Posts Tagged ‘OSEA’

Here is the latest from retired investment banker Parker Gallant, on the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and its upcoming event…all paid for by Ontario taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. They are concerned that backlash against “green” energy projects and Ontario’s Feed In Tariff program might mean an end to the gravy train.

Here is the article, originally posted on the Wind Concerns Ontario website.

OSEA’s mini FIT

Posted on 11/12/2011 by MA

by Parker Gallant
The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association’s Executive Director, Kristopher Stevens on Monday morning will launch OSEA’s 3rd Annual Community Power Conference and glancing at the program one can detect a sense of concern. This is reflected in Steven’s message in the programme brochure which contains this reflective bon mot; “The green energy sector in Ontario has been threatened by uncertainty in recent months due to the provincial election and the highly anticipated Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) review. Developers, manufactures, government and investors are concerned about what may happen to the industry, their projects and businesses. Residents and communities are concerned whether clean air and water, newfound well paying jobs, local project ownership and hope, will be yanked from underneath them.  Ontario’s green energy sector is entering its next phase and it is yet unknown what this new chapter will look like and how industry participants and communities will operate in the new climate.”

There is lots in this claim by Stevens to take issue with, particular with the claim about the “residents and communities” concerns. How a change in the FIT program would affect our air or water or those reputed “well paying jobs and hope” is an incredible stretch of imagination on his behalf. Those “residents and communities” are concerned that their quickly growing electricity bills will drive them into energy poverty in order to support the visions expounded on by Stevens and his groupies.

It is noteworthy that some of the Conference’s previous sponsors have not reappeared this year however we can still find many taxpayer or ratepayer funded institutions that are front and centre as well as those institutions and companies benefiting from the Green Energy Act. Among the sponsors one finds, the Ontario Power Authority, the City of Toronto, York University, CMHC, the Community Power Fund, TREC (Exhibition wind turbine and recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayer owned Toronto Atmospheric Fund ), the World Wind Energy Association (who awarded former Energy Minister, George Smitherman with the “World Wind Energy” award in 2009) and Toronto Hydro. In the latter case we find this testimonal from Joyce McLean, Director, Strategic Issues on the Conference site: “As one of the early supporters of community power in Canada through our relationship with TREC/WindShare, Toronto Hydro appreciates the enthusiasm and energy needed to grow the community power sector in Ontario. We support OSEA’s efforts in leading the way.” Ms. McLean spent time with Greenpeace, as Chairperson and Director of CanWEA and was the founding Chair of the Community Power Fund (which dispenses grants provided by the OPA and paid for by ratepayers-they recently granted OSEA $125,000).

The “Keynote” sponsor of this conference is listed as the Ontario Power Authority and Colin Andersen, the CEO, is down as a “Keynote speaker” along with the newly appointed Minister of Energy, Chris Bentley. The ratepayer ultimately pays for the privilege of putting Mr. Andersen in this position as the sponsorship is part of the OPA’s budget.

The taxpayer is also paying for the sponsorship of CMHC and YorkUniversity, the latter a hotbed of environmentalists with a Faculty of Environmental Studies that numbers 41 Professors, Assistants and Associate Professors. Graduates of York include Kristopher Stevens and Brent Kopperson both of whom claim involvement in the creation of the Green Energy Act (Act). Kopperson is listed as a presenter/speaker at the conference as is Marion Fraser, yet another who also jointly claims responsibility for the Act’s creation. These speakers and more then half of the others scheduled as presenters/speakers are dependent on the largesse of the ratepayers and taxpayers of this province to ensure they maintain their jobs. Those jobs are designed to raise the price of electricity by pushing wind and solar generation.

The Conference program devotes most of the first day to pontificating on the election results and the potential impact on sustainable energy as well as the upcoming review of the FIT program.

The following excerpt from the program is an indication of the hand wringing going on; “ Election uncertainty has left champions of conservation and renewable energy, community and commercial developers, manufacturers, suppliers and investors wondering what’s next for Ontario?”

Looking at this from the perspective of a ratepayer; the “champions” in this session may now know what the 4.5 million ratepayers in the province have been going through since the Act was passed.

Who was our champion while the Conference attendees were using taxpayer and ratepayer funds to push their agenda forward while IWTs were springing up throughout the province damaging our health, killing wildlife and causing our electricity rates to jump by over 100%?

Perhaps it is now the ratepayers who have some hope, hope that the insanity of the Act will be discovered for what it is.

