Gas plant cancelled for political expediency, millions wasted

Gas plant cancelled for political expediency, millions wasted
The Auditor General’s report dated April 2013 on the Eastern Power Mississauga gas plant contained the following remarks:
 “Eastern Power was awarded three of the seven contracts, including one for the Greenfield South Power Plant. This was proposed as a 280-MW combined-cycle gas-fired facility to be located in Mississauga and to operate over a 20-year period. Ultimately, it was the only contract Eastern Power executed. For various reasons, including Eastern Power’s challenges in securing financing, the other two projects were terminated. The Greenfield South contract was signed in April 2005.”
   It appears the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in awarding the contracts to Eastern Power didn’t bother to ensure they would be able to obtain financing, but awarded the contract(s) anyway. 
   Now, in 2013, the OPA will soon be handed the full authority by Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli to ramp up their powers to negotiate and sign competitive contracts, as part of his idea of how to fix the feed-in tariff (FIT) program.   Minister Chiarelli directed the OPA via his June 12, 2013 directive to make the following change to the FIT program:
“Replacing the Large FIT program with a new competitive procurement process and working with municipalities and Aboriginal communities to help identify appropriate locations and siting requirements.”
   That “gas plant scandal” the Liberals have been dealing with was partially caused by the OPA’s prior actions as the Mississauga plant was to be up and running by 2007; yet the Minister is now proposing to give them more authority. Past and present Energy Ministers appear to think the bureaucrats that made mistakes in the past have learned their lesson.  Or have they?
   Recently The Hill Times (Ottawa) did a complete review of the “energy” scene in Canada and took the time to do an article on the Ontario electricity sector and its push for renewable energy via the Green Energy and Economy Act. The following quote from Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli appears:
“He also outlined a number of other incentives for municipal participation in the renewable energy sector, including making it easier for cities [my emphasis] to become equity partners in wind energy projects and provisions for increased tax and assessment revenues from turbines. “And that will be retroactive—it includes existing turbines as well,” Mr. Chiarelli added.”
   I’m not sure how that last comment will play out as the “assessment” on wind turbines was defined by the previous Finance Minister, Dwight Duncan, who instructed the Municipality Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to assess a maximum taxable assessment of $40,000 per megawatt (MW).  If the contracts executed by the OPA carry guarantees on the assessed values, we should expect threats of further lawsuits, and unless Chiarelli has got clearance from current Finance Minister Charles Sousa, his premise may be dead in the water. Nevertheless the many processes recently announced by Minister Chiarelli are moving forward, but most anti-wind turbine groups see this whole exercise as a worthless “conversation” (to paraphrase Premier Kathleen Wynne).   Those groups are also having trouble understanding what “cities” have to do with the process when it is chiefly rural communities that are affected.  I am confident Minister Chiarelli would have difficulty pointing to a major wind turbine development near any “city” in Ontario.
   In any event it appears to this writer that the OPA, charged with running this new “competitive procurement process” may be challenged as the Mississauga Greenfield project and another contract they awarded has recently demonstrated. 
   A recent case has surfaced: a small OPA contract of 6.15 MW awarded toRedbird Energy, reportedly chaired by  Kevin Loughery.   The President is listed as Nancy Loughrey and coincidently, an Internet search turns them up (or two peopleconnected with the same name) in Atlanta, Georgia.  As a further coincidence theFBI in the U.S. has charged a Kevin P. Loughery with “wire fraud” for using investor funds for his personal use. 
   Is the chair of Redbird, described on the Redbird website as “Kevin has been actively involved in reviewing and assessing renewable energy companies and projects since 2006 and brings 20 years of investment experience as a stock broker for Bear Stearns, a currency trader for Thomas Cook, etc.”  and the person charged by the FBI one and the same?  If so, it appears the OPA awards contracts to companies possibly controlled by individuals charged with fraud. 
   I’m sure this latest finding will provide Minister Chiarelli with even more confidence in the OPA’s abilities to negotiate future contracts.
   This recent example and the past history of the OPA’s awarding of the Eastern Power/Greenfield contract(s) fails to provide the voters, taxpayers and ratepayers of Ontario with confidence in the  process that the previous and the current Ministers of Energy seem to feel is active in the OPA.   
   We Ontarians have certainly had our share of scandals over the past 10 years; at some point someone must draw a line in the sand—it appears the government won’t!
    Now is the time!
Parker Gallant
August 13, 2013
The opinions expressed in this posting are those of the author and are not necessarily the policy of Wind Concerns Ontario.

