It seems there are still eco-bullies in high places who know so little about the internet they don’t get why their highly ignorant and insensitive comments get them in hot water. Natural Resources is probably the most inappropriate place for someone to be belittling an individuals moving and painful experience. As such, I hope the comment results in an individual finding themselves removed from the public service. 

First read this post about Barbara Ashbee having to abandon her home due to the health effects of a poorly planned wind project, and then view the totally insensitive comment from some Ottawa based hack who could choose to help residents, but instead decides to mock them. 

Below is the comment the cowardly individual from Natural Resources left. 

Please let me know when the property comes up for sale. Since everyone claims that property values will decrese, I will expect a bargain basement price!

Not only does this person not know how to spell but I checked the IP address of the originator of this comment and lo and behold:
 
OrgName:    Natural Resources Canada
OrgID:      NRC-41
Address:    580 Booth Street
City:       Ottawa
StateProv:  ON
PostalCode: K1A-0E4
Country:    CA

Author : (IP: 132.156.196.29 , 132.156.196.29) E-mail :
URL :
Whois :
http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=132.156.196.29

Here is the Wind Concerns Ontario post on this incident. 

It started in Guildwood when Toronto Hydro Energy Services allowed folks who rely on grants to stay alive (and receive them from folks with a clear bias in favour of Toronto Hydro) to stack the meeting on a Class B Environmental Assessment and deny residents their right to participate. It turned a serious process into a circus and turned community concern into community action.

Franz Hartmann – the Executive Director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance was front and centre as were a number of other folks who know so little about Scarborough they couldn’t even read a bus schedule to see that their school buses were unnecessary as the TTC does exactly the same route they chose to take. He still defends his actions, even if Toronto Hydro recognizes how inappropriate it was. Hartmann made himself and his supporters the butt of many jokes about how little one can know about Scarborough while trying to get in the middle of an issue on the ground. 

Toronto Hydro, their allies and hangers on have been totally dishonest in their representation of the merits of the project, it’s impacts and the sad thing is each of these organizations and people behind it survive on public money that they are using to attack members of the public. 

I’ve lost a lot of respect for a number of organizations throughout this process. 

Toronto Hydro is one organization I will always look at with mistrust due to the completely irresponsible and illegal approach they’ve taken so far, as a means to push this project forward. 

The City of Toronto as defined as Toronto City Council is one that I will have great difficulty believing has the best interests of Scarborough at heart, considering it is they who are pretending not to see what Toronto Hydro is doing to this section of the City. 

The Ontario Liberal Party – a party I’ve been involved in for years, but appears more interested in who donates than what is best for the Province and it’s people. 

The Toronto Environmental Alliance and the David Suzuki Foundation each had a moral obligation to stand up and protect our great lakes, defend the Scarborough Bluffs – one of Lake Ontario’s most defining geological features against the unknown, and unstudied risks of a possible wind farm. Instead they listened to their biased financial contributors (some of whom also are funding the project TEA is supporting), and who have a financial interest in proceeding without the protect studies and tests. For it’s part the Toronto Environmental Alliance tried to silence those of us who were forced to make a very difficult decision and oppose a renewable energy protect. 

The Premier – Dalton McGuinty. Someone I will not be able to vote for in 2011. Simply put, he trashed my community, and is sitting back and ignoring our concerns while those who are in favour of what is about to happen fill his re-election coffers. 

The Deputy Premier – George Smitherman. Simply a disgrace to this province. How anyone can listen to anything he has to say and take it seriously is beyond me. He damages the view of government each time he opens his mouth. I used to think he could be a neat mayor. 

Local Elected Officials. Both provincial and municipal representatives have a responsibility here. Neither have used even a fraction of the tools in their toolbox to help. Both have window dressed instead. As someone who has been involved in politics, I know how it works. I know what the limits are and neither Paul Ainslie or Margarett Best have done anywhere near what they could, if they chose to. 

We’re still greener than any other part of Toronto. We have the highest rate of waste diversion, we’ve protected more parkland per capita than anywhere else and our former City’s symbols, whether the Civic Centre, the Flag or even our name are based on that amazing, awe inspiring 14 kilometre stretch of shoreline that is so unique on this lake. 

Like Elizabeth Simcoe, the wife of Upper Canada’s first Lt. Governor, many of us have loved the bluffs since our first sighting of them. We will defend them, as countless generations going back to Canada’s first people’s who lived in their watershed and along their cliffs have dating back 8000 years. I wrote about Elizabeth Simcoe and Sir John Graves Simcoe in August. Here is the link to that. Scarborough Mirror: Scarborough has special connection to Simcoe Day

Scarborough residents have allowed a lot of NIMBY politics downtown see us host aspects of infrastructure that others didn’t want. We did so quietly and with the glass half full approach. But this is something many of us simply cannot stomach. Allowing someone to do untold damage to the Bluffs, the very core of Scarborough’s identity as a city is simply intolerable. 

Toronto Hydro must know there could be a devastating impact on the fish habitat the Toronto Region Conservation Authority started rebuilding under the old City of Scarborough. They must know there could be severe impacts on shoreline erosion and the Bluffs, on the birds and bats that live and migrate through the area. They must know there could be real health concerns for fish, humans and anyone else that interacts with the lake.

Why do I say this? Because something has them so scared they refuse to do a full environmental assessment to discredit me and the thousands of other Scarborough residents who are digging in and fighting what is quickly becoming an epic battle to protect our lake, and generations of nature conservation from the irresponsible destruction that comes when a few downtown politicians and some irresponsible executives get together and decide to do something this stupid. 

We’re standing up, we’re standing strong and getting stronger as we await the next number of battles with Toronto Hydro Energy Services and anyone else who is so mindless to think there are not consequences from something like this. 

I have never been more proud to be from Scarborough or Guildwood as I am now. Standing up with residents of my community and standing strong against moneyed interests who frankly don’t care what happens to us, is something anyone involved can and should be proud of. 

One thing is for sure, with two elections in the next two years or so, folks who support this idea can also expect some electoral consequences as well.  

Gartner Lee or AECOM is Toronto Hydro’s partner in crime (literally, like they’ve actually broken laws together) like Thelma & Louise. So Toronto Hydro has this plan, they’re going to put these turbines in the Lake, off a community in Scarborough, but there are some pesky environmental standards they need to at least find their way around. That’s where Gartner Lee comes in. That’s what they do for a living. 

So I don’t get in trouble, I will let you decide who is Thelma and who is Louise based on the clip and text below. 

Thelma: Let’s not get caught.

Louise: What are you talking about?

Thelma: Let’s keep going. 

Louise: What do you mean?

Thelma: (looks toward what will certainly be their mutual death) Go!

Louise: You sure? 

Thelma: Yeah!

Louise: (kisses Thelma)

Thelma and Louise hold hands as they fly off the cliff. 

Ok that was a longer segway than is usual even for me, but I hope you liked it. 

To date, I’ve written about 60 000 words against this project and the Green Energy Act, and about 57 000 words ago, I received the following comment on my blog:

Anne Mometer Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am edit

Hey John,

Forget the turbines, they should just put you offshore because with all the wind you’re generating you could power this whole province!

Clearly not a fan of mine. Stupid name too. Turns out Anne Mometer wrote from a computer at Gartner Lee. ‘She’ is an employee and clearly not very smart. I mean it was clear I thought folks like her and her friends at Toronto Hydro are scum bags, so why wouldn’t I engage in response to something like this. 

So I did. 

Here are the posts that resulted. It should be noted though that “Anne Mometer” is the only person from Toronto Hydro Energy Services or the folks behind their illegal application to ever respond to any of my invites to respond to any challenges I’ve made. Well there was also that time a member of Toronto Hydro’s legal department responded to ask for my help in covering their tracks after it became clear that Anne Mometer’s idiot friends at Gartner Lee or AECOM helped Toronto Hydro breath the privacy of hundreds of folks in Scarborough. 

Anyways – after the posts where I encouraged people to vote on where Anne Mometer worked, and gave ‘Anne’ something to worry about for a bit before I disclosed her employer, immediately after I made it clear Anne Mometer worked at Gartner Lee – guess who suddenly stopped visiting laforet.ca for months? 

They’ve been back regularly recently and it may have something to do with me not being able to leave alone the fact that Blair Shoniker who wrote Toronto Hydro’s illegal, law breaking application has BS as his initials (and as the content of his report). 

Remember though, that someone at Gartner Lee felt the way to correspond with a member of what is legally known as the ‘affected public’ was to insult them in an anonymous blog comment (and one that demonstrated a lack of understanding of how wind energy is generated). 

Here are those links I was talking about:

Who Is “Anne Mometer”?

 - January 27th 2009

The Adventures Of Annie Mometer - January 28th 2009

Anne Mometer’s Employer Revealed - January 28th 2009

I’m going to share some facts on each of these situations to demonstrate ridiculous levels of corporate irresponsibility.

First – Who is Toronto Hydro Energy Services:

- THES is a 100% owned subsidiary of Toronto Hydro Corporation, which is 100% owned by the City of Toronto. It is the municipal equivalent of a Crown corporation.

- THES is the unregulated arm that is supposed to seek out revenue generating opportunities outside of Toronto Hydro’s regulated business of electricity delivery.

- THES’ board is made up of individuals that also sit on THC’s board.

- While legally separate, THES shares resources and responsibilities with Toronto Hydro Corporation and functions more like a division than a company.

Now on to the issues:

1) Electrocution of Toronto’s small children and pets:

Toronto Hydro Energy Services is the proud owner of the electricity poles within Toronto. A lot of people would think it makes sense for Toronto Hydro to own the poles that deliver the electricity within the city right? Sure it does, but why would the unregulated arm that doesn’t deliver electricity own them? Simple – When David Soknacki was Budget Chief from 2003 to 2006 he was consistently unable to balance the budget (Shelley Carroll – current Budget Chief has been able to). Soknacki had all kinds of imaginative schemes to come up with the money to make it work and in 2005 one of them was to ‘sell’ the hydro poles for 60 million dollars in one year program spending. Here I should note that if anyone would like to lease the wires in my apartment – recognizing there will be zero return on investment, I can be reached at john.laforet@laforet.ca – Chris Tyrrell (President of THES) I hope to hear from you soon.

So basically the guy who controlled the City’s finances was short – and went to a company that is 100% owned by a company that is 100% owned by the organization whose money he was responsible for – and set a price to sell this important, but commercially worthless piece of infrastructure to. Sounds like the brain trust at Toronto Hydro Energy Services really knows a deal when it sees one.

And now for the bad judgement by Toronto Hydro Energy Services:

• First dog reported electrocuted in November 2008. THES response? Fix the faulty wiring in the one location, essentially making the deaths of family pets the ‘canary in the mine’ approach to solving the problem. “The Toronto Humane Society yesterday blamed Hydro for not taking the risk seriously in the German Shepherd case, and said the company would have acted more diligently had the victim been human.” (Toronto Star, January 14, 2009)
• Second dog reported electrocuted January 13 2009. THES response? “Toronto Hydro inspected the area for safety hazards and has deemed the area safe.” (CTV, January 13, 2009)
•  Toronto Hydro “deeply regrets” it’s role in electrocuting family pets, but assures folks the streets are safe for people because of our rubber shoes and two feet. (Toronto Star, January 14, 2009)
• January 30th 2009 – five children are shocked. Toronto Hydro President David O’Brien suggests maybe parents should avoid hand wells with children, orders all handwells tested and replaced. It is reported there have been 140 reported incidents since November 2008. (National Post, January 30, 2009)

2) Bad Projects:

The Exhibition Turbine was a failure as a project. Yet Joyce McLean and her far left friends practically pray to the thing. They told investors it would generate 1.8 million kilowatt hours annually. It has generated 800 000 kilowatts annually and will mean investors, even after twenty years won’t even be able to extract their principal from this project. Toronto Hydro Energy Services had a proper anemometer test at the exact site they built, made these projections and failed to get anywhere near their targets. When asked about it, they mislead and evade. 

Now, they want to find some poor sap or saps with as much as half a billion dollars they don’t need to keep Joyce McLean and Jack Simpson busy blowing it on another failed project. This time, the project will ignore all legitimate scientific data available and rely on an anemometer test up to fifteen kilometres away from possible turbine locations to build. They don’t seem to know what they’re doing, and can’t seem to appreciate how bad their last project went. 

3) Toronto Hydro Energy Services Lying and Misleading:

Toronto Hydro Energy Services has not consulted the Guildwood community about the proposed anemometer installation. They are planning to lie to the Ministry of Natural Resources this week and submit an application that can only be approved if they have consulted. The problem? I have a video recording of their proceedings and not once do they speak about any environmental screening or assessment as it relates to the proposed installation. They can deny this if they’d like, but I have demonstrated in past when folks lie and I have them on tape, I release it. Ask Paul Ainslie about that. 

Instead of holding a public consultation, they stacked a meeting with lackies from organizations with clear conflicts of interest to speak in favour of a wind farm. The third attempt to hold a meeting was not a legal meeting. It ignored the City of Toronto Act which sets minimal standards for Toronto Hydro’s meeting conduct. Even then, they did not tell residents the meeting was part of an environmental assessment or screening, they did not talk about the findings of any screening or assessment and cut off community consultation after Chris Tyrrell promised to keep it open. They are using this meeting which had nothing to do with an environmental assessment to try and convince Natural Resources to say they did consult the community on this. It is simply untrue. 

Even in their presentation, which is available on their website http://torontohydroenergy.com/pdf/Offshore-Dec-2-2008.pdf they don’t reference an environmental assessment or screening. It does have misleading information and full out lies contained within it’s pages. My critique of this can be found here http://laforet.ca/2009/01/27/cutting-through-the-crap-laforets-fact-check-of-toronto-hydros-community-presentation/.

I recognize the word ‘lie’ has a very precise meeting and misusing it can and sometimes does have legal consequences. I am certain enough that Toronto Hydro’s claim that their meeting attempts are community consultations falls under the definition of a lie, and is provable to be a lie. I am prepared to use this word to describe it and will stand by this claim. 

Final Thoughts:

These folks are so bad at even the most basic aspects of their responsibilities there is question to their ability to even safely own hydro poles, let alone install major generating projects. The last attempt at wind generation was led by McLean and failed miserably. They are both lying and misleading as it relates to the community consultation process, and any claim that they have consulted Guildwood residents would be a ‘lie’ as at no point did they discuss anything relating to the environmental impacts of their project, nor did they disclose any actual research they had done on this front. 

These guys are so off base they’ve entered the realm of lawsuit territory. If they killed my dog or shocked my kid, I would sue. Folks in US cities have won real money off of utilities. Normally I don’t advocate lawsuits as a way to deal with anything, but these clowns have demonstrated they have too much money on their hands and any hit they take would probably be better for all of us in the long run. They knew there was a problem, but waited until it looked bad to fix it. If I were an investor in WindShare, I would sue both Toronto Hydro Energy Services and Joyce McLean personally as she worked for both sides of that deal at different times. Working for two partners in a two partner deal is really sketchy. Kind of like being the President of CanWEA and developing a wind project while pretending to be remotely objective. As a citizen of Toronto, I anxiously await the Natural Resources decision and hope that they turn down their application on the grounds that it simply isn’t true that they’ve consulted, nor does their test appear warranted when all other research demonstrates any project won’t be viable. I am confident that I can place my trust in the hand of a public servant whose decisions are made based on a set of criteria and not politics. I hope the individual who will make this decision rises to the hour and makes the right, but difficult decision.

There will be an environmental impact of even the anemometer platform installation, and considering that all research suggests it is unnecessary to do this test, any possible impact, even if it is as small as killing a single organism isn’t worth it, considering there is no reason for the test. What’s worse, no one can say it looks like Toronto Hydro Energy Services has done any research on the impacts, and from their own words on the topic it appears they don’t even care. Considering they work for a company that doesn’t seem to fret too much about it’s role in killing people’s family pets, or electrocuting children, this probably shouldn’t be all that surprising. 

Toronto Hydro Energy Services should be ashamed of their conduct all around, and Toronto Hydro Corporation should be seriously looking at a ‘cleaning house’ at THES in recognition of their complete and utter failure to manage infrastructure responsibly, to build a simple project, or to learn from their past mistakes. 

As always, I welcome Toronto Hydro Energy Services to respond. I will give them as much space as they would like and the opportunity to a completely unedited retort to my claims here. And if they want, I will seriously lease them the wires in my walls too. 

There is more reading to do, but take a look at this clip from ‘Marge Vs. Monorail’ and think about what has been my topic of choice over the last two weeks.

Below is the plot summary of Marge vs. the Monorail – followed by my thoughts. This is from the Marge vs. the Monorail article found on Wikipedia.

“After being caught dumping nuclear waste in the city park by the EPA, Mr. Burns is fined three million dollars. A town meeting is immediately held so that the citizens can decide what to spend the money on and Marge suggests using it to fix up Main Street, which is in a bad condition. The town shows enthusiasm for this idea and is about to vote for it when suddenly a whistle is heard and a silver-tongued, fast talking gentleman named Lyle Lanley suggests the town construct a city monorail. He leads them in a song, which convinces the town to buy the monorail.

Is life imitating the Simpsons? As with all things found in cartoons the scenario is more extreme, but to me at least, as sad as it is, I know after re-watching this clip and thinking about just how the current process goes for wind energy projects in Ontario goes; I found similarities. Although, Jack Simpson and Joyce McLean didn’t exactly sing and dance – well they did, but only when it came to answering direct questions. The community certainly was not in a singing or dancing mood though, at least not at the meeting that wasn’t stacked by paid supporters of their cause.

In the last two days I’ve received emails from folks who live in communities in Ontario at different stages of the wind project process. One individual wrote to tell me about the negative health implications having several turbines within sight of her home, some under 500 metres away, and another to tell me about her municipal government shutting residents like her, who could see three massive turbines installed within 600 metres of her home, out of the discussion of possible negative health effects. I’ve been thinking about how devastating each of those situations must be, and how frustrating it must be to watch again and again as various levels of your government fail to protect you from people who simply would rather deny the health impacts of their product than properly investigate it (I will also be writing more extensively about each).

The individuals in favour of these projects will point to all kinds of other health impacts. I’ve seen arguments as silly as “Do you have a microwave?” (good thing they didn’t ask me this one) a question one proponent of wind power, tried to use to suggest someone couldn’t be too worried about their health if they’d eat “radiated” food. I doubt tobacco companies were quick to recognize the correlation between smoking and cancer, the folks who brought us lead paint, pipes and gasoline, likely challenged the correlation between their products and the health impacts lead poisoning has, just like the guys who dumped heavy metals into our great lakes probably took some time to appreciate the devastating effects they were having on it’s ecosystem. The folks who build and install wind turbines appear to be no different. They just ‘make believe’ the health impacts away.

One of the annoying differences between the proponents of wind projects who just don’t care about human impact is that at least with Nuclear power (two words that can easily make these folks blow a gasket) there are very serious safety precautions and not a single incident in Ontario of a major accident. I’m not defending nuclear, I’m just saying, if a guy wanted to throw one of those up within 50 metres of someone’s home, you better believe the government would have my back and not allow it to happen. So – why is it that the self righteous folks behind Ontario’s wind industry won’t also follow minimum safety precautions to protect human health? They can say incidence levels are low, and that’s fine, incidence levels of health impacts from wind power are hundreds of times higher than the incidence of nuclear meltdowns in Ontario and yet they still have standards to follow, so why can’t the wind generators have some standards too? I’m not saying don’t build wind turbines, I’m just saying do it right. Engage communities, research and follow legitimate health guidelines, consider the efficiency of the project, the economics of a project and most important, the environmental impacts of a project. Why is this so hard? Environment, economics and efficiency – three really great places to start when examining any public policy relating to physical assets or infrastructure. Nothing should ever happen that impacts a community without it’s residents being engaged, and their well being looked out for.

The arguments above could be described as “inconvenient truths” of wind power projects in the Province of Ontario.

As Al Gore said in the movie of that very title “This is really not a political issue, so much as it is a moral issue”.

Thank you for those who took time to guess where you thought Anne Mometer worked. I have been highly critical of Toronto Hydro Energy Services complete incompetence as it relates to the public consultation process of this project, and now I must admit to a failure of my own. You see, in a spirit of fair warning, I announced that the poll would close at 8:00pm tonight. I then set it to close tonight at that time. But it closed early and I was unable to fix the problem. Toronto Hydro Energy Services and I share a challenge in maintaining an ‘open’ consultation. Mine was technical and unfortunate, Toronto Hydro’s challenge was by design and is considerably more suspect. In recognition of this shared challenge, however, I will agree that I will not propose or try to build any poorly thought out, poorly located or ill advised, wind power projects in Lake Ontario. Heck, I’ll go so far as to call for the Scarborough Bluffs to be designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site and promise not to recommend any energy projects on Lake Ontario. I wonder if Toronto Hydro Energy Services will join me in making a similar commitment?

I’m sure a lot of people wanted to know why I asked where individuals thought Anne Mometer worked, especially considering I can already confirm without a shadow of a doubt her place of employment. Some may have thought it was an attempt to have some fun at Anne’s expense, but in truth, it was a measure of trust. I wanted to know which company, readers believed, would be most likely to have an employee who hiding behind an unoriginal moniker while insulting someone who has made cogent arguments against a bad project. You answered. You answered clearly.

An overwhelming majority of readers believed that Anne Mometer would be found at Toronto Hydro Energy Services with 56% of respondents choosing this option. The City of Toronto was deemed the second most likely hidden lair of Anne Mometer by 22% of respondents. The Ontario Power Authority came in third with 14%  of readers believing Anne spent her days reading my blog from this provincial agency. 6% of readers thought Anne worked at the Independent Electricity Operator, while just 2% thought Anne worked at Gartner Lee (AECOM).

I think we can all agree anyone who has time to visit a website some thirty times between 9:30AM and 3:30PM yesterday can’t be a terribly useful employee or one who has a heck of a lot to do. Today Anne’s IP address visited thirty three times between 9:45AM and 3:45PM. It appears her work is uninterrupted for a total of two hours of the business day on average. Her work output of 25% capacity is actually twice Toronto Hydro Energy Services five year average energy output to capacity at it’s single wind turbine project. Perhaps this is why people thought Anne worked at Toronto Hydro? Considering 12% capacity is considered defensible within this organization, it seems reasonable that many would have thought this as a natural home for Anne.  But Anne doesn’t work there.

The City of Toronto takes a lot of flak for the sometimes head scratching things that come out of City Council, such as a bloated budget and the traditional dislike of bureaucrats. I think bureaucrats on the whole are hard working folks who would be ashamed to work with someone as lazy as Anne. – She doesn’t work there either.

The Ontario Power Authority isn’t technically a partner in this project and has the good sense to recognize projects like this are simply a bad idea. Such insight would presumably preclude allowing members of staff to sit at their computer’s reading blogs all day. She doesn’t work there.

Okay. So there are two choices left: is it – The Ontario Electricity System Operator – The guys responsible for making sure the lights stay on and for the day-to-day management of the electricity market in Ontario? These are the guys who have to deal with the constant under delivery of promised electricity supply from industrial wind generators. Considering, 58% of the time, wind developers under deliver causing increased expense to the system – they probably loathe folks like Anne who don’t really seem to do much. A lack of productivity from others causes these folks to have to pick up the slack and solve the wind industry’s regular failures to deliver on their short term forecasts. Anne doesn’t work there either.

So that leaves one option – AECOM (Gartner Lee). Anne Mometer works at a firm that describes itself as “a Canadian-based firm at the forefront of our industry in providing environmental science, economics, planning and engineering services.” Really? Anne Mometer? The person who sits online reading a single blog thirty times in a single day? We’re trusting her to even spell environment?

Seriously. Anne Mometer, who has the high honour and distinction of being my single biggest reader (by frequency) of late, works at a firm that is responsible for determining the environmental concerns of projects and designing plans that strike a balance between the two.

Is anyone else concerned that Anne Mometer can work at a firm responsible for such serious aspects of a project like this, and not even understand enough about wind power to know that you can’t just increase wind to generate electricity but do in fact need turbines to spin to translate the wind strength into usable energy?

Is anyone else concerned that Anne Mometer – an employee of AECOM is the only official to respond to my open invitation for unedited response from anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services? I will give her top marks for speed. I posted the following at 7:15AM on January 27th 2009. “I welcome anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services to challenge any of the claims I’ve made here. I will publish any unedited response I receive from anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services so long as it addresses the points in here.”

Anne Mometer of AECOM’s response was received at 10:11AM the same day. While she is technically not from Toronto Hydro Energy Services, AECOM is a partner in the project and I did hold up my pledge to publish any unedited response I received. 

I will welcome anyone from AECOM who would like to respond to this to do so. Feel free to email me at john.laforet@laforet.ca to do so. I will publish unedited verifiable response I receive from AECOM.

Think I’ve been tough on Anne? Anne isn’t real. But the concerns above are. 

Slide Four: (Why We Support Renewables[sic])

“Renewable Energy is part of the solution; it is a mature, reliable technology which is cost effective.”

Reliable? really?

“The variable nature of wind will however introduce specific challenges to the reliability of the integrated power system. These challenges are magnified as the number of wind power projects that are connected to the grid increases.” Source: The Electricity System Operator “Wind Power in Ontario

Cost Effective?

Wind generated power is bought by the Ontario Power Authority from wind turbine owners at a rate of 11.08 cents per kWh and sold to the people of Ontario at a rate of 5.6 cents per kWh (a loss of 5.5 cents per kWh generated).

To install an onshore wind turbine costs are predicted to be between $2000 and $2750 per kilowatt of capacity. Recalling the data from Toronto Hydro’s only wind generating project with a five year average output of 12% capacity, 8.3 kilowatts of capacity must exist for every kilowatt of output. The cost per kilowatt of output using the OPA estimate costs would in fact be between $16 700 and $23 000 for the last Toronto Hydro Energy Services wind project.

Source: Ontario’s Stand Offer Program For Wind Energy

Source: John Laforet’s Blog “Jack Simpson – Cover Your Eyes “commercially sensitive” information about the Exhibition Turbine is about to be disclosed…”

Moving on to page five… “Wind Globally”

“Over 94 000 Megawatt wind capacity installed worldwide.”

Really? On Land or Off Shore?

“Offshore wind capacity accounts for almost 1,170 megawatts worldwide, roughly 1.2 percent of the 94,100 megawatts of installed capacity at the end of 2007; while this is a small share of the total, it is up from less than 0.3 percent in 2000.”

Source: Earth Policy Institute

“Today Germany has 22 000 MW of wind capacity installed.

This is just slightly less than all of Ontario’s entire system capacity of 31 000 MW.”

Response to German Wind Capacity:

Germany does have 22 000 MW of wind capacity installed. 100% of that on shore. What is Germany’s take on offshore wind projects?

“Mainly for nature conservation reasons, most German offshore parks will be erected up to 20-60 km away from the coastline and in 20-40 meters deep waters. So far, experience of building such wind farms is very limited, hence higher risk attached make financing from banks more complicated.”

Source: Future trends: Offshore – German Wind Energy Association

Response to Germany to Ontario Comparison: Germany is a country right? Last I checked Ontario is a province.  The population of Germany is 82 million, compared to 13 million in Ontario. Germany has a population over six times, the population of Ontario.

31 000 MW represents 100% of Ontario’s energy capacity and responsible for providing 100% of Ontario’s electricity needs. 22 000 MW represents 7% of Germany’s power consumption.

Responding to the word “slightly”:

As for the word ‘slightly’‘. Ontario’s total grid is 40% bigger than Germany’s wind capacity. There is nothing ‘slight’ about that. Germany’s wind capacity provides just 7% of it’s total consumption, compared to Ontario’s grid providing 100% of it’s. There is nothing ‘slight’ about that either.

Commentary: If Toronto Hydro Energy Services cannot even recognize the need to compare jurisdictions of equal scales, how can they be expected (or trusted) to competently develop complex mathematical modeling to measure wind viability? Further if a ‘slight’ difference to Toronto Hydro Energy Services can include a difference of to be up to 40% of capacity how can any analysis by them be credible. Especially considering Toronto Hydro’s last project predicted an output of 2.25 times higher than the actual five year average for their only wind project to date. That was after their testing too.

Source: German Wind Energy Association: Wind energy in Germany

Page Six here we come: “Offshore Wind Globally”

“Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, England, Wales all have developed successful offshore wind projects.”

Response:

Wrong. This is simply untrue. Germany has not ‘developed successful offshore wind projects’.  “The first pilot project, the test site “Alpha Ventus” with 60 MW in the North Sea, is expected to come into operation during 2009.” Incidentally, it has been sited 45 kilometres offshore.

Source: Germany Wind Energy Association “Future Trends: Offshore”

Clarification Re: Copenhagen Offshore Wind Farm

Copenhagen’s project is 1.5 times further off shore than the proposed closest location for Toronto Hydro Energy Services proposed wind turbine and is sited off an industrial part of the City that is not home to residential communities.

Clarification Re: Slide Six in General

None of the projects referenced are in freshwater lakes

One is an urban example, and that one is 2.5 times smaller than Toronto Hydro’s proposed project, 1.5 times farther from shore, and not being built off a residential area.

Page seven here we come! “Wind Energy in Canada”

“By the end of 2008 Ontario’s wind capacity will power nearly 250 000 homes.”

Response: Capacity doesn’t power a single home. Actual output does. Capacity at Toronto Hydro’s one wind project is over 8 times the five year average annual output. You invest in capacity, and are paid back in actual output. If all project developers failed as badly as Toronto Hydro Energy Services did on their last wind project, a province wide capacity sufficient to power 250 000 homes would power just 30 000 homes.

Source: Common sense. This is so basic it doesn’t need to be cited.

“Economic benefits include green collar construction jobs and more stable energy rates.”

Clarification: ‘More stable energy rates’? Really? I thought the Ontario Energy Board set every one’s energy rate at 5.6 cents per kWh for residential use, while the Ontario Power Authority purchases wind energy (when it’s available) for 11.08 cents per kWh? Stability comes from the Ontario Energy Board and the only impact wind power could have on energy rates is ‘up’. With an under delivery rate (delivering less than promised) of 58%, wind energy output is so unreliable it costs the system hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in addition of the actual paid cost for wind energy when it is available.

Source: Wind Forcast Error Impacts on Efficiency, Wind Power Standing Committee; the IESO

Source: Ontario’s Standard Offer Program – Wind, Ontario Power Authority

Source: Electricity Prices in Ontario – Ontario Energy Board

On to page eight – let the games begin: “Great Lakes Offshore Wind”

“A minimum of 34 500 MW offshore wind on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes has been identified as a significant source of new renewable energy capacity by the Ontario Power Authority’s commissioned study by Helimax  in 2008.”

Response: Neat. Toronto Hydro Energy Services is recognizing the Ontario Power Authority and Helimax as industry experts and name dropping them to give credibility  to their claim that this seems like a good idea. OK, so let’s see what else the OPA and Helimax said.

“The Ontario Power Authority, the government agency that effectively determines which large power projects live or die, says offshore wind costs too much to be considered in its 20-year power system plan. It acknowledges that the technology provides more power than onshore projects, but not enough to justify the higher cost of building offshore wind farms.”

Source: Toronto Star, June 30th 2008

OK, but there is still Helimax right? They said up to 34 500 MW of wind capacity offshore on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes, right? Yes they did. They even gave 65 locations they deemed viable. Viable meant they had strong enough consistent winds to pursue wind generation. The Scarborough Bluffs wasn’t one of them. Even if it was, the OPA would still think it was a bad idea.

Source: Analysis of Offshore Wind Farm Development in Ontario – Helimax

Moving to page nine: “Research Project Overview”

“Seeking approval for an anemometer to measure wind speeds and direction for at least two years”

Helimax says not enough wind is present for this site to be viable. The Canada Wind Atlas agrees. The Ontario Power Authority says offshore wind is just too expensive to be considered part of their 20 year generation plan. The Pickering Wind Turbine Generating Station reports ‘a lack of consistent strong winds’ as a major part of it’s failure. It’s five year average output is just 17%. The WindShare/Toronto Hydro turbine at the EX has a five year average output of just 12%. Apparently none of this matters. Just this one test they want to do, while disregarding these five undeniable facts.

Source: Summary of previously cited facts.

“Any potential offshore wind farm is subject to a separate environmental assessment with full agency and public participation”

Response: Wrong. This is simply untrue. There is no requirement for an environmental assessment for wind turbine projects in Ontario. This is insane but true. Toronto Hydro Energy Service would have to do a self assessment called an ‘environmental screening’. It is the equivalent of designing the test, and then going home and studying really hard for it. The craziest part, if you determine as the potential developer that all is well – and there are no concerns, you don’t even need to file your screening with the Ministry of Environment and as Sarah Palin’s supporters so proudly chanted you’re then free to ‘drill baby drill’ eroding the famous Scarborough Bluffs with every compaction.

Toronto Hydro Energy Services has demonstrated a complete inability to facilitate public participation. They can’t even hold a public meeting. Their slides are filled with lies, and misleading statements and signs of a lack of understanding of their own industry.

Source: Ontario’s Standard Offer Program – Wind, Ontario Power Authority

Some Final Thoughts:

The wind isn’t there. Helimax says so.

The Canada Wind Atlas agrees.

The costs of offshore projects are just too high. The OPA says so.

Capacity isn’t output. You build capacity and get paid back in output. (If you’re WindShare investors who bought 50% of Toronto Hydro’s EX turbine – you invest in capacity and lose money in output).

Germany isn’t Toronto Hydro Energy Services friend. They don’t plan on siting wind turbine generating stations any closer than 20 kilometres from shore. Their first project is 45 kilometres from shore. They also recognize how uncharted this territory is and have avoided these projects until recently.

98.8% of Wind Turbine Developers throughout the world, and in the history of wind turbine development, have opted for onshore projects. Even those aren’t financially viable in a lot of cases. (The Ex and Pickering are two local examples of non viable wind projects).

Parting Words:

Toronto Hydro Energy Services cannot even hold a simple community meeting.

They’ve demonstrated difficulty in sourcing a room.

They allow organizations they finance to shout down residents with bused in supporters and deny them an ability to speak.

They violate the legal principles of public meetings as defined by legislation they are compelled to follow.

They can’t even mail out notices.

And for everyone who braved that mess and ended up listening to what they had to say; they lie.

They mislead with invalid comparisons, factual errors and omissions.

They evade legitimate questions that demonstrate how bad of an idea this is.

The plan they’ve presented is built on an invalid scientific methodology that defies logic and avoids facts that work against their point.

What’s worse, it’s being managed by an individual whose last attempt at a wind project has failed beyond belief and is on track to cost hundreds of individuals thousands of dollars.

I welcome anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services to challenge any of the claims I’ve made here. I will publish any unedited response I receive from anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services so long as it addresses the points in here.

I also call on Toronto Hydro Energy Services to end this absolutely ridiculous project and withdraw their application.

Guildwood residents asked repeatedly about success of the Toronto Hydro Wind Turbine on the Exhibition grounds (another waterfront location). They asked whether the output data would be considered as part of the wind study for the proposed massive industrial wind turbine generating station Toronto Hydro Energy Services wants to place in the bluffs. Jack Simpson, Vice President of Generation repeatedly stated that the data as far as output was concerned at the Ex was ‘commercially sensitive’ and could not be shared. I now know why.

Perhaps he should have told someone at Toronto Hydro Corporation that before they wrote about it in the 2007 financial statement… I want to thank the Guildwood resident who brought this to my attention and crunched some numbers that I have since verified and am now about to report. I knew there had to be problems when one shareholder refered to the project as “orphaned and dying” and that the Dutch company that built it had gone bankrupt causing some difficulties as well.

Page 42 of the 2007 Toronto Hydro Financial Statement states: “TH Energy/WindShare wind turbine at Exhibition Place has produced approximately 4 million kWh of green energy since 2003. Sounds impressive right? Sure, except that capacity over those same four five years was 26.3 32.9 million kWh hours (750KWh x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year x four 5 = total four year capacity), meaning the TH Energy/WindShare wind turbine (a project Joyce McLean was instrumental in and appears immensely proud of) has a four year average operating output that represents 15% 12% capacity. That output number is the one Simpson refused to disclose and said was ‘commercially sensitive’. A little math makes it clear it was closer to being ‘commercially humiliating’ than it was to being ‘commerically sensitive’. It appears the Toronto Hydro wind turbine that is literally right on shore is in fact worse (I didn’t even think this could be possible) than the Pickering Wind Generating Station on the other side of Toronto.

So we have two installed wind turbines that are right on the shoreline, both have horrible multi year returns. Toronto Hydro Energy Services has repeatedly stated neither of these count toward their study or consideration though. Just like the independent offshore wind report conducted by Helimax, who excluded this entire section of the lake as being non-viable because it didn’t meet the minimum wind thresholds, isn’t worth considering. The Canada Wind Atlas, a document the Ontario Power Authority actually tells wind turbine developers to consult, has also been ruled out as a source of information on wind viability off the Bluffs (it also agrees with Helimax, that there just isn’t the wind to warrant a project here). What’s more, the Ontario Power Generation failed experiment at Pickering admitted that ‘a lack of consistent strong winds at the Pickering Site’ is in large part to blame for a lack of energy production.

So, the Canada Wind Atlas is no good, the Helimax Report isn’t either. The two examples of such projects don’t count either… all that appears Toronto Hydro Energy Services wants to count is their Anemometer test, something they are in the process of trying to receive permission to install, while Simpson and McLean defy generally accepted scientific methodology and refuse to present a minimum threshold for success before conducting the experiment. Simpson isn’t even sure there is enough wind to power a little anemometer and a couple of navigation lights with three small scale wind turbines. Remember, these are the guys who can’t even mail a notice without extreme difficulty.

I think Toronto Hydro Energy Services has spun so far out of reality that they need to be reined in by the powers that be. This project is simply so far from being remotely credible it cannot be allowed to proceed even to the test phase. It is clear there is not enough wind out there. Two independent, unaffiliated reports state that, and two failed wind turbine projects confirm that cold, hard reality. Why do we need to drop another million bucks so that these guys can try denying those findings and push for a massive project that will see them try building on the Bluffs. They won’t even recognize that even underwater, the Bluffs are still the Bluffs (the underwater portion is both the base of the Bluffs and the result of erosion. It is not a stand alone feature).

These guys need to find something better to do with their time than flog a project without merit in a community that after watching the performance of Toronto Hydro Energy Services over the last six months, simply cannot trust or believe anything they have to say. There  too many factual errors and omissions, convenient mistruths and, what is even worse, dirty tricks played on Guildwood residents  to allow this process to proceed.

This is the opportunity for Toronto Hydro Corporation, the City of Toronto or one of about four different Provincial Minister’s or the Premier to step in and provide the required adult supervision to tell these guys that this project has already gone off the rails and needs to now be put to bed.

Guildwood is fired up and won’t be backing down. Toronto Hydro Energy Services needs to apologize and move on.

“The Ontario Power Authority, the government agency that effectively determines which large power projects live or die, says offshore wind costs too much to be considered in its 20-year power system plan. It acknowledges that the technology provides more power than onshore projects, but not enough to justify the higher cost of building offshore wind farms.” (Toronto Star, June 30th 2008)

“Offshore wind capacity accounts for almost 1,170 megawatts worldwide, roughly 1.2 percent of the 94,100 megawatts of installed capacity at the end of 2007; while this is a small share of the total, it is up from less than 0.3 percent in 2000.” (Earth Policy Institute, March 4th 2008)

“The increased presence of wind power on the IESO-controlled grid will contribute positively to Ontario’s future supply mix. The variable nature of wind will however introduce specific challenges to the reliability of the integrated power system. These challenges are magnified as the number of wind power projects that are connected to the grid increases.” (The Independant Electricity Operator, accessed January 22, 2008)

In 2007 industrial wind turbine operators in Ontario over forecast their output (read under delivered what they promised to the grid) 58% of the time. This forced unexpected imports and caused $186 000 in additional, unplanned, expense to the Ontario grid. Based on planned 2009 capacity, the same level of error would cost the grid a total of $866 000. (Data from Wind Forecast Error Impacts on Efficiency, May 14 2008 Meeting of the Wind Power Standing Committee, The Independent Electricity Operator) Incidently if the Nuclear, Gas, Coal or Hydro plants did this, we’d have rolling blackouts all the time.

The Pickering Wind Generating Station owned by the Ontario Power Generation reports a five year output average of just 18% capacity. Ontario hydro describes this output as being “low compared to other forms of generation and results mainly from a lack of consistent strong winds at the Pickering Site, as well as the high maintenance required for a prototype unit.” (Ontario Power Generation, Backgrounder: Pickering Wind Generating Station) The Pickering Wind Generating Station where the Ontario Power Generation reports a lack of consistent strong winds is literally right on the shore about two kilometres away from Toronto Hydro Energy Services proposed industrial wind generating station. It’s also 117 metres tall.

Both Jack Simpson and Joyce McLean claimed ignorance when asked about the Pickering Wind Generating Station’s failure to actually generate anything. I found this as the first hit in google by searching “Pickering wind turbine”. I know from viewing my web stats that someone at Toronto Hydro knows how to use google to at least find my blog entries relating to their project. Presumably they could google something experts have to say as well.

At 11am January 22th 2009 (the most recent data at the time of writing) Nuclear power was operating at 96%of available capacity and providing 10679 mega watts of power to the system. Coal power was generating 86%of available coal capacity and providing 3761 mega watts of power to the system. Gas power was operating at 44%of available capacity and providing 2104 mega watts to the grid. Hydro electricity was providing 71% of available capacity with 4478 megawatts being added to the grid. Wind power was operating at 10% capacity and providing 94 megawatts to the grid (available capacity is 903 megawatts.) (Generators Output and Capability Report, January 22, 2009.) This isn’t what is being used by the system… this is production.

The Prince Farm with 189 megawatts of installed capacity was operating at 0.5% capacity and providing 1 megawatt to the grid. The Prince Wind Farm is a $400 million, 126 wind turbine project is the largest wind project in Ontario and was the forth to open. Luckily for Ontario, this plant is owned by Brookfield Renewable Power. Brookfield Asset Management is the 100% shareholder in Brookfield Renewable Power.

At this particular moment, one would need to have an installed wind capacity of 37610 megawatts (approximately 6000 megawatts more than Ontario’s total generating capacity) to replace coal, which is currently providing 18% of total capacity. At the current wind output in Ontario, not even 100% of all the world’s installed wind turbines could power the province right now. They’d get about half the job done. I won’t even comment on what would be needed to power Ontario using the Prince Farm output rate right now.

Other Facts about Wind Power:

Zero industrial wind turbine generating stations are in urban residential areas anywhere in the world. There are simply no examples anywhere in the world of anyone building an industrial wind turbine generating station in an urban residential neighbourhood. The fact that the developer who wants to, publicly tries to discredit medical research around “Wind Turbine Syndrome” should be of concern to everyone.

Zero offshore wind projects anywhere in North America. North Americans are considerably more cost conscious than Europeans when it comes to government expenditures. The result has been significantly lower taxes and user fees. Electricity rates in Denmark are considerably higher than Canada. Offshore projects have a marginal increase in wind yield, but it does not cover the massive cost differential between inland and offshore projects.

Zero fresh water offshore wind projects anywhere in the world. Ocean water is not potable and therefore is not consumed by humans. Torontonians drink, bathe in, and cook with Lake Ontario water that is collected within the proposed wind generating plant site.  The sheer size of these structures will see serious disruption to the lake. Consider the weight and what will be needed to properly secure these things in clay.

Zero manufacturing jobs will be created in Ontario by wind turbines. There are no wind turbine building facilities in Ontario. There isn’t even a foreign owned branch plant in Ontario. This would require turbines to be purchased overseas and brought to Toronto by freighter, providing little help to Ontario workers who’ve lost high paying manufacturing jobs in Ontario. I highly doubt 8000 moving parts made somewhere else will have any economic benefit for anyone on this side of the pond.

Zero of seventeen industrial wind turbine installations has gone through a full environmental assessment process. Considering turbines like the one in Pickering have a weight of 220 to 300 tons and Toronto Hydro would like to place sixty of these in clay deposits in the underwater portion of the Scarborough Bluffs, presumably the anchoring will result is a very serious construction project that would be closer to bridge building than turbine placement. We haven’t even talked about all the cables they will need to bury over the 25 km stretch and then back to shore yet either. Seems to me there is enough environmental concern to warrent a full investigation.

Toronto Hydro Energy Services is so confident there is sufficient wind power off the Scarborough Bluffs, regardless of what the Canada Wind Atlas, the Helimax Study says or virtually anyone who has tried to sail near the bluffs, that should they be allowed to install an anemometer, Toronto Hydro plans on powering the platform (something smaller than a fridge, but bigger than a bread box with a few navigation lights) with three small turbines and, solar panels. I wonder if Jack Simpson is brave enough to commit to monitoring the percentage of any possible anemometer staging project that is powered by turbines, compared to the solar panels he has also committed to utilizing to power the wind test? Perhaps that data would be considered ‘commerically humiliating’ and therefore not available for public consumption.

Some Final Thoughts and Comments

I do oppose this project. I think that part is clear. It was not an easy position to come to I have to say. I do not oppose renewable energy or measures to reduce our carbon footprint. In fact I have made a number of small changes to my behaviour to reduce my personal carbon foot print. As an example, this website is hosted by www.dreamhost.com- a carbon neutral hosting service. I’ve also replaced all of my light bulbs with the curly guys. Apparently that not only will save me money on my electricity bill, but CFL light bulbs also save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases.  I also turn out lights when I’m leaving a room and never leave any on when I’m not home. I also cut down on my “phantom power” by not leaving unnecessary things like my cell phone charger or lap top plugged in when I’m not using them, and using a power bar that allows me to fully turn off power to my TV and VCR when they aren’t being used. All really easy stuff to do to both save money and lessen one’s carbon foot print. I also don’t drive, and prefer walking to the TTC when downtown or within a reasonable walking distance of my destination. For a guy who isn’t even trying that hard, I think I’m doing ok.

I oppose this project because it represents some of the worst public policy I’ve seen in a long time. It lacks the kind of oversight that ensures both economic viability, and ecological sensitivity. The process Toronto Hydro Energy Services and the City of Toronto has employed has been exclusionary, misleading, at times factually inaccurate. It has also denied residents the right to control the destiny of their community, something that should be a right, particularly when a clear ‘greater good’ can’t be established. By that I mean there is no compelling reason why a wind project must be placed here, and in fact evidence that other areas are probably better. I could name 64 better sites for Toronto Hydro if they’d like.

The Scarborough Bluffs is one place to put wind turbines, sure. Cemeteries have a lot of open space too. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Helimax gave the OPA a list of 64 offshore sites it deemed viable, after considering wind speed, local habitat, proximity to human populations, proximity to protected areas, parkland, wetlands and other important natural features. The Bluffs was not included. Perhaps not due to wind and perhaps because Helimax had the good sense to recognize some of the other limiting factors of a site that unique.

Joyce McLean and Jack Simpson can say whatever they want. They can pretend Helimax was not a comprehensive study as they have stated. They can challenge a paediatrician on her findings as it relates to Wind Turbine Syndrome. They can pretend not to know just how bad the Pickering experiment has gone. They can even refuse to disclose the data they collect with public money, for a public board that is solely owned by the City of Toronto and use the embarrassingly weak excuse of ‘commercial sensitivity’ all they want. The facts just don’t agree with the positions these wind farm developers have taken. They presumably will need their professional reputations when this is over, which is why I am perplexed as to why anyone would sell a project in the way they’ve chosen to. I know personally being able to look at myself in the mirror and know that regardless of what the day will bring I’ll get to go home with my integrity intact is something I value far more than a pay cheque. It’s too bad more people don’t as well.