Just The Facts: Wind Power in Ontario and Europe

by John Laforet
posted on February 14th, 2009 at 06:31:21 am

Below are a series of quotes from various sources I have come across during my research. I will summarize at the bottom. 

The Role of the Public:

Greenpeace on Public Participation in Offshore Wind Project Decisions:

“Naturally, in a democratic society, public acceptance is vital to the ultimate success of any initiative.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace  

“Every wind farm will be required to seek some form of planning permission, and inherent in this process is affording the local community an opportunity to appraise and comment on a proposed development, or on a wider development plan for an area.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace  

European Wind Energy Association On Public Participation in Wind Project Decisions:

“Public acceptance is key for the future development of wind energy in Europe.” European Wind Energy Association

Dalton McGuinty on Public Participation:

“Taking a swipe at those who oppose wind turbines off the Scarborough Bluffs, Premier Dalton McGuinty is signalling he won’t hesitate to foist “green” energy projects on communities across Ontario.” Toronto Star - McGuinty vows to stop wind-farm NIMBYs 

Bluewater Wind Power (Deleware Offshore Project) on Public Participation:

“We value open and continuing two-way communications. It is important to us that we know and understand each person’s concerns, questions and ideas. This understanding helps us to improve our responsiveness to the needs of the community, which in turn contributes to the success of our projects.” Bluewater Wind Values

NaiKun – BC Offshore Wind Project on Public Participation:

“NaiKun is committed to working with local communities to ensure that the project is designed and built in consideration of community interests.” NaiKun Community Consultation

Jim Gordon – President of Cape Wind (Cape Cod Wind Project):

“We at Cape Wind share our neighbors’ concerns for the environment—local, regional and global—and act accordingly. Our philosophy toward community relations is simple. Be honest and open, be a good neighbor, and safeguard our shared resources and environment.” Cape Wind – Being a Good Neighbour

Offshore Wind In General:

The Ontario Power Authority on Why Offshore Wind Isn’t In It’s 20 Year Power System Plan (June 2008):

“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)

Earth Policy Institute on Scale of World Wide Offshore Wind Development (March 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)

On Proper Siting of Wind Offshore Turbines: 

German Wind Energy Association On Balancing Nature Conservation With Offshore Wind (Undated – 2008/9):

“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.” (German Wind Energy Association – Future Trends: Offshore)

Bluewater (Deleware Wind Farm Developer) on Siting Their Project:

“Bluewater Wind’s plan to site turbines more than 11.5 nautical miles from shore removes them from close proximity to bird population fly zones. Nonetheless, expert ornithologists will conduct thorough avian studies before, during and after construction of the Delaware wind park.” – www.bluewater.com

Cape Wind – North America’s First Offshore Wind Project:

“The wind park will be sited on Horseshoe Shoal off the coast of Cape Cod. Hyannis will be over five miles away—and most of the Cape beaches will be further away.” Cape Wind Project Siting

Nai Kun (British Columbia) Offshore Wind Turbine Project On Siting:

“It is here, several kilometers from the nearest shore that NaiKun has secured a 550 square kilometer permit area within which we plan to build the first phase of our wind project, a 396 MW offshore wind farm, and future phases.” Nai Kun Project Site

Greenpeace Europe on ‘Buffer Zone for Offshore Wind’

“The 5km boundary was to reflect a general move by some countries to impose a coastal buffer zone for very large offshore wind farms on visual grounds.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace 

How Far Offshore Are Current 100 Megawatt Plus Wind Turbine Projects:

Denmark – Closest 5-15 KMs – Average 12 KMs (four projects)

Germany – Closest 100 KMs – Average 100 KMs (one project)

Netherlands – Closest 8-12 KMs – Average 16.5 KMs (two projects)

Sweden – Closest 10 KMs – Average 10 KMs (one project)

United Kingdom – Closest 7 KMs – Average 9 KMs (three projects)

Source: Offshore Wind Statistics January 2009 – European Wind Energy Association

Toronto Hydro’s Proposal – 2-4 KMs 

Source: Toronto Hydro Energy Services, Stakeholder Anemometer Briefing

On Environmental Assessments:

Cape Wind – North America’s First Offshore Wind Turbine Project On Environmental Assessments:

“Cape Wind is committed to protecting the Cape Cod environment during construction and when the wind park is operating. Prior to receiving permits for construction, Cape Wind will complete comprehensive environmental studies for federal, state and local agencies, and provide opportunity for public comment.” Cape Wind Environmental Studies

Nai Kun Wind Development (British Columbia) On Environmental Assessments:

“NaiKun is strongly committed to the Environmental Assessment process.  Through the process we intend to clearly identify any potential effects and propose appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures to ensure the project can proceed with no significant adverse effects.” Nai Kun Environmental Assessment [Nai Kun is subject to a Federal Environmental Assessment, a Provincial Environmental Assessment and a Haida Environmental Assessment]

Bluewater Wind on Environmental Assessments:

“We seek objective environmental reviews. Our experts conduct comprehensive scientific and environmental studies and analysis on all aspects of our wind park projects, and we welcome the input of all experts in the public discussion.” Bluewater Wind Values

Greenpeace On Environmental Assessments For Offshore Wind In Europe:

“It is noted that, when investigating a potential site, developers must consider in detail a wide range of constraints. Potential impacts, and their magnitude, are subject to in-depth assessment in both the Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact Assessment processes. The former is an assessment of government plans and policies carried out prior to their implementation, the latter an impact assessment carried out by a developer in support of an application for project consent.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace 

Dalton McGuinty’s Position On Wind:

Dalton McGuinty wants Ontario to be the only jurisdiction to install offshore wind projects without community acceptance and a process that allows for community participation in decision making.

Dalton McGuinty wants Ontario to place large offshore wind projects closer to shore than any other jurisdiction in the world.

Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the world that does not require an environmental assessment before construction of an offshore wind project. (The closest is a “proponent driven, self-assessment process”).

Dalton McGuinty supports a project that ignores the Ontario Power Authority’s 20 year power system plan and all available data on wind viability off the Scarborough Bluffs. The Canada Wind Atlas, the Helimax Report his Government commissioned, and the two waterfront turbines that act as book ends to the location (both failures). 

Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you agree with Greenpeace Europe, the European Wind Energy Association, the German Wind Energy Association, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Deleware, Massachusetts or British Columbia all of whom support minimum setbacks from shore at least 60% farther than the Toronto Hydro Energy Service proposal. 

Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you agree with The Ontario Power Authority, Helimax, the Canada Wind Atlas or the evidence from the Pickering Wind Generating Station and The Exhibition Wind Turbine data that suggest Toronto Hydro Energy Services project would not be feasible. 

Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you want his government and his friends at Toronto Hydro Energy Services to carry out an environmental assessment like virtually all other offshore wind projects of this size in the world. 

Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you expect Toronto Hydro Energy Services not to knowingly lie to the community, to hold a fair, open and honest consultation process and consider the community’s concerns instead of defending their project.

In truth – Dalton McGuinty doesn’t have an answer for why his government doesn’t have minimum setbacks, doesn’t require environmental assessments and why they refuse to accept science and instead of doing something about that – he bows to pressure from the wind industry and uses the politics of divison to create conflict among citizens in his Province. 

Dalton McGuinty is wrong. He should be ashamed of himself and he should apologize to Guildwood residents for wrongfully singling them out in a poorly thought out speech in London. Our concerns are environmental and it would be great if the Premier could join Guildwood residents in taking the environment seriously. 

Unfortunately – The Final of Four Interviews With Guildwod Residents

by John Laforet
posted on February 7th, 2009 at 08:15:12 am

I want to start by saying I was really hopeful all five of the interviews I conducted at the Toronto Hydro Energy Services non legal meeting on January 20th would work. Unfortunately, the final interview was conducted in the auditorium as it was clearing out and due to the background noise large portions are inaudible.

As a result this will be the final interview I have to post.

That being said, Brenda’s story and appeal to Toronto Hydro to recognize the beauty and sensitivity of the Scarborough Bluffs is a deeply compelling story that I hope many residents will enjoy. I personally found Brenda’s story about her first visit to Guildwood and the hard work she undertook to one day live in this community to be extremely touching. I hope you do too.

Enjoy.

What’s Wrong With Toronto Hydro Energy Services?

by John Laforet
posted on February 5th, 2009 at 23:47:04 pm

The folks at Toronto Hydro Energy Services have demonstrated epically bad judgement in a number of different areas. Whether it is their response to electrocuting Torontonians family pets, demonstrating an inability to appreciate their inability to manage and deliver viable renewable energy projects, or their latest, trying to lie to Guildwood Residents and the Ministry of Natural Resources to get their second soon to fail win project off the ground. Things appear so bad that David O’Brien, President of Toronto Hydro Corporation won’t even allow Chris Tyrrell, President of Toronto Hydro Energy Services, to speak publicly when his hydro poles are electrocuting small kids and killing family pets. Having seen Tyrrell address a community meeting, I can appreciate O’Brien’s decision, but still believe it demonstrates a problem with the organization. 

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.