County advocate for safe and appropriate green energy sends a letter to Queen’s Park

Queen’s Park needs to start listening to the people who are being affected by this scam!!!

CCSAGE Naturally Green

The Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Energy
Victor Fedeli, PC Energy Critic
Peter Tabuns, NDP Energy Critic
Steve Dyck, GPO Energy Critic


As our political representatives in charge of making decisions about Energy, I beseech you to pay attention to what is happening in the real world and not to what comes out of the marketing machine of the wind energy lobby at Queen’s Park.

Although originally in favour of wind energy, I am now opposed to large scale wind projects that are sited too close to homes and in environmentally sensitive areas.  I believed the claims of the wind industry – that it would deliver us from the effects of carbon pollution, that it was free – there for the taking, and that it was “green”. In 2005 when I first heard there were “wind farms” planned near our home in the County and that there was…

View original post 703 more words

What the Green Energy Act Has Done to Rural Ontario

K. Wynne is part of this organized crime scam, it is time to shut them all down!!!

Wind Resistance of Melancthon

Excerpts from a letter by Melancthon Mayor Bill Hill to Premier K. Wynne, dated August 13, 2013.

Speaking about Dufferin Wind Power and wind power development.

“The reason they can do this, is again because of flawed Legislation passed by your Government.”

“It does appear that your government has chosen to favour foreign owned wind power developers, over the interests and livelihood of Ontario farmers.”

Read letter: Melancthon Letter

View original post

Time for Leadership, Mr. Cameron

Fracking is one million times better than wind energy. Wind is over-priced, intermittent, destroys the environment, makes neighbours sick, divides the community,takes away democratic rights, and does NOTHING to eliminate climate change.

Roger Helmer MEP

I get a bit worried when I find myself agreeing with Cameron, Osborne and Davey (Ed Davey, that is, the Lib-Dem “Energy Secretary”).  It doesn’t happen very often.  But it they seem to be right on shale gas.

The Tory Party, like other parties, has been somewhat taken aback by the concerns, indeed outright opposition of Middle England, as represented by the good people of Balcombe in Sussex, to a rather small scale drilling project adjacent to their village.  Taken aback, too, by the way that the “usual suspects” of opposition to almost any infrastructure development, the Swampies of this world, have descended on Balcombe, and have been welcomed (albeit with some understandable trepidation) by local residents.  This is doubly bizarre, since the particular well in Balcombe is for conventional oil, not fracking, and is no different from a number of similar wells that are operating in the county without…

View original post 720 more words

Angus “The Enforcer” Taylor – collars another pro-wind-power-punk

More proof of the futility of the windscam.


The adage that you can’t keep a good man down applies in spades to Angus “The Enforcer” Taylor.

The wind weasels have been running a campaign to undermine Angus – including laughable claims made in the Fin Review last week that he’d been privately “slapped down” by energy policy lightweights, Greg Hunt and Ian “Enron” Macfarlane. Nice try – boys.

The wind industry is also trying to slam Angus as “anti-renewable” – like it’s a “crime against humanity”.  No – Angus isn’t “anti-renewable” just “anti-intermittent, unreliable, heavily subsidised WIND POWER”.  On the contrary, here he is at the National Rally setting out how REAL base-load renewable generation runs through his veins :



And a greentard named Ferrara also tried taking a few pot shots at Angus, but clean missed his mark.  Oops….

Unfazed  – The Enforcer calmly drew his .44 Magnum and returned fire . *. *. *…

View original post 1,003 more words

Renewable’s Cost

August 13, 2013 – Colin Gibson – Scottland –

 May I correct this shortcoming using data from my own studies, since all costs will have to be paid by customers?

Wind generation adds a number of extra costs for customers because of its geographical location in the north of Great Britain, and its intermittency.

The extra costs comprise additional transmission circuits, extra losses, costs of flexing and standby of thermal or hydro plant to accommodate intermittency, and capital costs of back-up gas turbines to contain the risk to security of supply.

Compared with an optimum plant mix of gas turbines and nuclear, the proposed 28GW of wind generation will cost the 25 million Great Britain households about £16 billion per annum extra, which will amount to £725 per annum per household.

If only two-thirds, say, of GB wind was connected to a Scottish system, and that part of the £16bn had to be shared between 2.5 million Scottish households the costs would be unbearable, and English and Welsh customers would be under no obligation to continue paying these large subsidies.

The suggestion of Scottish Renewables to add further to these costs by providing more pumped storage and interconnection capacity does not seem reasonable unless, of course, the wind companies are prepared to pick up the costs.

The turn-round efficiency of pumped storage (including transmission) would only be about 70 per cent; and interconnection would incur significant transmission and conversion losses.

The country needs to see the results of properly structured and supervised Total Power System Cost studies to provide transparency on these issues. It would appear that Sir Donald has good reason to express his concerns.

Colin Gibson

National Grid Group



See Article at:

Comments by Ostrander Point ERT presenter / expert

CCSAGE Naturally Green

[Following is a comment (slightly edited) submitted to the Whig Standard recently by Ian Dubin, who was qualified as a presenter and expert witness in the Ostrander Point ERT appeal. He is a civil / geotechnical engineer with additional qualifications in law and environmental impact assessment, and with decades of experience in the field of environmental protection.]

I was very pleased to see the Ostrander Point Environmental Review Tribunal Appeal decision. I am especially happy that my small contribution apparently helped the ERT to determine that the proposed Industrial Wind Energy project will cause unacceptable harm to the natural environment, in particular the Provincially threatened Blanding’s Turtle. This is a milestone decision – and I can only hope it helps open the door to more successful appeals against Industrial Wind Energy in Ontario.

However, this is a very narrow victory and I was less pleased that appeal evidence of other…

View original post 1,107 more words

PPEC News: APPEC Appeals ERT Decision on Human Health

Fellow APPEC Members:

On August 2 APPEC filed a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court of Ontario challenging the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision on human health.  Due to the long weekend the board delayed issuing the news release below until today.

The grounds for appeal of all ERT decisions are perceived errors in law.  APPEC’s Notice (attached) states:  “ The Tribunal erred in law and/or acted unreasonably by failing to apply the appropriate standard of proof in assessing the Appellant’s evidence, and thereby misinterpreting and misapplying the criteria established under section 145.2.1(2)(a) of the EPA.”  Specifically, it erred in finding that that the evidence did not establish a causal link between wind turbines and either direct or indirect serious harm to human health at the 40 dBA limit or at 550-m setbacks.

Despite filing an appeal by the statutory deadline, the board continues to review the grounds because this is another expensive legal undertaking and carries with it the liability for costs.  Gilead Power, in its Notice of Appeal, is seeking costs from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.  The APPEC board therefore wants to be fairly certain of the potential for a positive outcome and especially of APPEC’s capability to oppose all wind development in the County.   Since an appeal on health applies to every Ontario wind project, it is part of APPEC’s strategy in fighting wpd.

The next stage of the appeal process requires APPEC to clarify its legal arguments within 30 days.  During this time the board will be consulting further with our lawyer as well as watching the progress of other relevant Ontario legal cases, two of which involve a Canadian Charter of Human Rights challenge.

In making a decision to proceed with the appeal the board would find it useful to hear from APPEC members.  Please reply with your own views this week so the board can gauge the extent of member support.


Henri Garand

Chair, APPEC


  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                          August 6, 2013



                   Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County appeals Environmental Tribunal Decision on health

Picton, Ontario/ The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) announced today they have filed an Appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court of the recent Environmental Review Tribunal Decision (ERT) on serious harm posed to human health by a wind turbine development at Ostrander Point, in Prince Edward County.

According to APPEC legal counsel, Eric Gillespie, this Appeal is based on alleged errors in law found in the ERT July 3, 2013 Decision on APPEC’s Appeal of the Renewable Energy Approval issued to Gilead Power by the Ministry of the Environment.



For more information please contact:  Ian Hanna  (416) 988-4007


Wind Energy is Not Green, It’s Just Energy

May 28, 2013 – Paul Crowe

Wind energy presents a troubling issue for environmentalists. A true environmentalist is expected to support certain things, yet they are split on this issue. It’s what happens if you label something “green” instead of examining it carefully with serious and open questions. It also presents an opportunity for everyone to see you don’t have to think like a group, you can have a healthy concern for the environment without accepting some set list of beliefs that all environmentalists supposedly share. This may be the best thing that has happened for a very long time to advance clear thinking about the environment and it may open up a whole new set of ideas and solutions where people sometimes at odds can begin to agree. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Wind Energy is Not Green, It’s Just Energy.

Protecting our children from Industrial Wind Power Emissions is our first priority!

%d bloggers like this: