All posts by Marianne Kidd

Property Rights, Scotland Wind

Turbines Topple Property Prices

Leave a comment

Dolan Nolan – January 22, 2014 – The Kerryman (North Kerry)

FINUGE HOMES LOSE VALUE… AND A SALE HAS COLLAPSED

PROPERTIES are already losing value in Finuge because of plans to locate ten massive turbines there, locals claimed at a protest meeting on Monday night.

One house sale collapsed at the last minute as buyers were about to sign on the dotted line immediately after controversy flared up over the plans by Stacks Mountain Windfarm Ltd.

Locals say they are in no doubt the sale of a house closed to the planned windfarm site collapsed because buyers didn’t want to own a home in an area that could be dominated by the massive generators.

Up to 200 people attended the public meeting in Finuge on Monday night at which anger over the plans was palpable. The vast majority of people living in the Ballyhorgan area of Finuge are fiercely opposed to the windfarm as they fear the planned 157-metre turbines would impact on their homes, cause noise and shadow flicker and affect health.

One Banemore woman who attended the meeting told how shadow flicker from a turbine behind her home is ‘constant’ and likened the noise from the turbine to a ‘plane’ in evidence that hit locals hard on Monday.

It’s expected that hundreds of individual objections to the plan will be lodged in the coming weeks as Finuge prepares for a fight locals believe will have lasting implications for all of north Kerry. HUNDREDS OF objections will be lodged by Finuge locals as part of the community’s first formal move in its fight against plans to erect giant wind turbines in the low-lying rural area.

Anger was palpable at a massive public meeting in Finuge on Monday night attended by up to 200 locals fiercely opposed to the plans which are currently before Kerry County Council.

Company Stacks Mountain Windfarm Ltd hopes to erect the ten tallest wind turbines ever seen in the State – at a height of 157 metres – in the heart of the farming community. The turbines, labelled ‘monstrosities’ by locals on Monday, would dwarf even the Great Pyramid in Egypt as well as Dublin’s Spire.

Locals say the visual impact of the turbines would utterly transform the attractive community – officially a heritage village – devalue homes, cause noise pollution and ‘shadow flicker’ and lead to a general deterioration of the quality of life in the community.

And many are now of the feeling that north Kerry is being ‘sacrificed’ by local government to supply the county’s windenergy requirements with large tracts of populated areas categorised as potential windfarm locations – from the Stacks Mountains over to Lerrig Lough in Kilmoyley.

“These things are going to be huge,” committee member Anne Quilter told Monday night’s public meeting at Dromclough National School. “Bird’s big wheel is forty metres tall, these will be four times the size of that going up here.”

Anger was also directed at the apparent downgrading of large parts of north Kerry, including Finuge, as being of ‘no scenic value’ under the new County Development Plan (CDP). “That makes me angry. I chose to come here and make my life in north Kerry,” Ms Quilter said.

“The CDP suggests that Kerry should produce one third of the nation’s renewable energy, to do that they are going to locate most of the windfarms in north Kerry…we have to fight this,” Ms Quilter said, also rejecting claims the development would result in jobs: “This is going to decimate our community.”

Clinics are to be held all week in Dromclough school where the windfarm committee will help people fill in objections. Chairman Gerry Doyle is urging locals to ring Kerry County Council planners to ensure the plan is validated as quickly as possible as no objections can be lodged before then.

The five week deadline for objections is meanwhile ticking down.

Among the most forceful evidence of windfarm impact heard on the night came from Banemore woman Shirley Thornton who said that shadow flicker and noise had reduced her quality of life. “I actually have these at the back of my house..the shadow flicker is constant coming in and the noise is like planes flying overhead.”

Locals in the Irremore side of Finuge said they can hear the Banemore windfarm – two-anda-half miles from their homes.

But the committee are optimistic at the outset of the fight. They are receiving guidance from a similar group that succeeded in blocking a wind development in Offaly.

The committee also revealed its plans to launch large balloons to the height of the turbines in an event designed to give people a real idea of the scale of the proposed development as well as to garner more publicity for their cause.

Visit Link to find original story:

http://kerryman.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

 

Children Affected, ERT Appeal, fighting big wind., Health, Health effects from wind turbines, How to Fight Big Wind..., Noise, Ontario Wind, Property Rights, Protecting our children

Press Release – Mothers Against Wind Turbines – December 17, 2013

Leave a comment
Children Affected, Destruction from turbines, fighting big wind., Scotland Wind

Mother Speaks Out: ‘My house actually vibrates from wind turbine’

2 Comments

December 16, 2013 – Donegal News – Scotland

NIMBY-171x300

A mother of two teenage children who lives only 500 metres from a wind turbine at the Corkermore site where a rotor blade broke of in last week’s storm, has for the first time spoken publicly about wind farms.

On reading the comments in the Donegal News last Friday from Cllr John Boyle that their was ‘no danger’ from the sheared blade, Ms Carol Duddy contacted this paper.
She got planning permission for her home six years ago in the Corkermore area when there was no mention of erecting wind turbines.

“Cllr Boyle said the turbines were no problem for the neighbours – he wasn’t speaking for me and I live closest to one. I am not happy with the noise and the flicker effect and I am particularly concerned that a blade could brake off. What would have happened if it had hit someone or my house?

“We have seen a turbine collapse and if one of these did it would not be far from my back door,” Ms Duddy said.

She contacted Donegal County Council after the blade broke off last week and was told it had nothing to do with them.
“I am very annoyed and they are looking to erect another four of these turbines – my house actually vibrates.

“Up until now I have said nothing as I just wanted to keep the peace but now I want to know who is answerable if something happens. I rang the windfarm operators and the Health and Safety Authority and no one has come back to me,” Ms Duddy concluded.

Read Original Article Here: http://donegalnews.com/2013/12/my-house-actually-vibrates-from-wind-turbine/

The original story of the blade breaking: http://donegalnews.com/2013/12/wind-turbine-blade-breaks-off-near-killybegs/

Uncategorized

We Need Your Help….Let’s Fight the NRWC project and protect our families and community!

2 Comments

We need your help. After sorting through the entrails of the NRWC proposal for the last eight months the Ministry of the Environment has decided that the documents have all been submitted. The West Lincoln municipal council and concerned citizens in the community have spent thousands of hours pouring over the same documents and have sent hundreds of letters to the MOE drawing attention to errors, omissions, inconsistent noise sound levels, etc. …. the list goes on. The NRWC proposal has been posted for a 60 day public review and comment period starting December 03, 2013.

As members of the community we now have an opportunity to submit questions or comments until February 01, 2014. Relevant comments received as part of the public participation process for this proposal will be considered by the Ministry of the Environment prior to sending the proposal for technical review. All comments on this proposal must include the EBR Registry Number: 012-0613 And must be directed to:

Sarah Raetsen, Senior Program Support Coordinator Ministry of the Environment Operations Division Environmental Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West Floor 12A Toronto Ontario M4V 1L5 Phone: (416) 326-6089 Fax: (416) 314-8452 Toll Free Phone: (800) 461-6290

You can make comments on line by accessing the Environmental Review Board ERB site. Simply copy the following address into your browser and the on line comment section is in the lower right hand section. http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do? noticeId=MTIxMTM5&statusId=MT gxMzM1&language=en You are encouraged to submit comments, questions and concerns frequently. Suggestions:

First I would like to register my extreme opposition to the NRW Industrial wind turbine project. We are all aware that Industrial Wind Turbines produce mechanical noise, acoustical noise, low frequency noise, infrasound, in addition to electro magnetic radiation, “dirty electricity” or transient voltage, light flicker, vibration as well as electricity. Any of which can create problems for the neighboring recipients. With all these additional “by products” of wind energy it is reasonable we would want an independent third party scientific investigation to determine if any health and safety issues exist for people in communities that are forced to host Industrial wind turbines. According to the 2013 Auditor General’s Report p.316 “the report issued by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health citing no linkage between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects was NOT OBJECTIVE!” Please consider the work of Carmen Krogh – Open Submission: Risk of Harm to Children and Industrial Wind Turbines – Health and Social-economic Impacts in Canada Submitted by Carmen Krogh, BScPharm May 15, 2013 Children living in homes exposed to the noise and other emissions of industrial wind turbines are reported to suffer adverse health effects and may be at risk of mental and / or physical adverse health effects similar to that of their parents. Vigilance and long term surveillance systems regarding risks and adverse effects related to children are lacking. Such programs are necessary to evaluate the risks to children who have been exposed to industrial wind turbines. This evaluation should take place before proceeding with additional approvals. Canada has committed to four general principles: “… non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child”. An inequity appears to violate the principle that all children are to be treated equally i.e. that of “non-discrimination”. Rural children are at risk of harm when wind energy facilities are sited in close proximity to family homes and many parents do not consent to this risk. As the result of the anticipated proliferation in the future of industrial wind turbine facilities in Canada, it is expected more Canadians, including children in general, and those with special needs such as autism, epilepsy, migraine and those with respiratory disorders will be at risk of harm. Risk of learning/cognitive difficulties is a risk. Action by Health Canada would support its “Mission and Vision”” as the responsible authority to help “people of Canada maintain and improve their health” and its “Objectives” to “prevent and reduce risks to individual health and the overall environment”. The Policy Interpretation Network on Children’s Health and Environment comments on the use of the precautionary principle i.e. prevention: Policies that may protect children’s health or may minimise irreversible health effects should be implemented, and policies or measures should be applied based on the precautionary principle, in accordance with the Declaration of the WHO Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest in 2004. Regarding precaution, the World Health Organization states: “…where there is a reasonable possibility that public health will be damaged, action should be taken to protect public health without awaiting full scientific proof.” There is an opportunity for Health Canada to invoke the precautionary principle. Until guidelines are established that protect human health and social-economic viability , no further development of wind energy facilities should occur and existing sites reporting health issues should be resolved to the satisfaction of the those reporting health impairment or risk factors.

2. The MOE’s Renewable Energy Approval (REA) regulations, recommendations and requirements are inadequate for today’s wind turbines and were hastily conceived but, even worse, they are not rigorously and rigidly applied. The 3 MW Enercon industrial wind turbines proposed by NRWC are the largest IWT’s installed onshore in North America. These 60 story industrial installations require extensive “mitigation” strategies and this proposal should be rejected. These industrial wind turbines are too big, too many and too close to schools and rural homes where we live, work and play.

3. Where are your Health studies? Where is your procedural outline for how members of the community record impacts to their health caused by the Industrial wind turbines you propose to erect in West Lincoln? Where is the mitigation policy for health impacts?

4. How will the maximum 40 decibel noise pollution level be monitored? What is the mitigation procedure when the noise level is above 40 decibels? Who will have the authority to shut the Industrial wind turbines down when the noise pollution level is above the 40 decibels? Under what conditions will the municipality have the authority to shut the Industrial wind turbines down?

5. The installation of Industrial wind turbines is an Industrial use of agricultural land. What is the classification of the agricultural farm land being taken out of production for each specific Industrial wind turbine? How many acres of farm land will be removed from agricultural production for the installation of each turbine? How many acres of farm land will be removed from agricultural production for the service roads required for each turbine?

6. How many ground water wells are within 1 km of each turbine? 2 km? 5 km? Where is the mitigation plan if the ground water wells become contaminated or the flow decreases or ceases? How will you guarantee safe drinking water for the people and the animals in this agricultural community?
7. What is the depth of the footings required to erect a 600 foot Industrial wind turbine? Where is your study of the underground topography at each Industrial wind turbine site to the depth of the footings?

8. Members of the community are continually reassured that property values will not be affected by this initiative. Denmark compensates people if the property devaluation is more than 1%. Why has no compensation package been developed for rural people who experience loss of property value?

9. Where are your commitments to meet 100% decommissioning costs and restoration of our farmlands? What financial guarantee is provided for the decommissioning of these Industrial wind turbines or will the members of West Lincoln and ultimately the Province of Ontario be left responsible for financing the clean up? (Just like the PCB fiasco West Lincoln already experienced in the 1980’s.)

10. Where are your Emergency Plans for fire in the nacelle? Who will pay for the equipment needed for such an emergency? What additional insurance will be provided to neighboring receptors whose person, property and livestock may be affected by fire, ice throw, blade throw, contamination from oil spills, electro-magnetic radiation, transient voltage, etc.

11. Bats are extremely important to agriculture and it is irresponsible of you to locate an Industrial wind turbine within two km of a bat colony. Bats are being killed by Barotrauma, as in the change of air pressure behind the turbine blades. According to NASA and a Danish Study this change of pressure requires 2000 meters to return to ambient conditions so your mitigation if more than 10 bats are killed per turbine per year is an insult and instead you will reduce or eliminate this colony. How will you compensate neighbouring farmers who will be using more chemicals to control insects that the bats would have eliminated?

The BATS ARE GREEN not your Industrial wind turbine that produces mechanical noise, acoustical noise, low frequency noise, infrasound, electro magnetic radiation, “dirty electricity” or transient voltage, light flicker, vibration as well as decreasing property values for everyone in the view shed! 12. more to follow.

Catherine Mitchell

PS As I sit here in my snowsuit, freezing in the dark, maybe coal will be a good gift this Christmas.

fighting big wind.

That is some SMART METER!!!! Letter by Karen

Leave a comment

Dear Minister Chiarelli,

I have taken your advice to heart and made sure my energy literacy meets with the latest knowledge and understand of my electricity bill by reading all of the latest instructions posted on all of your recommended websites as well as using all of your calculations according to your math.  Somehow my cup of Tim Horton’s coffee seems to cost me more.  Could you please let me know where you get these special deals at Tim’s?

Honestly I really do agree that we should focus on conservation.  I have done that to the point where I actually decided to leave my house and live outside of the Province where I can use the same amount of electricity, but at a much lower rate. That should really help conserve electricity in Ontario!  Unfortunately I did have to leave minimal electricity on so my pipes would not freeze over the winter.In spite of all this conservation, when I received my first bill, it was still a shocker.  Perhaps I need a little more instruction from you personally. 

I am sending you some details so that you can do your math magic and make everything more comprehensible. First off, even though this SMART METER was installed on the pole near my house where the old meter used to be, my bill informed me right at the top:

“We read your meter XXXXX054 on November 22, 2013     053313.4500
We read your meter on October 24, 2013                      -052377.1380
The difference in meter readings                                   000936.3120

Metered usage in kilowatt-hours (936.3120×1)=936.3120 kWh “Wow! 

That is some smart meter to compute all of that. Now from the meter reading the bill also tells me that since summer rates are effective until October 31, according to my meter reading I am receiving 7 days of the “summer rate” and the remainder is billed at the “winter rate”.This smart meter also seems to know exactly how to split up the usage of 936.312 kWhours between ON-Peak, Mid-Peak and Off-Peak rates as well as the amount of kWhours used on summer rates and winter rates. 

That is some SMART METER.  And, even though my bill says Hydro One read my meter, there was not even a person that had to come to the house physically to check on this. 

I guess SMART METER knows best!

Now I won’t bore you with the details of the breakdown.  Suffice it to way I really work on conservation when my off-peak is only half as much as my on-peak and Mid-peak is less than half of my on-peak.  I could of course persevere and use ALL my electricity during off-peak leaving much more available for all those factories that need it during the daytime on-peak hours, especially since all those turbines generate power at night when we can’t possibly use all that power and have to beg others to please take it “cheap”.   Of course then my pipes would freeze, especially in the winter when global warming still does not keep daytime temperatures above freezing.

So when I add up all the various prices charged for electricity and look at my total bill, I discover that the Delivery charges, the Regulatory charges and the debt retirement charge along with HST are 2-1/2 times as much as what I pay for electricity.  Incidentally the bill is not as SMART as my SMART METER.  I had to total this up on my calculator.

Now, isn’t it nice, the Ontario government is taking 10% of my bill from some other tax payers (not me hopefully) that have been added to Ontario’s treasury via revenue streams and giving me this as a credit on my bill!  That almost pays for that miserable HST!  Now for some reason when the last rate adjustments were made it left something stranded that I didn’t have to pay for right away, so there is this little $11.39 amount left hanging there at the end of my bill.  This seems to be on every bill, but it does not tell me when it will stop or when I finally have to pay or get this adjustment???  Perhaps I have to go through all my bills and figure this one out. While I am informed that this is Real-Time Billing Payment Plan with $0.00 remaining, it still extends $11.39.   I don’t think you could answer this just off the top of your head?My bill also has little * to make sure I understand that there is electricity lost somewhere along the wires.  It really does not tell me how much, but that this is accounted for in the delivery charge so I just have to trust you and Hydro One on this.  The charges I am told are fixed, but not ALL fixed and some are variable depending on how much electricity I use. 

Do you perhaps know how the breakdown is calculated?  And then I am certainly relieved that a) the electricity costs billed to me are the part that is subject to competition, and b) that the regulatory charges help to maintain the reliability of the grid, include costs associated with funding the Ministry of Energy (which surely includes your salary and your pension) considering all the hard work you are doing in trying to make us energy literate, not to mention that although no one consulted me to see if I am in agreement, but

I certainly am contributing via my bill payments to infrastructure (I am assuming all the poles, wires, transformers, etc.) and not least of all the wonderful renewable energy programs which even though we can’t use all that electricity that renewable energy provides we should be proud to make our contribution – even if we now have to pay extra for a lot of these to be shut down do not produce electricity.  That last part will no doubt help preserve a few bats and eagles from being sliced up.I certainly hope you can tell me how I could conserve better, or even if I used NO electricity, would I still have to pay to nevertheless maintain Ontario’s infrastructure, power lost on the lines before it never got to my house, and certainly to keep all the blades spinning on those big towers that produce electricity that is not needed and have to be shut down, but so these companies don’t lose any money and might leave Ontario or go bankrupt, we still have to keep paying them to not produce electricity. 

I guess all those charges would still be on my bill – did I hear somewhere this was a global adjustment assumingly factored into the delivery charge?    It does not really mention that term on MY bill.If you have a problem answering my questions perhaps you could first refer to advice you may not have read yet.  You could link in to these and you might find them helpful since it states you are firmly in charge of our hydro bills:http://ep.probeinternational.org/2013/12/12/parker-gallant-minister-of-energy-bob-chiarelli-firmly-in-control-of-our-hydro-bills-2/or if all else fails, perhaps you will find some experts here:http://freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/12/energy-planning-in-ontario-who-do-we.htmlI am certain Parker Gallant has written quite a few letters and columns that surely would augment the recent suggestions made by Ontario’s Auditor General.Then again, I was just reading the China’s renewable energy seems to have problems with both solar and wind on life support.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/09/why-chinas-renewables-industry-is-headed-for-collapse/Perhaps you feel that China needs help from Ontario and your long term energy plan has backed off nuclear and wants to include lots of wind and solar. 

That certainly is generous and the some 130 wind turbines recently added within several of projects newly approved should help out with China’s production /sale problems.  No doubt China will extend their gratitude and certainly your advice on how all the people of Ontario should better manager their power consumption are also grateful to you for your generous advice.If Ontario has a problem with revenue streams, certainly the World Bank will stand by to help and the IFM is known to also give good advice on how to better manage our consumption of everything. 

Perhaps they would like to take part in the next Webinar.  They might help better than all those engineers that worry too much about engineering and science.  They perhaps can certainly help with financing all those new projects.

With best intentions, Your faithful contributor in Taxation
and without malice

Karen Breitbach

PS—Not for me, but all those people who save on electricity by not using their clothes dryers during the winter,  do you have a good advice on how best to handle frozen clothes?

Direct Effects, ERT Appeal, fighting big wind.

Approval halted on two Wainfleet turbines | Welland Tribune

1 Comment

WAINFLEET – 

Two days after a controversial decision by Wainfleet township council to use taxpayers’ money to fund a private company’s legal battle against wind turbines, the company behind the turbines has been ordered to halt construction on part of its development.

The order came from an environment review tribunal, which decided Thursday the renewable energy approval for two of Wainfleet Wind Energy’s five industrial wind turbines should be put on hold until the appeal by Skydive Burnaby is heard.

On Oct. 7, the Ministry of the Environment gave Wainfleet Wind Energy an REA to move forward with the project. Two weeks later, however, lawyers for Skydive Burnaby owners Mikel and Tara Pitt appealled, saying that two turbines planned to be within 1.7 km of their facility would be detrimental to their business.

In her decision Thursday, tribunal executive chair Lynda Tanaka said the motion for a stay of the renewal energy approval for the two turbines was granted until the appeal is decided. The tribunal is scheduled for three weeks in January.

“I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but I’ll definitely take it as a win,” said Tara Pitt. “It wasn’t an easy road getting here, but I’m definitely happy.”

Wainfleet Mayor April Jeffs, who has continually fought against having turbines built in the township, called it step in the right direction.

“Even if it is just for the two, it’s such a positive step forward,” she said. “It’s a breath of fresh air to see the province recognize how this will affect a business in our community.”

Tom Rankin, the president of Rankin Construction, which is a partner in Wainfleet Wind Energy, said the stay isn’t much of a setback.

“At that site we have the road built, the concrete foundation is built and we had the crane up, but we weren’t going to put up the tower until the new year anyway,” he said. “We have the critical work done we wanted to do. So I’m not happy about the decision, but it’s not the end of the world.”

Jeffs, meanwhile, defended a decision Tuesday to have the township pay $40,000 of Skydive Burnaby’s legal bills.

Though it wasn’t originally on the council agenda, a procedural bylaw was waived to allow Tara Pitts to make a presentation to council requesting the money. She said the idea for the public support came from Lambton county council making a similar decision recently.

“It was time sensitive because our original understanding of what our legal fees would be and what they ended up being were two different things,” Pitts said.

Jeffs, Ald. Betty Konc and Ald. Richard Dykstra voted in favour of granting the funding while Ald. Ted Hessels voted against the idea. Ald. David Wyatt wasn’t at the meeting.

“I don’t think it’s our right to use taxpayer money,” said Hessels. “It’s not really Wainfleet’s case anymore. It’s a private thing.”

He said he’s concerned with how it might look that a decision was made Tuesday night without the public knowing it was being discussed.

“We haven’t heard from the people on which way to go. You know there’s opposition to it,” he said.

“Personally I’m against what the turbine people are doing, but I wasn’t going to use my constituents money to fight it.”

Jeffs said she knows not everyone will agree with the decision.

“I’m sure we’ll hear from people about it, but that’s fair. I stand behind it. We had to decide and I think it’s a good decision,” she said. “It’s tough because Wainfleet has a small budget and $40,000 is a lot here.”

dan.dakin@sunmedia.ca

 

Approval halted on two Wainfleet turbines | Welland Tribune.

Canada Wind, fighting big wind., Ontario Wind

New plan; same old hydro hikes

Leave a comment

December 6, 2013 – The Windsor Star

Pic of Chiarelli

Based on what the Liberals have done to hydro bills over the past decade, there’s good reason to worry about what they are now proposing as part of an “updated long-term energy plan.”

In fact, the update comes after hydro costs have increased nearly 50 per cent under the Liberal government’s watch. The reasons are myriad: The Green Energy Act — the centrepiece of the old long-term energy plan — has proven to be overly expensive and controversial. Each year about $1 billion is spent to pay for the stranded debt that was left over after the breakup and restructuring of Ontario Hydro. According to the auditor general, the province sells electricity exports for less than they’re worth. Between 2005 and 2011 the loss was $1.8 billion.

And then there’s the more than $1 billion the government needlessly spent to move two gas plants for no other reason that to save Liberal seats in the last election.

At best, the Liberals’ energy policy is a mess. It has failed to deliver affordable hydro rates that are fair to families and an incentive for businesses investment.

Thanks to the new long-term energy plan, it’s only going to get worse. Ontarians can count on their electricity rates going up 33 per cent over the next three years. And within five years, the average monthly bill of $125 will rise to $178 — a 42 per cent increase.

However, this is all good news, according to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli. That’s because after the initial hikes, Ontarians will actually be paying $100 a year less than they would have under the old long-term strategy. That’s because the government decided to scrap plans to build two new nuclear reactors, renegotiated the Green Energy deal with Samsung and cut payments to small solar producers and wind farms.

“We are saving ratepayers money,” is how the energy minister characterized the coming hit to electricity bills. Just forget about the inflationary increases that are coming.

As far as Chiarelli is concerned the high rates are “just a fact of life.”

Another fact of life is that the Liberals have mishandled the energy file and they have no intention of addressing high rates, or even stabilizing them.

But since there’s an election coming up, possibly this spring, the Liberals are holding out hope to hard-pressed energy users that they’ll be offering some help “to better control their consumption.”

The government says the program will provide “on-bill financing for energy efficiency retrofits” starting in 2015, which would provide loans for home renovations that would be paid back through electricity bills.

“We haven’t put the details together,” admitted Chiarelli. “The cost of financing over time will be paid for by savings.” And considering the rate hikes ahead, that could be a very long time.

For now, the Liberals’ energy strategy seems to be focused on creating the impression that everything is under control as the province heads toward an election. But the bottom line is that Ontario’s hydro rates are among the highest in North America, and there’s no end in sight to the increases.

The coming election will provide Ontarians with the opportunity to send a simple message to all the parties — it’s time for an affordable energy plan.

See original article here: http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2013/12/06/the-stars-view-new-plan-same-old-hydro-hikes/

20131019-151831.jpg

Canada Wind, Children Affected, Health, How to Fight Big Wind..., Ontario Wind

Form of Child Abuse & Neglect? Protecting Children less than 550m

2 Comments