Parker Gallant,
November 11, 2011

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind

Read Full Post »

In the Ottawa Citizen today, this story from Lee Greenberg about an ad campaign being launched today by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) which supports the Green Energy Act. First, third party advocacy for a political party, i.e., the Liberals, is illegal unless you have registered as a lobbyist. Second, they’re not alone. Environmental Defence trotted through Ottawa yesterday with their egregious “Penelope for Canada” campaign in which they have dragooned an eight-year-old to plea with voters to support renewable energy in Ontario. Both organizations are supported by your tax dollars.

Is this the result of people working to protect the environment? No. There is a LOT of money at stake in the industrial wind power generation business, as long as subsidies last (the Conservatives say if they’re elected, those subsidies are gone). No wonder they’re dodging the law to get TV ads out. By the time the wrist slap comes, the damage will be done.

Here is the article.

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca  Visit http://www.windconcernsontario.org for news throughout the day.

OSEA spending $200,000 on Pro-Liberal Election Ads – contravention of election finances law?

Brad Duguid with Kris Stevens

By Lee Greenberg, Postmedia News
TORONTO — A taxpayer-funded environmental group is starting a television advertising campaign on Friday that supports the province’s green-energy policy without registering as a third party, an apparent violation of the province’s election finances laws.  The only party opposed to the policy is the Progressive Conservative party.

The two ads by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association draw attention to the province’s green-energy policy, which offers rich subsidies to wind and solar producers who agree to strict domestic content provisions, and asks voters to support it in the election.

Both the Liberals, who are using the policy as an economic cornerstone of their platform, and New Democrats, are in favour of the legislation and would continue it, if elected.

The Tories have promised to scrap the program. They say the subsidies — which pay producers rates up to 23 times higher than the market price — are exorbitant.

“On Election Day, support those who support the Green Energy and Economy Act,” a narrator says in both versions of the ad, which will run until Oct. 4 on television stations in Ottawa, Toronto, Barrie, Peterborough, Niagara, Timmins, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury and North Bay.

The two 30-second spots feature idyllic images of renewable energy installations in rural Ontario.

“Twenty-thousand jobs, high-tech jobs, generated in Ontario since 2009,” the narrator says. “It’s about your choice. Ask your candidate ‘are you supporting our future, our economy?’”

Meanwhile, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty was promoting his government’s clean-energy plan in Sault Ste. Marie Thursday.

“Building Ontario wind turbines with Northern Ontario steel is a great example of how our new clean-energy economy is working — reaching all corners of Ontario to deliver good jobs for families and making us more competitive,” he said after a tour of Essar Steel Algoma — the largest employer in Sault Ste. Marie.

Ontario’s election finances act requires all third-party advertisers to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, to identify who is behind the ads and to file a financial report on all election responses. Political ads are defined as messages that either promote or oppose a registered political party.

Kris Stevens, executive director of OSEA, said his organization has not registered and does not believe it needs to. He does not believe the ads are implicitly anti-Conservative.

“We’re addressing a policy,” he said in an interview. “We’re not for or against any party, we’re for a policy.”

He said after consulting a lawyer, the organization attached a written disclaimer at the bottom of the ads stating: “This advertisement refers to renewable energy public policy and does not endorse any particular party or candidate.”

It is unclear how OSEA will afford such a lavish ad blitz.

The not-for-profit organization’s financial statements show it lost $130,000 in 2010 and was forced to borrow nearly $48,500 on a secured line of credit.

It is spending $200,000 on the current campaign.

Among the group’s funding sources, OSEA lists three government organizations, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and the Ontario Trillium foundation.

Stevens said “less than a quarter” of the group’s funding comes from government agencies and none of it is being used for the advertisements.

A Conservative spokesman questioned the group’s decision to advertise.

“This is a serious issue,” said party spokesman Jason Lieter. “If government money is being spent on ads that advocate or appear to advocate for any particular party or position, that’s unacceptable. We’re going to be looking pretty hard into the financial records of this organization because it appears a big part of their business is a political re-election campaign for Dalton McGuinty.”

Lieter added that the party will look to McGuinty to explain “why taxpayer dollars are being used to advocate a position which he’s staked his campaign on.”

In a lengthy interview, Stevens initially claimed he was unaware of the Conservative policy on green energy. “I looked at the Changebook (platform) and it doesn’t say a whole lot about what they will do,” he said.

When pointed to the section in the document where the party says it will “end the . . . program,” Stevens said the ads had a broader objective.

“We’re asking them (the Progressive Conservative party), ‘where do you want to go?’” he said. “My goal is to get them to hopefully — well, all of the parties — to endorse and support it.”

Any group found in contravention of the election finances law is subject to prosecution by the attorney general. Convictions carry penalties of up to $50,000 for corporations or trade unions, and up to $5,000 for other individuals or groups.

A spokesman for Elections Ontario said the agency doesn’t comment on specific investigations.

The Progressive Conservative party is already locked in a long-standing dispute with another pro-Liberal advertising group. The Working Families Coalition, which is comprised of various large unions, has backed McGuinty and has spent millions in anti-Conservative advertising over the past two election campaigns, including the often quoted 2003 ad that help topple former Premier Ernie Eves.

The ad finished: “Not this time, Ernie. Not this time.”


John Laforet visits Ottawa on his Winds of Change tour of Ontario September 28, 7 PM at the Client Services Centre, 2155 Roger Stevens Drive, North Gower.  If using the 416 exit at Roger Stevens and go west. Candidates have been invited. Please donate: these information events cost hundreds of dollars, from concerned members of our community.

Read Full Post »

A statement by Wind Concerns Ontario president, John LaForet:

Sussex Strategy – a Liberal connected PR firm – was quite candid in a leaked document calling for moneyed interests to try to change the channel on the current wind energy debate in Ontario. These guys – a professional public relations firm advised their unnamed clients – basically an orgy of government subsidized energy interests – to ‘confuse’ the issue. That means lie to voters. They made it clear the existing work being done by groups opposed to the government’s plan are creating a real problem on the ground and one Dalton McGuinty can’t win. In fact according to Sussex Strategy – McGuinty has done such a bad job on the energy file he could lose as badly as Ernie Eves did in 2003.

It calls for $300,000 to be spent immediately as seed money trying to fight back for the Liberals, by the same moneyed interests that they’ve rewarded since taking power. It calls for lying to Ontarians about wind energy on a number of fronts, dividing communities and and colluding with government, industry and NGOs.

Perhaps the worst part is the $300,000 is just seed money, and in bold they talk about taking anonymous donations to fund their desperate scramble for more of your hard earned money and defence of the government that shovels it out the door by the billion to these guys.

Read for yourself as the wind industry admits the jobs that were promised never showed up, that bills have spiked and that the environment and health aren’t really the point of this whole exercise. Seriously folks. – This is the wind industry talking.

The reality is, the wind industry is dying world wide. Subsidies are drying up, public opinion is shifting and jurisdictions are now in a race to see who is the last to be conned by this corrupt industry.

Wind Concerns Ontario will continue to fight like hell and stand up to the moneyed interests of the desperate pro-wind forces. We’ll continue to stand with Ontarians facing these projects, fight off the foreign corporations destroying rural Ontario and defeat the politicans that let it happen.

Here is a link to the appalling document (Renewable Energy Matters – Campaign Outline) that outlines how this slimy industry’s ‘hail mary’ pass to your wallet is supposed to work.

As I said to Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA in September 2009 – you can spend all the money you want, we will defeat you, and the political backers you’ve bought because we’ve got the bodies on the ground and money can’t change that.

Over the last month we’ve shown that with rally after rally and it’s going to continue until we’ve reclaimed our rights, can protect our communities and defeat the bought and paid for politicians that let this happen.


Read Full Post »

Just days after we have the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association’s Kristopher Stevens ranting against Parker Gallant in The Financial Post, claiming green energy is responsible for jobs and wealth in Ontario, we have the truth: a global picture of wind power development as a “House of Cards.” Here is the article by Steve Goreham. Executive Editor of this publication is Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry, also one of the speakers scheduled for the conference in Picton, October 29-31.

Wind energy’s house of cards

Steve Goreham

The Energy Tribune

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently issued their 2009 Wind Energy Report. Brian Smith, chair of the IEA Wind Executive Committee, states that wind member countries “installed more than 20 gigawatts of new wind capacity” (nameplate capacity). The report was written by representatives of 20 member countries, consisting of 14 European nations, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and the United States.

The report is very optimistic about wind energy’s prospects. Member nations report on “how they have progressed in the deployment of wind energy, how they are benefitting from wind energy deployment, and how they are devising strategies and conducting research to increase wind’s contribution to world energy supply.” But a deeper analysis shows that the wind industry is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

The house of cards is a global industry based entirely on subsidies, price guarantees, and mandates. Wind generation systems are not deployed anywhere in the world without extensive government financial or mandated support. Fourteen of the 20 IEA member nations use feed-in tariffs (FITs) to force utility companies to buy electricity from wind farms at above market rates. Examples are FITs used by Finland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, which are set in the range of 7.8-12.1 Eurocents per kilowatt-hour, equal to 11.2-17.4 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. These are subsidized wholesale prices, yet significantly above the average U.S. retail price of 9.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nine of the twenty nations mandate that utilities supply a percentage of electricity from renewables. Nations that have provided little government support for wind, such as Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Norway, have seen little growth in installations.

In the U.S., the 2009 Recovery Act authorizes a direct cash grant of 30% of the total value to wind projects. Alternatively, the federal government provides a 30% investment tax credit, or a 2.1 cents per kW-hr production subsidy. State governments add loan guarantees, further investment tax credits, and the forbearance of property and sales taxes. Twenty-nine states have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards to force utilities to purchase renewable energy, primarily wind. These mandates raise the price of wind energy, a further subsidy to the industry. In total, taxpayers are subsidizing 30-50% of the price U.S. wind energy installations. Wind must be subsidized because it is much more expensive than electricity from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear sources. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind-generated electricity is about 80% more expensive than coal-fired power, and off-shore wind is significantly more expensive. The IEA representatives from Denmark and the United Kingdom estimate costs for offshore wind at roughly double the cost of onshore wind. The planned Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound reportedly will deliver electricity at a whopping 27 cents per kW-hour, compared to the Massachusetts average price of 16 cents per kW-hour and the U.S. average of 9.7 cents.

US Electricity Generating Costs

Advocates claim that subsidies are needed to help wind energy move down the learning curve to become cost competitive with other technologies. But wind turbines have been deployed for more than 20 years. As of 2009, the United States had installed about 33,000 wind turbine towers. World installations have exceeded 140,000 turbines. When will this cost competitiveness be achieved?

Despite the growing number of installations, total wind energy costs are increasing. Wind installation costs per kilowatt-hour decreased from the early 1990s until 2001, but have been rising since. For example, U.S. installations reached a cost low of $1,285 per kw-hr in 2001, but have since risen steadily to $2,080 per kw-hr in 2009, an increase of 62%. It’s unlikely that electricity from wind will ever be competitive with conventional fuel sources.

A close read of the IEA Wind Report reveals issues with actual wind turbine operating lifetimes and maintenance. Wind turbines that were installed in the 1990s are now being replaced in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and other nations. In the harsh weather environments of high-wind corridors, many of these turbines have not reached the 20-year lifetimes claimed by manufacturers. In comparison, operating lifetimes for coal-fired power plants consistently reach 50 years.

Very costly repairs are often required to maintain wind turbine operation. Japan reports that lightning hits and typhoons have damaged “a considerable number of wind turbines,” finding that on average, each turbine will fail three times over its 20-year life. Denmark reports that each turbine’s gearbox must be replaced on average four times during its lifetime, costing about 20% of the price of a wind turbine.

The story of Denmark is illustrative. Over the last 20 years, Denmark has installed 5,100 wind towers, one for every thousand citizens. A map with a black dot for each wind farm shows that 300-foot-high steel and concrete towers can be seen from almost every field, farm, hill, and seashore of this nation. In 2009, these towers provided only 767 megawatts of electricity, less than the output of a single conventional coal-fired power plant. This single power plant would occupy the space of one black dot on the map.

wind farms in denmark

Wind towers provide only about 10% of Denmark’s electricity, but contribute to electricity rates of 28 Eurocents per kilowatt-hour, the highest in Europe and four times the U.S. price. Yet, Danish government officials are proud of their wind system. Why would they install 5,000 towers instead of one coal plant? It’s because they believe they are reducing global warming.

In fact, the global wind industry is built on a foundation of sand—the hypothesis that man-made global warming is destroying Earth’s climate. The IEA report contains repeated statements about carbon emissions saved by wind installations in each nation. Yet, mounting satellite temperature data, new studies of ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and research on solar activity, show that global warming is due to natural cycles of the Earth,not man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Should global warming alarmism fail in its efforts to promote wind energy, the subsidies will disappear, and the house of cards will collapse. Then the world will be left with 140,000 silent monuments to Climatism.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director for the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.The link is here:


To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, please email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »