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. 

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.

For some background, this was the third attempt at a community meeting for Guildwood residents, and I have to say was executed better than the previous two attempts. In fairness, the bar wasn’t high considering the first meeting had to be cancelled due to poor site selection, and the second meeting was stacked by grant receiving supporters of Toronto Hydro who blocked residents rights to speak and shouted them down when they finally got the opportunity to. There were still problems with tonight’s format, all of which serious, some of which may have legal implications. 

Toronto Hydro Energy Services is an unregulated subsidiary of Toronto Hydro. Toronto Hydro has one shareholder — the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto has 2.5 million share holders who have rights. The voters. Toronto Hydro is considered a ‘local board’ of the City and therefore must follow certain provisions of the City of Toronto Act or ‘a Stronger Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2005′. One of those provisions is to hold public meetings. That means doors open. Anyone can attend. I’m sure they can still restrict who speaks, just like City Council can restrict who speaks in the Chamber, but we’re all allowed to be in the Chamber. Legally for the purposes of a meeting like this restricting attendance is sketchy at best, illegal at worst. But they still did. 

I spoke to a number of residents and found that all residents who received a notice received one dated January 2nd 2009. The notice had a pin number required to register (something you could only do during office hours) and one had to register by January 15th to attend the January 20th meeting. You could also only register two people. I only spoke to one resident who received a notice  before January 15th, they had received it on January 13th and registered successfully. Most residents received the notice after and had to call Toronto Hydro for special permission to attend. There was no public notice to let residents know this was an option.

Chris Tyrrell, President of Toronto Hydro Energy Services, apologised for the error. It was a bit of an empty ‘sorry’ considering it was caused by a ridiculous process that is outside the law that governs meetings and likely caused many residents who either didn’t receive or didn’t read the unaddressed ad mail Toronto Hydro sent to them, not to attend the meeting. That means their voices weren’t heard. The National Post is nuts if they think 900 people were in that auditorium. It has a capacity of 960 and there were significantly more than 60 empty seats, even before the Hydro folks offended people, causing walk outs.

I listened to two and a half hours of questions. Not a single resident asked a question or made a comment that spoke remotely favourably of this project. If the slant of questions were considered votes, this would have been unanimous opposition. Toronto Hydro took a bruising from residents. Over the course of the evening the ridiculous non-answers of Toronto Hydro Energy Services staff, namely Jack Simpson, VP Generation, and Joyce McLean, Director of Strategic Issues dodged just about everything they were asked. I will have videos of some of this to follow.

Residents were only given one minute to ask questions, and frustration with the process got so bad on a number of occasions that residents protests temporarily took over the meeting. McLean and Simpson’s answers resulted in groans, mocking cat calls and other signs that residents simply could not believe what they were saying. Hundreds of residents left in frustration as the meeting continued on. 

The answer to every question relating to what would constitute a viable project or requests for information about the wind turbine at the EX or the Pickering turbine were met with responses along the lines of ‘that information is commercially sensitive’. Read: so bad, we don’t want to go there. Although if we’re talking about bird deaths, Toronto Hydro can go there to defend turbines. They can also be used to cite experience with these types of projects. When asked if the data they plan on collecting would be publicly available, the answer was no. Because it is commercially sensitive. How you ask? Well that is a good question. Considering Toronto Hydro has already leased the lake bed they plan to put the industrial wind turbine station on, and only they can use their data for financing or throw up these turbines on that site. It’s an answer to a question for a guy who just doesn’t know what to say and is defending a project without merit. Last night that was the story of Jack Simpson. 

McLean for her part, attacked research that suggests there is a medical condition called “Wind Turbine Syndrome” that affects residents who live near these industrial applications. She said the data and the forthcoming book, written by a Doctor isn’t valid because it hasn’t been peer reviewed. I’m sure Joyce’s point is really valid for all of those folks living near wind turbines all over North America with similar symptoms… According to Toronto Hydro, their Anemometer data won’t be peer reviewed either. It’s commercially sensitive, remember? Presumably they will try and convince us it’s valid though.  She also minimized the bird and bat deaths caused by these things and tried to blame buildings for being the real bird killing culprit. I’m sure Guildwood residents would oppose building buildings off the bluffs too. 

Toronto Hydro also tried to suggest that the portion of the bluffs under the water is somehow separate from the bluffs itself. In fact this is the erosion materials from the cliff face and the base of the whole formation. They are one. In fact, I would challenge Jack Simpson who disagrees on this point to get a Geologist to test the materials on the sand bar and compare them to the cliff face. Short of being wet, they are the same. Drilling into one, will cause vibrations and could cause major erosion. I’m not an engineer, but not being an idiot seems like enough to know this will be the case. 

Toronto Hydro continues to use deceptive claims when trying to sell the industrial wind turbines we’re not allowed to talk about at meetings. The presentation focused on Denmark’s offshore projects and the fact that Germany has 23 000 megawatts of installed wind energy. Can anyone guess how many offshore wind farms Germany has? – Zero. How many urban wind farms? – Zero. Ok. Moving on to Denmark… Denmark has both, but how many are in residential areas? – Zero. None. Not One. Anywhere in the world is there a wind project in front of a cliff? Nope. No where. This is a completely new idea. 

Here is another fun piece of trivia: How many full environmental assessments have actually been done before wind turbine projects have been built in Ontario? HINT: There have been 17 wind projects. Answer? Are you sure you want it? Here goes: Zero. Who needs an environmental assessment when the project has ‘green’ in the title. 

Toronto Hydro also likes to talk about coal power and McGuinty’s promise to close all coal power plants by 2014. – Not only will I predict this won’t happen on time, and should McGuinty retire or be defeated, it will probably be shelved all together. Even with 55 000 wind turbines installed world wide, not a single coal power plant has been closed because of it. It’s another bad argument. 

I have to say, I was disheartened watching this process play out. It was clear watching the Toronto Hydro Energy Services folks and the local municipal representation that they are sitting there, going through the motions and just waiting to go to Natural Resources to say “see, we consulted”. They did a good job of sitting there, listening and ignoring. The note taker wouldn’t even copy any critical statements verbatim, the only verbatim commentary recorded were the remarks by Hydro officials. Anyone interested in producing a transcript can use www.laforet.ca‘s unedited footage of the meeting, but would need to contact me soon so an unedited copy is kept for that purpose.

I strongly believe residents have a right to control the destiny of their communities through collaboration and local democracy. This a core belief I have as it relates to the role of citizens in a democracy. Any process or decision that forces members of a community to organize and fight their elected officials who are complacent or working against them is the sign of real trouble. Guildwood has a Councillor (Paul Ainslie) who slept through this process early on and has forced residents to fight like hell to stop this. He sits on the Toronto Atmospheric Fund which cut a cheque for $100 000 for this project. He sits on Toronto City Council that cut a cheque for $150 000 for this project. How did residents of Ward 43 find out this was even under consideration? Not from their elected official who would have been involved in the process that saw these sums of money approved. Twice. They heard about it from Roy Wright. Roy is a Guildwood resident with unprecedented levels of energy and a deeper commitment to the environment and nature than most. He has spent much of his time in Guildwood fighting to preserve the natural beach below his home. He has probably talked to thousands of people and organized his neighbours. Together they got every one’s attention. Roy should be commended, but he should not have had to do all that he has to ensure his community is given the opportunity to be involved in the decision making process. He and his neighbours should have been at the table from day one, and an integral part of any decision making process. Listening to our communities shouldn’t be another step, but THE step that decides what does and does not happen. Especially for projects like this that are hardly ‘musts’.

Over the coming days, I will release a number of interviews, and videos from tonight’s meeting. I don’t have a timeline on this, but there should be some news on this front in a couple of days. I don’t expect anyone in the traditional media will have the courage to call Hydro out on this process or the overwhelming opposition the idea has received (none did last time), and therefore I will devote a significant amount of my time to allowing residents voices to speak for themselves so their voices can be heard above the elected officials who won’t fight for them downtown and above Toronto Hydro Energy Services attempts to quell their voices. 

Agreat website is http://www.savethetorontobluffs.com/ It is maintained by a strong group of Guildwood residents who are standing up for their community and want their voices heard. Take a look.

The first meeting Toronto Hydro scheduled was sited in a church well outside of Guildwood on a rainy night, against the advice of the local Councillor. When twice capacity showed up they were turned away and the meeting was re-scheduled. 

The second meeting was held in Guildwood but was stacked with bussed in paid organizers from organizations that not only had received grants, but also organizations that Toronto Hydro’s project page encourages individuals who are interesting in knowing more about the project and wind power to visit. Those paid organizers hogged the mics and gave impassioned speeches in favour of wind energy, while their diesel school buses idled outside (buses that literally mirrored a popular bus route from Kennedy Subway station). Guildwood residents who could not stand in line for over two hours, weren’t heard because of these individuals and Peter Tabuns who thought it was a campaign event for those interested in being the leader of the third party blocked them.

This third meeting is intended for Guildwood residents. It is being held on January 20th 2009 at Sir Wilfrid Laurier CI. The same site as before. The difference this time is residents need to pre-register five days before the meeting to attend. Easy enough right? Except Guildwood residents also need to supply a pin number they were to receive as unaddressed admail from Toronto Hydro. As of January 16th – a day after the last day to register some residents confirmed to me they still have not received their notices. Even those who did receieve a notice will only be allowed to register two attendees. This is problematic for multi generational families, families with adult children at home and homes with multiple families living at one address. Those who have not registered will not be allowed to enter, regardless of residency. 

Toronto Hydro has said they will extend the time for residents to register, and that is fantastic, but they have not conveyed that message through the media, no press release has been issued to recognize their error and any residents who did not receive a notice by Friday likely won’t until Monday, making it still realistically too late for them to register to attend even if they knew to call and try anyway.

Some will defend Toronto Hydro’s decision to restrict access to the meeting only to residents of Guildwood. This is not a position I would defend. I would defend Toronto Hydro if they chose to allow an open meeting, but only allowed Guildwood residents with valid ID to put questions on the floor. The City of Toronto Act, appears to like my position better than Toronto Hydro’s too. 

On the City’s website “Open and closed meetings of City Council, its Committees and local boards” the City states: “Generally, the City and its local boards are required by law to give notice and hold all meetings in public.” It goes on to recognize Toronto Hydro as a local board, provides an investigation process and then goes on to say the investigation process does not apply to boards like Toronto Hydro.  Toronto Hydro’s reason for closing the meeting does not meet any of the provisions provided on the City of Toronto website.

Is a meeting public if notices are never received and people are barred from entry if they do not follow a process they were not empowered to follow?  

I will be covering the January 20th meeting on a day when I hoped I would be able to celebrate the acheivement of President Elect Obama and the ability his campaign had to give a breath of fresh air to American grassroots democracy. But instead, I will be at Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with hundreds of Guildwood residents, hoping to see the community given the opportunity to share their questions, opinions and comments on placing an anemometer off the Bluffs. Toronto Hydro has said the meeting can and will only be just about placing an anemometer in the lake for two years worth of study at a cost of $1 million dollars, but the intent of Toronto Hydro is considerably more than just testing the wind. 

If you are a Guildwood resident, you can still register, and need to call Toronto Hydro using the information on the notice you should have received in the mail. If you have not received the notice, you can call Toronto Hydro directly at 416-204-0153 to register. If unable to register, I would encourage you to show up to speak to officials directly about being allowed to attend the meeting.