility - at least on this issue.

Environmental Defence
December 05, 2011
Adam Scott

Here's the post.

We are not in the habit of criticizing the hard-working Ontario Auditor General (AG), but were disturbed today to see his apparent reliance on a series of widely discredited oil industry-backed reports attacking the value of "green jobs". 

 

Page 118 of the Ontario AG's 2011 Annual Report, released today, states that:

“A 2009 study conducted in Spain found that for each job created through renewable energy programs, about two jobs were lost in other sectors of the economy.” 

 

While not properly referenced, it would appear the AG's report is referring to the infamous "Spanish Jobs Study" from 2009.  The study was created by a libertarian think tank tied to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The AEI is partly funded by oil companies Exxon Mobil and the Koch Industries Inc – major funders of climate change denial campaigns worldwide.

 

The "Spanish Jobs Study" report didn’t actually show that any jobs were lost, but simply implied this through a highly discredited methodology. The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory explains the false methodology here. The study has also been called into question by the Spanish Government itself, and the Wall Street Journal. The study’s author, Gabriel Calzada, was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute’s climate change denial conference in 2009.  

 

The Auditor General also makes reference to two other nearly identical ‘zombie studies’ using the same flawed methodology for Denmark, and the UK. Not one of these reports actually shows any evidence of real job loss. 

 

These are reports mostly used by right-wing republicans and Fox news in the U.S. to discredit renewable energy policies and confuse the public. Their unfortunate inclusion in the Ontario AG's report accords them a credibility that is manifestly undeserved.

Bill 10, the Wind Turbine Abolition Act

The Intellingencer

Bill 10, the Local Municipality Democracy Act, was introduced today as a private members bill by MPP Todd Smith of Prince Edward Hastings.  It might as well have been called the Wind Turbine Abolition Act.  

If you didn't know what the Bill was about, you might think that it was bringing democracy to those poor, small municipalities governed by dictatorial regimes or government appointees.  In fact, it's a Bill that was totally focussed on two or three clauses in the Green Energy Act that govern the control of wind turbines and other renewable energy sources.  The Bill was designed to firmly give that control to the municipalities, specifically those NIMBY municipalities that don't want wind turbines.  Municipalities like Prince Edward Hastings, home to weekenders from Toronto and Ottawa - and MPP Todd Smith. 

John Laforet, former President of Wind Concerns Ontario, posted a blog on the Huffington Post that seemed to read more like a personal biography or CV than a manifesto.  And, why is Mr. Laforet the former President?  On the day before the election he was the President.  A few days later, he wasn't.

Here's an extraction from that blog:

The Green Energy Act has done a lot of damage to communities in rural Ontario. Neighbours aren't speaking, people are getting sick, citizens have been compelled to go to great lengths to resist the fundamentally anti-democratic approach. As a consequence, your government has only been able to approve 12 wind turbines under the regulations that the Green Energy Act brought in over two years ago.

This paragraph is internally inconsistent.  Laforet blames the Green Energy Act for all sorts of damages (e.g. discord, sickness and civil disobedience).  And yet he says that this has come from 12 wind turbines?

  

Sounds to me like symptoms of self-induced hysteria, not turbines.

If you want an in-depth description of how the Green Energy Act is actually stronger than the patchwork collection of municipal bylaws that preceded it, read this document from the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association.

Municipalities under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEGEA) do have significant powers. 

In fact with only 1MW of wind constructed since the Act was passed, those examining the facts should recognize that

large wind developments now in operation were developed under the old Planning Act.

The truth is that the province-wide Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process is open and transparent, requiring a more rigorous and cohesive process than the red tape heavy patchwork approach of the past.

Unfortunately a few municipalities appear to be hiding behind the province politically, rather than using the

tools and powers provided by the GEGEA.

John Laforet closes his blog by saying:

Tens of thousands of rural Ontarians will be watching on Thursday, I hope for everyone's sake they will see their Premier standing in support of local democracy.

Apparently, there weren't too many people watching, even from MPP Todd Smith's party.  

The Bill was defeated 45-32.  

I don't have the underlying vote count by party but here was the seat count after the election:

Liberal 53

PC 37

NDP 17

Did Hudak's green energy policy cost him the Ontario election?

Clearsky Advisors
October 12, 2011

The purpose of this article is not to pass judgment on the election outcome, but to contribute to a discussion about the role green energy policy played in the outcome of the Ontario election. Were their respective positions on green energy either positive or negative for the election results of the two main parties in Ontario, the governing Liberals and the opposing Progressive Conservative party (PC)?

Let’s consider McGuinty first – the man behind the Green Energy Act:

Recent reporting suggests that Carol Mitchell and possibly John Wilkinson – both ministers in McGuinty’s previous cabinet – lost their seats because of the Liberal party’s policy on renewable energy. An article in the Globe and Mail also mentions Leona Dombrowski as suffering the same fate in addition to the two aforementioned candidates. The same article goes on to say that because of those three losses, McGuinty lost his majority, which, given that he is now only one seat short of majority, is an accurate statement. But, does that also mean that we can attribute McGuinty’s loss of majority to the Liberal’s green energy policy?

Let’s consider the following facts:

• The Liberals lost 19 seats in this election
• Three of the losses have been attributed to the green energy policy
• That leaves 16 other lost seats, each of which could have given McGuinty a majority, if only one of those Liberal candidates had won their riding

In other words, there are many reasons why McGuinty lost his majority, and green energy policy may be one of them – but in a year with strong conservative winds blowing across Ontario, it surely is not the only and perhaps not the most important reason. Conversely, there is evidence that McGuinty’s green energy policies may have helped him greatly in some parts of the province even if it didn’t in others.  Moreover, evidence also suggests that Hudak’s aggressive stance against green energy policies may have hurt, more than it aided his cause.

It is worth noting that in none of the three ridings mentioned by the Globe and Mail as costing McGuinty his majority can the voting be characterized as landslide victories for the PC party and their particular stance on renewable energy:

• In Perth-Wellington, the PCs made a gain of 1,981 votes, just slightly more than the “green friendly” NDP’s gain of 1,674 votes. Given that John Wilkinson lost his seat by only 630 votes, one might just as well attribute his loss to the “orange wave” as to the Conservative’s opposition to the current green energy policy. With both the Liberals and NDP supporting a progressive green energy policy, the popular vote in Perth-Wellington was clearly in favour of a green energy policy.
• In Huron-Bruce, the shift from Liberal to the PC party was more pronounced as the PCs gained 5,560 votes compared to the 2007 election and beat the incumbent Liberal candidate by 4,463 votes. However, the majority of the popular vote still favoured parties with a progressive green energy policy.
• In Prince Edward – Hastings the PC party gained 3,909 votes versus the Liberals’ loss of 5,294 votes. Even so, if this election was indeed a vote on a progressive green energy policy, it is still the case that a clear majority of the votes in the riding went to parties with progressive green energy policies on their programs.

Looking at the examples above, it is clear that it wasn’t green energy policy that contributed to McGuinty’s loss of a majority; a more likely reason is a continuation of the voting trends seen in the federal election both towards NDP and towards the conservative party in rural Ontario; another is the general wear and tear of having been in power for two terms. However, as long as the popular majority in all of these ridings is clearly in favour of progressive green energy policies it is hard to pin McGuinty’s loss of majority to the introduction of the Green Energy Act.

But what about Hudak: Did he lose this election because of his negative stance towards green energy?

We can’t know for certain, but two pieces of evidence suggests that the PC party would benefit from a more pragmatic approach to green energy in the future:

1. The PC party did not gain a single seat in 11 ridings with significant new green energy manufacturing facilities, suggesting that green energy policy might actually have saved McGuinty from an overall loss. PC did win Haldimand-Norfolk, the location for one of the much-publicized Samsung facilities in Tillsonburg, but that was a strong PC riding in 2007 as well. The table below lists the ridings with the associated manufacturing facilities and election outcomes referred to here.
2. Tim Hudak announced on May 10^th that he would end the “expensive and unsustainable Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program and [McGuinty’s] sweetheart Samsung deal”. Prior to that, polls had pegged the PC support at around 40-41%, whereas the Liberals were at 34%. For Hudak, that was the high point in terms of support – his announcement to end current green energy policies did not appear to attract any new voters to PC. Instead, his support started withering away and on election day the PCs ended up with 35.4%  of the popular vote (a loss of 5% since May) and the Liberals with 37.6% (a gain of 3.6%) for a swing of 8.6% since the May announcement. As a result, Hudak failed to make any inroads where he needed it the most – suburban ridings in the GTA.

While the PCs’ loss of support can’t be solely attributed to Hudak’s aggressive stance on green energy policy, it is clear that he made no gains by taking such a negative position.

Green Manufacturing Ridings and Election Results

Riding	Manufacturer	2011 Winner (2007)
Sault St Marie	Heliene	Liberal (Lib)
Peterborough	SunRise	Liberal (Lib)
Scarborough-Agincourt	Samco	Liberal (Lib)
Markham-Unionville	Eclipsall	Liberal (Lib)
Don Valley West	Celestica	Liberal (Lib)
Vaughan	SunEdison (Flextronics)	Liberal (Lib)
Oakville	Silfab	Liberal (Lib)
Guelph	Canadian Solar	Liberal (Lib)
Welland	Ontario Solar Manufacturer	NDP (NDP)
Windsor – Tecumseh	Siliken, Unconquered Sun	Liberal (Lib)
Windsor – West	Oya Solar, GreenSun Rising	Liberal (Lib)

(it should be noted that in addition to the above list of companies there are many more manufacturing facilities benefiting from domestic demand for solar and wind equipment; such as existing machine and tooling shops, suppliers of electrical components etc., but we have left those out because those companies existed before the Green Energy Act was introduced which makes it harder to attribute any effects to it’s introduction than is the case for the listed companies )

In brief, these are our main conclusions on the Ontario provincial election:

• There are many reasons why McGuinty lost a majority. While green energy policy might have contributed, the reality is likely more complex.
• It is probable that the Liberal’s green energy policy actually prevented an outright loss for McGuinty by shoring up support in most ridings benefitting from green energy manufacturing facilities and in suburban ridings.
• It is impossible to conclude that Hudak lost the election because of his negative stance on the current green energy policy, but he certainly made insufficient gains because of that position.
• Given that the majority of the electorate supports a party with a progressive green energy policy, any party that is looking to win in Ontario in the future would be wise to enter an election with a positive program for green energy expansion in order to attract voters.
• As Ontario’s renewable energy industry is breathing a collective sigh of relief, they should not feel beholden to McGuinty’s government: Without the private investment and efforts of the solar and wind entrepreneurs to create businesses and jobs in Ontario, McGuinty may not have returned to Queen’s Park. Furthermore, the industry should be aware that any political party that is looking to get elected in Ontario in the future must incorporate a progressive green energy policy in their program.

For a link to the Clearsky article, click here.