Liberal corruption and incompetence.

Renewable Energy Targets…the Smart Thing to do, is Get Rid of Them! It’s a scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Mandatory RET: An Expensive (and Unsustainable) Economic Burden

August 25, 2014 by  

Donkey HeavyLoad

The RET is an expensive burden on the economy
Australian Financial Review
Alan Moran
19 August 2014

People and firms should be free to choose how they trade off their sources of energy and price preferences.

With the carbon tax repealed, the focus has shifted to the renewable requirements. A key component of these, the renewable energy target (RET), is under review by a panel headed by former Caltex chief Dick Warburton. The RET forces electricity retailers to buy certificates to ensure they incorporate at least 20 per cent of renewable energy within their total supply. Few other countries have renewable schemes as ambitious as Australia’s.

Compared with $40 per megawatt hour, the price of unsubsidised electricity, the cheapest source of additional renewable energy is from wind and is about $110 per megawatt hour. The renewable energy certificates are intended to fill the gap but they have been trading at low prices of around $35 due to the subsidy from the carbon tax, very attractive subsidies to roof-top installations and the fact that the build-up of renewable requirements is gradual. The subsidy price, in after-tax terms, is capped at $93 per certificate (or per megawatt hour).

Two external analyses have been undertaken as part of the RET review process. While both of them adopted conservative assumptions about the required renewable subsidy, they each arrived at very high aggregate costs to the economy as a result of the existing scheme.

The review itself commissioned ACIL Allen to estimate the future costs of the present scheme in 2014 prices. ACIL Allen put this cost at $37 billion or $6 billion if the scheme were to be closed to new entrants but existing installations continued to receive the subsidy.

The ACIL Allen estimate is based on the renewable subsidy at $70 per megawatt hour. This is equivalent to providing renewables a carbon tax subsidy of about $60 per tonne of carbon dioxide compared with the now defunct broader carbon tax at about $25 per tonne.

The other study undertaken by Deloitte was funded in part by the government’s Consumer Advocacy Panel and estimated the overall cost to the economy from maintaining the scheme is $29 billion. If it were to be immediately closed to new entrants that cost would remain in excess of $16 billion. These two cost estimates of the RET ($29 billion to $37 billion) approach the combined value of the Australian electricity transmission network.

Gains to coal-fired generators

An analysis for the Climate Institute estimates the abolition of the RET would bring gains to coal-fired generators of $25 billion by 2030. Although coal would regain market share from not facing subsidised renewables, electricity supply is highly competitive and increased revenues to coal-fired generators would not involve any form of super-profit.

In terms of the direct impact on electricity consumers, the burden of renewable requirements this year is estimated by the energy regulator to add 12 per cent to the average household’s electricity costs. That’s about $260 per year.

On current policies, these costs will rise considerably over the next six years. The annual renewable energy certificates requirements will increase from 17,000 this year to 41,000 by 2020. In addition, the price of these certificates will need to rise sharply to allow incentives for the construction of new windfarms.

As a result, the cost of renewable programs for typical households could rise as much as fourfold.

In research IPA commissioned last week from Galaxy, people were asked whether they favoured retaining the present level of support, increasing support in line with current policy or scrapping all assistance to renewable energy. Only 14 per cent favoured increasing support along the lines of current policy. Twenty-three per cent favoured scrapping the scheme entirely.

While 62 per cent said they would be content to see the subsidy costs kept at present levels, people are rarely as profligate as they say they would be when it comes to their actual spending decisions. This is readily seen in the small take-up of consumers’ voluntary top-up sales of green energy at premium prices, which amount to only 0.7 per cent of the annual sales of electricity.

Moreover, the direct costs of renewable energy through electricity prices is only half of the costs that consumers bear – the rest come about through consequent higher costs of goods and services. And for businesses, the renewable requirements are much greater, as a share of total energy costs, than they are for consumers.

The renewable energy subsidies fail all tests. Consumers resent paying for them and they represent a dead weight on industry competitiveness and economic growth.

Restoring consumer sovereignty and allowing people and firms to make their own choices about trading off their sources of energy and price preferences is the appropriate course.

Alan Moran is director of the Institute of Public Affairs’ deregulation unit.
Australian Financial Review

Alan Moran is alive to the scale and scope of the wind power fraud (see our posts here and here and here). But we think his calculator must have flat batteries in order to explain his observation in the piece above that:

“The annual renewable energy certificates requirements will increase from 17,000 this year to 41,000 by 2020.”

In fact, the “renewable energy certificate requirement” referred to by Alan will increase from 16.1 million RECs this year to 41 million RECs each and every year from 2020 to 2031.

The target figures in the legislation are set in GWh (1 GW = 1,000 MW): 16,100 GWh for 2014 (which converts to 16,100,000 MWh); rising to 41,000 GWh in 2020 through to 2031 (which converts to 41,000,000 MWh) (here’s the relevant section).

The “renewable energy certificate requirement” is that retailers purchase renewable energy (with which they receive RECs) and surrender RECs sufficient to satisfy the mandated target: 1 REC has to be surrendered for each MWh set by the target. If they fail to surrender enough RECs, they will be hit with the mandated shortfall charge of $65 per MWh for every MWh below the mandated target (see our post here).

Wind power generators are issued 1 REC for every MWh of power dispatched to the grid – and this deal continues until 2031: the operator of a turbine erected in 2005 will receive RECs (1 per MWh dispatched) each and every year for 26 years.  Retailers aiming to satisfy the target purchase RECs through a Power Purchase Agreement with a wind power generator. The rates set by PPAs see wind power generators receive guaranteed prices of $90-120 per MWh (versus $30-40 for conventional power). PPAs run from 15 and up to 25 years.

As part of the PPA deal, whenever a MWh of wind power is dispatched to the grid, the generator claims a supply under the PPA; and recovers the guaranteed price from the retailer. For the same supply, the wind power generator is issued RECs (1 REC per MWh) by the Clean Energy Regulator. In accordance with the PPA, the wind power generator transfers the REC to the retailer which can cash it in, thereby reducing the net cost of the power supplied under the PPA (RECs are currently trading around $30).

For example, if the price set under the PPA is $110 per MWh, the retailer sells the REC that comes with it – pocketing $30 – and reducing the net cost to $80 per MWh (which is still double the rate for conventional power). In this example, the retailer pays, and the wind power generator gets, $110 per MWh (or, in reality, whatever the PPA price is) irrespective of the REC price. In that respect, the value of the REC operates as a direct subsidy, designed to support the inflated (fixed) price received by wind power generators under their PPAs.

In practice, the full cost of wind power supplied to retailers (as set by PPAs) is recovered from retail customers (with a retail margin of 7-10% on top of that). As such, the REC is a Federal Tax on all Australian power consumers (see our post here). On the other side of the equation, the RECs issued to wind power generators operate as a direct subsidy for wind power; the value of which allows wind power generators to charge retailers prices under PPAs 3-4 times the cost of conventional power.

While the RECs transferred to retailers act as a “sweeteners”, the failure to purchase RECs leaves retailers liable for the $65 per MWh shortfall charge – and it was the threat of being whacked with a whopping fine (bear in mind the conventional power retailers purchase costs less than $40 per MWh) that provided “encouragement” to retailers to sign up to PPAs. Although, a number of the big retailers – like Origin and EnergyAustralia – have said they would rather pay the shortfall charge than purchase unreliable wind power and pass the full cost of the fine on to their customers.

Between now and 2031, the cost of the REC Tax/Subsidy will range between $40 billion to $60 billion; depending on the price for RECs.

The total renewable energy target between 2014 and 2031 is 603,100 GWh, which converts to 603.1 million MWh. In order for the target to be met, 603.1 million RECs have be purchased and surrendered over the next 17 years.

Even at the current REC price of $30, the amount to be added to power consumers’ bills will hit $18 billion. However, beyond 2017 (when the target ratchets up from 27.2 million MWh to 41 million MWh and the $65 per MWh shortfall charge starts to bite) the REC price will almost certainly reach $65 and, due to the tax benefit attached to RECs, is likely to exceed $90.

Between 2014 and 2031, with a REC price of $65, the cost of the REC Tax to power consumers (and the value of the subsidy to wind power outfits) will approach $40 billion – with RECs at $90, the cost of the REC Tax/Subsidy balloons to over $54 billion (see our post here).

As Liberal member for Hume, Angus Taylor – in his attacks on the cost of the subsidies directed to wind power outfits under the mandatory RET – puts it: “this is corporate welfare on steroids” (see our posts here andhere). STT thinks Angus is the master of understatement. In Australia’s history, there has never been an industry subsidy scheme that gets anywhere near the cost of the mandatory RET.

In the same edition, the AFR’s Editor chimed in with this eminently sensible piece of analysis.

Renewable target is not sustainable
Australian Financial Review
19 August 2014

The Abbott government’s moves to wind back or even scrap the Renewable Energy Target, as reported exclusively in this newspaper, would reduce a major distortion of the electricity market that has produced only a limited and expensive reduction in carbon emissions. How the RET affects the electricity market and prices is subject to much argument, including contradictory findings by computer modelling groups. But it clearly has forced considerable additional electricity supply – intermittently generated by windmills – into the market at a time of static electricity demand.

That extra capacity is pushing down wholesale prices at the expense of the margins of conventional electricity producers, as some modelling efforts have suggested. But force-feeding high-cost supply into a market of stagnating demand is likely to have some unintended consequences. One has been to short-circuit the hoped-for shift to less emissions-intensive gas plants. They have been squeezed out by the mandated high-cost windpower at one end and the sunk cost of the dirtier coal-fired power stations at the other. So the RET has restricted the expansion of an important transition fuel.

The RET scheme was conceived by the Howard government with a small initial target of 5 per cent of electricity consumption. But it took on a new life in 2010 when the Rudd government lifted the target to 20 per cent of estimated electricity consumption by 2020. That renewables target of 45 terawatt hours by 2020 assumed that the demand for electricity would continue to grow. Instead, demand has stalled due to soaring power prices and the decline of power-hungry manufacturing plants. So the absolute mandated target may amount to as much as 30 per cent of electricity consumption by 2020. That leaves the nation’s power grid heavily reliant on whether the wind blows.

Informed by a review by business leader Dick Warburton, the Abbott government is set to decide whether to wind the renewables mandate back to a “real 20 per cent” or even to end the scheme. In a world of a general carbon price, of course, a renewables target would become redundant. But, without a carbon price, Australia has been left in the worst of worlds. We have abandoned the lowest-cost mechanism for reducing emissions, adopted a budget-sapping “Direct Action” scheme that is surely no long-term answer and, so far, retained a high-cost renewables target. The government does need to be careful about the sovereign risk of changing its investment incentives. But mandating 30 per cent of our energy to come from high-cost renewables is not a sustainable energy policy.
Australian Financial Review

The mandatory RET is the most expensive and utterly ineffective policy ever devised.

As the AFR points out, the RET is simply not sustainable. Any policy that is unsustainable will either fail under its own steam; or its creators will eventually be forced to scrap it. European governments are responding to their unsustainable renewables policies by winding back subsidies and tearing up wind power contracts (see our posts here and here). And Australia won’t be far behind them.

STT hears that Tony Abbott is acutely aware that the mandatory RET is an entirely flawed piece of public policy; and is nothing more than an out of control industry subsidy scheme.

As such, it represents a ticking political time-bomb for a government that doesn’t need anymore grief from an angry proletariat. And boy, the proletariat are going to be angry when they find out that under the mandatory RET they’re being lined up to pay $50 billion in REC Tax – to be transferred as a direct subsidy to wind power outfits and added to their power bills – over the next 17 years.

For Tony Abbott to have any hope of a second term in government, the mandatory RET must go now.

abbottcover

Why are there no Industrial Wind Complexes in Toronto? Ontario Place Grounds, would be perfect!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

TIME TO TURN THE TABLES ON WIND PROPONENTS WHO ACCUSE OPPONENTS OF ‘NIMBYISM’.

It’s astounding to read these days how pleased with themselves liberals are that the Wynne Ont gov’t is remaining steadfast in their refusal to amend the Green Energy Act in any meaningful way. It’s as easy as water off a ducks back for these progressives to delight in calling opponents to Industrial Wind Turbines as NIMBY’s and having democracy essentially waived to accomplish the policy goals backed by the GEA.

I only have this to say;

I want all these cheering Liberals to consider this;

Take your worst nightmare of a conservative leader. An amalgam of the very worst of Harper. Harris, throw in a little Ralph Klein and some Tea Party Timmy Hudak. I can sense your blood pressure rising as I write this. Oh the horror.
In the Legislature, a new bill is to be introduced called the “Nuclear Waste Recovery Act”

It will allow land owners to store nuclear waste on their properties until at such time facilities are available to neutralize the radioactive waste. Of course a setback of 550 metres would be required to non- participating “receptors” Land owners would negotiate 20 year contracts with the private companies running the nuclear facilities such as Bruce , Darlington and Pickering. Big time subsidies from the government ensure that developers and landowners alike are lining up out the door to cash in. Industrial Park areas sprinkled about the GTA sound like swell places to make this work.

Facilities that would eventually deal with the waste will be developed and the process of nuetralizing all that radioactive material would come online. The program would be a model to the world and create 50,000 jobs, ( Actually, this program could actually have a better shot at creating said number of jobs.) lowering the unemployment rate in the GTA which at present is above the national average.

So, developers with empty space in industrial parks in say, Scarborough, Pickering, North York or Mississauga, could apply for this and as long as they’re 550metres from residential areas, hey, it’s game on.

In addition, a special urban home owner program will be enacted. This unique initiative would allow home owners in large urban areas to sign contracts allowing a special individual-sized container of nuclear waste to be buried in their backyards. For doing this, each home owner will be paid $5,000 a year for 25 years. There will be no setback distances, because the government has done it’s homework and found numerous experts in the nuclear field who have testified that these containers are 100% safe. No neighbourhood input or objections would be allowed, since “nimbyism” will not be tolerated.

I sense it could face some opposition. Municipal governments would complain as their constituents would be going apoplectic over a nuclear waste facility in their neighborhood. Proponents, funded by Big Nuclear, would just refer to them as NIMBY’s. It would slowly dawn upon these residents that the NWR act strips away all municipalities rights to oppose this very much needed service.

Residents would come armed with health studies, but those dastardly conservatives in power have studies of their own citing that their own Medical Officer Of Health has signed off on the policy and states that there is “No significant hazard to health.” Tribunals set up to hear citizens grievances, would be stacked by the conservatives with sympathetic board members making any challenge an exercise in futility.

So now, with some facilities now open, reports of radiation leaks are ubiqutous. MoE will come to investigate and essentially find nothing since they’re not even equipped to measure anything. Wildlife , such as it is would be struggling to adapt to these conditions. Local human health could also suffer an immeasurable toll. Meanwhile, the developers and landowners are far,far away counting and folding all that taxpayer booty.

My point to all you liberal cheerleaders is that you’re all for this when it suits you. When it’s on the other foot, you’d be unspooling.  My contention is that no government, be it Liberal ,Conservative or otherwise should EVER be able to wield this kind of power over it’s citizens, urban or rural.

Paul Kuster

nuclearwaste-2

Liberal Government Won’t Put a Wind Project Near Their Home in Toronto!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario Place Grounds Would be Perfect For A Wind Project!

Bow Lake makes wind farm fight tough: MILLS 

By Tom Mills, Sault Star

Saturday, August 23, 2014 

With a government that continues to stack the procedural and legal deck against those who oppose the intrusion of wind farms on their neighbourhoods, you might expect to see turbines almost everywhere.

But it would take a sharp eye to spot one anywhere near the GTA. Wind-energy-watching is much easier in Algoma, Bruce and Chatham-Kent, which house about a third of Ontario’s turbines.

In a past column I mentioned the Toronto waterfront, where offshore wind turbines were seriously proposed. Then a Liberal government moratorium in 2011 put an end to the foolish notion of locating green energy generation where it might be consumed.

I’ve also suggested turbines be put in shopping malls, industrial parks and other places of large-scale ugliness within the bounds of the Greater Toronto Area.

One reader came up with the very feasible idea of lining Highway 400 with turbines from Barrie to Canada’s Wonderland.

Last week I found a couple of new prime locations: the Niagara Escarpment and the quaint main street of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Both seem to have wind in abundance.

Now NOTL, whose strict bylaws preserving the character of the historic village were strong enough to give a McDonalds sign fallen arches, would break out the 1812 muskets at the idea of blades whooshing o’er the fudge shoppes and inns.

And wine country doubtless would sour at the idea of blinking red lights festooning the limestone ridge like a strand of tacky Christmas lights.

But could they do much about it? I doubt it.

Preposterous, you say?

Well, a ruling last month by an environment ministry review panel on a wind farm north of Sault Ste. Marie makes it more daunting for anyone anywhere in Ontario to oppose a wind farm.

That panel shot down attempts by seasonal resident James Fata and others to block installation of turbines on a scenic hill area near the Lake Superior coast, the Bow Lake wind farm near Montreal River.

In the process, it pared down the grounds anyone could use to oppose a wind farm.

Both the approval and appeal processes set up by Ontario’s MOE already were heavily weighted against wind farm opponents.

As the tribunal’s decision notes, “An appellant is required to prove . . . that a project will cause the harm,” not just raise “the potential for harm.” No onus on the developer.

That seems akin to the government allowing pharmaceutical companies to dump drugs on the market and then requiring consumers to conduct scientific studies proving them to be unsafe.

And a tribunal is severely limited as to what reasons it can allow an opponent to use to object to a wind farm. None of that “scenic beauty” stuff for our ministry, even though this particular tribunal granted that the Superior landscape is “iconic.”

But the tribunal narrowed things even more by chopping references to property devaluation, economic impact on the tourism industry and a “prejudiced and unilateral consultation process” from the appeal.

That left Fata et al trying to prove turbines cause indisputably serious harm to human health, something many others have tried and failed, or latching on to an animal species that would be seriously and irreversibly harmed, in this case some little brown bats.

Evidence at the hearing suggested while turbines would doom a whole bunch of little brown bats, there are plenty more little brown bats where those came from.

And the tribunal rejected arguments by people such as adventurer Joanie McGuffin that the visual and social impacts of wind turbines on a natural landscape so striking as to have been featured by the historic Group of Seven artists could result in human health consequences.

So I’d say that leaves folks in Niagara with not too many weapons in their arsenal if some incentive-hungry developer proposed a wind farm.

Scenic beauty? Forget it. Historical significance? Nope. Tourist industry? Not likely.

About all that could stop a wind farm on NOTL’s Queen Street or along the escarpment is the fact that those places lie in the Greater Toronto Area’s back yard, much beloved of Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government.

Yep. That should do it.

Email tom.mills@sunmedia.ca to contact Tom Mills. Comment at saultstar.com.

 

Even the Climate Alarmists are Admitting it was a Hoax!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

BBC Alarmists admit the Global Warming Slowdown.
The BBC had its start as an eco-propaganda unit for the Global Warming Alarmist’s campaign after 30 key BBC staff’ and ‘30 invited guests’ attended a seminar. The Daily Mail reported that the BBC tried to hide this for 6 years:

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.
At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives. (link)
Seems like someone has taken the Kool-Aid (or is it FOOL-Aid?) from the BBC’s watercoolers because this week they not only acknowledged the warming hiatus, but have raised the possibility that the
Global warming slowdown ‘could last another decade’
The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.
Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The BBC reported a peer reviewed paper published in Science in August (link) which tried to explain the warming hiatus (or as they expressed it, “global-warming slowdown”)

Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans.
How the heat missed the surface and went into the deep ocean has not been explained.

The ‘deep ocean’ theory has been ridiculed by IPCC expert reviewer Lord Christopher Monckton:

The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. Someday it will pop out and say BOO!
They are saying that it somehow managed to go from the atmosphere into the ocean. Not into the bit of the ocean that touches the atmosphere, no, it missed that out and it’s gone down and hidden in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it. And one day it’s going to come out and say boo!

The Real Truth Behind the Global Warming/Climate Change Agenda!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

It’s about the money, not the climate

  • Who wants to be a millionaire

August 22, 2014 by , 

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), the Irish poet and dramatist, wrote “Pray don’t talk to me about the weather. Whenever people talk to me about the weather, I always feel quite certain that they mean something else.”

These days, when some world leader or politician speaks of the climate—the weather is what is happening right now wherever you are—they are not talking about sunshine or rain. They are talking about a devilishly obscene way of raising money by claiming that it is humans that are threatening the climate with everything they do, from turning on the lights to driving anywhere.

That’s why “global warming” was invented in the late 1980s as an immense threat to the Earth and to mankind. Never mind that Earth has routinely passed through warmer and cooler cycles for billions of years; much of which occurred before mankind emerged. And never mind that the Earth has been a distinct cooling cycle for the past seventeen years and likely to stay in it for a while. If the history of ice ages is any guide, we could literally be on the cusp of a new one.

If, however, a government can tax the use of energy, it stands to make a lot of money. That is why carbon taxes have been introduced in some nations and why the nearly useless “clean energy” options of wind and solar have been introduced even though they both require the backup of traditional coal, natural gas and nuclear energy plants because they cannot produce electricity if the wind isn’t blowing and the sun is obscured by clouds.

Taxing energy use means taxing “greenhouse gas” emissions; primarily carbon dioxide (C02) so that every ton of it added to the atmosphere by a power plant and any other commercial activity becomes a source of income for the nation. The Australians went through this and rapidly discovered it drove up their cost of electricity and negatively affected their economy so much that they rid themselves of a prime minister and the tax within the past year.

Fortunately, every effort to introduce a carbon tax has been defeated by the U.S. Congress, but that it has shelled out billions for

Rep. Henry Waxman

“climate research” over the years. That doesn’t mean, however, that 41 demented Democrats in the House of Representatives haven’t gotten together in a “Safe Climate Caucus” led by Rep. Henry A. Waxman. The Washington Post reported that when it was launched in February 2013, the members promised to talk every day on the House floor about “the urgent need to address climate change.”

Check out the caucus and, if your Representative is a member, vote to replace him or her with someone less idiotic.

When you hear the President or a member of Congress talk about the climate, they are really talking about the scheme to generate revenue from it through taxation or to raise money from those who will personally benefit from any scheme related to the climate such as “clean energy.”

The need of governments to frighten their citizens about the climate in order to raise money is international in scope. A United States that has a $17 trillion debt is a prime example, much of it due to a government grown so large it wastes taxpayer’s money in the millions with every passing day whether it is sunny or rainy, warm or cold.

In late July, Reuters reported that Christine Lagarde, the chair of theInternational Monetary Fund, (IMF) opined in her new book that “energy taxes in much of the world are far below what they should be to reflect the harmful environmental and health impact of fossil fuels use.”

Please pay no attention to the billions of dollars that coal, oil and natural gas already generate for the nations in which they are found. Nations such as India and China are building coal-fired plants as fast as possible to provide the electricity every modern nation needs to expand its economy, provide more employment, and improve their citizen’s lives in every way imaginable.

“For the first time,” Reuters reported, “the IMF laid out exactly what it views as appropriate taxes on coal, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel in 156 countries to factor in the fuel’s overall costs, which include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion and traffic accidents.” The problem with this is that the costs cited are bogus.

Christine Lagarde

“Nations,” said Lagarde, “are now working on a United Nations deal for late 2015 to rein in greenhouse gas emissions that have hit repeated highs this century, but progress has been slow as nations fret about the impact any measures may have on economic growth.” As in bad impacts!

Ignore the claims that carbon dioxide affects the climate. Its role is so small it can barely be measured because CO2 represents 380 parts per million. When our primate ancestors began to climb down out of the trees, CO2 levels were about 1,000 parts per million. More CO2 means more crops, healthy growing forests, and all the other benefits that every form of vegetation provides. The breath we humans exhale contains about 4% of CO2.

The fact is that the United States and other nations are being run by politicians who are incapable of reducing spending or borrowing more in order to spend more. Venezuela just defaulted again on the payment of bonds it issued to raise money. They did this in 2001 and one must wonder why any financial institution purchases them.

There are eleven other nations whose credit ratings are flirting with big trouble. They include Greece, Ukraine, Pakistan, Cypress, and in the Americas Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Belize. Borrowing by such nations is very expensive. A U.S. Treasury Note pays an annual coupon of just 2.5%, but the yields on 10-year bonds issue by Greece reached 29% in early 2012, just before it defaulted.

Adding to problems in the U.S. is the Obama agenda being acted upon by the Environmental Protection Agency whose “war on coal” has shuttered several hundred plants that produce the electricity needed to maintain the economy. In coal producing states this is playing havoc and it is driving up the cost of electricity in others.

The growth of oil and natural gas production in the U.S. is almost entirely on privately owned land as opposed to that controlled by the government. Supporting the attack on energy are the multi-million dollar environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club.

The world has not warmed since the nineties and many factors influence the climate other than CO2, the Sun, the oceans, clouds, and volcanic activity. Nothing any government does, here and worldwide, has any meaningful impact on it, but if nations can demonize the use of energy and tax the CO2 it produces, they can generate more money to spend and waste.

The lies that governments, the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund tell about the climate are about the money they can extract from citizens who must be kept frightened enough to pay taxes on their use of energy.

 

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/22/its-about-the-money-not-the-climate/#sthash.2UXTRUgG.dpuf

Why Would Any Decent Government Allow This to Happen? Our Children Deserve Protection!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Posted on 23/08/2014by

Fantasy

fantasy

Reality

Sophia, 7, wrote during school.

“You may think wind turbines are good but when you have 50 by your home…you can’t sleep in your own room and you try to sleep but you can’t because of the wind turbines (noise). I had to move into a mobile home because my mom, dad and brother plus me couldn’t sleep.”

Here is a list of Companies Making Huge Profits, From the Physical, and Financial Fallout, Caused by Wind Turbines

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment
 
 
 
 
CanWEA Members 2014*
 
 
3M Canada Company
 
ABB Inc.
 
Acciona Wind Energy Canada
 
Activa Environnement Inc
 
Aeolis Wind Power Corp.
 
Aercoustics Engineering Ltd.
 
Aird & Berlis LLP
 
Airway Services Canada
 
Alberta Wind Energy Corporation
 
Algonquin Power
 
ALL Canada Crane Rental Corp.
 
Alstom Power
 
AltaGas Ltd.
 
Alterra Power Corp.
 
Altus Group
 
AMEC Black & McDonald
 
American Wire Group
 
AMSOIL INC.
 
Anemos Energy Corporation
 
Ascent Solutions Inc.
 
ATCO Power
 
Atlantic Power
 
Automodular Corporation
 
Avanti Wind Systems Inc.
 
Avertex Utility Solutions Inc.
 
Avro Wind Energy Inc.
 
AWS Truepower LLC
 
Barnhart Canada LLC
 
BASF Canada
 
BBA Inc.
 
Bellemare Groupe
 
Benign Energy Canada Inc.
 
Bennett Jones LLP
 
BGB Technology Inc.
 
Black River Wind Ltd.
 
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
 
Blattner Energy Inc.
 
BluEarth Renewables Inc.
 
Boralex Inc.
 
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
 
Borea Construction
 
BowArk Energy Ltd.
 
Brookfield Renewable Energy Group
 
Brüel & Kjær Vibro
 
Bullfrog Power Inc.
 
Burndy Canada Inc.
 
BZEE Academy GmbH
 
C.H. Robinson Project Logistics Ltd.
 
Callon Dietz
 
Campbell Scientific (Canada) Corp.
 
CanACRE
 
Canadian Clean Energy Conferences
 
Canadian Copper & Brass Development Association
 
Canadian German Chamber of Industry and Commerce
 
Capital City Renewables LLC
 
Capital Power Corp.
 
Capstone Infrastructure
 
Carleton University
 
Carlsun Energy Solutions Inc.
 
Cartier Energie Eolienne Inc.
 
Challenger Motor Freight Inc.
 
Chinodin Wind Power
 
Chinook Power Corp.
 
Clark Wilson LLP
 
Consulate General of Argentina in Toronto
 
CSA International
 
CSS Wind Inc.
 
Curry & Kerlinger LLC
 
Customized Energy Solutions
 
Dale & Lessmann LLP
 
Dentons Canada LLP
 
DESSAU
 
Dialight Corporation
 
Dillon Consulting Ltd.
 
DNV GL
 
DP Energy Ireland Ltd.
 
E.ON Climate & Renewables Ltd.
 
EBC Inc.
 
EchoTrack Inc.
 
EDF EN Canada
 
EDP Renewables Canada Ltd.
 
Elemental Energy Inc.
 
Elevator One
 
Elexco Ltd.
 
EMA Electromechanics
 
Emera Inc.
 
Enbridge Inc.
 
Enel Green Power Canada Inc.
 
ENERCON
 
Enerfin Energy Company of Canada Inc.
 
Enmax Corporation
 
Enterprise Commercial Truck
 
Eolectric Inc.
 
Eon WindElectric Inc.
 
EPTCON / One Line Engineering
 
Ernst & Young
 
ESAC Inc.
 
Essar Steel Algoma
 
Exelon Wind, a Division of Exelon Power
 
F Rohmann
 
Fabrication Delta
 
Firelight Infrastructure Partners
 
Flash Technology
 
Fri-El Green Power
 
Fritz Construction Services Inc.
 
G Seven Generations Ltd.
 
G&W Electric Co.
 
Gamesa Technology Corporation
 
GasTOPS Ltd.
 
Gaz Metro
 
GDF SUEZ Canada Inc.
 
GE Power & Water
 
Gilead Power
 
Golder Associates Ltd.
 
Goldwind USA Inc.
 
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
 
Graham Infrastructure Ltd.
 
Grand Valley Wind Farms Inc.
 
GRANT THORNTON LLP
 
Graybar Energy Ltd.
 
Greengate Power Corporation
 
Greenwind Global Inc
 
Groupe Delom Inc.
 
Groupe Robert
 
H.B. White Canada Corp.
 
Hatch Energy
 
Heenan Blaikie LLP
 
Hemmera
 
Hempel (Canada) Inc.
 
Henkels & McCoy Canada Inc.
 
HGC Engineering
 
Holland College
 
Honeywell Safety Products
 
Horizon Legacy Energy Corp.
 
Hydro One Networks
 
Hydro Quebec Distribution
 
Hytorc Ontario
 
IBI Group
 
Innergex Renewable Energy Inc.
 
Inspec-Sol Inc.
 
International Tower Lighting LLC
 
Invenergy Canada LLC
 
IPS Trico
 
Jones Group Engineering Ltd.
 
Joss Wind Power Inc.
 
Juwi Wind Canada Ltd.
 
K-Line Maintenance & Construction Ltd.
 
Knight Piesold
 
KPMG
 
Kruger Energy Inc.
 
Lafarge Canada Inc.
 
Lahave Renewables Inc.
 
Landstar Transportation Logistics
 
Lapp Canada
 
Le Groupe Ohmega Inc.
 
Leader Resources Services Corp.
 
LEITWIND
 
Lethbridge College
 
Lincoln Electric Company of Canada
 
Local Content Assurance Bureau
 
Longyuan Canada Renewables Ltd.
 
Mammoet Canada Western Ltd.
 
Manitoba Hydro
 
Manulife Financial
 
Maritime Electric Company Ltd.
 
Marmen Inc.
 
Mastec Renewables Construction, LTD
 
McCann Equipment Ltd.
 
McCarthy Tetrault LLP
 
McElhanney Land Surveys Ltd.
 
Michels Canada
 
Miller Thomson LLP
 
Moloney Electric Inc.
 
Morgan AM&T
 
Mortenson Construction
 
Motion Industries (Canada) Inc.
 
Moventas Ltd.
 
Myshak Crane & Rigging Ltd
 
Nalcor Energy
 
Natural Forces Wind Inc.
 
Natural Resource Solutions Inc.
 
NaturEner Canada Inc.
 
NB Power
 
NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services
 
Neoen North America
 
NextEra Energy Canada Development and Acquisitions, Inc.
 
Niagara Region Wind Corporation
 
Northern Lights College
 
Northland Power Inc.
 
Northwind Solutions
 
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
 
Olympus
 
Ontario Sustainable Energy Association
 
ORTECH Consulting Inc.
 
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
 
Pattern Renewable Holdings Canada ULC
 
PCL Constructors Canada Inc.
 
PESCA Environnement
 
Power Climber Wind
 
PowerTel Utilities Contractors Ltd.
 
Prowind Canada Inc.
 
PSB Securite
 
R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd.
 
R360 WIND INC. (A JR Group Company)
 
Rabobank
 
Rankin Construction Inc.
 
Regional Power
 
Renewable Energy Systems Canada Inc.
 
Renewable NRG Systems
 
Rigarus Construction Inc.
 
Rittal Systems Ltd.
 
Rodan Energy Solutions
 
Rombro Solar Energy Inc.
 
Rope Partner Canada, Inc.
 
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co.
 
Run Energy
 
RWDI
 
S&C Electric Canada Ltd.
 
Samsung Renewable Energy Inc.
 
Samuel Son & Co. Ltd.
 
Saskatchewan Research Council
 
SaskPower
 
Saturn Power Inc.
 
Schaeffler Canada Inc.
 
Schneider Electric Canada Inc.
 
Schunk Graphite Technology
 
Scotian WindFields
 
Sea Breeze Power Corp.
 
Second Wind Inc.
 
Select Elevator Solutions Inc.
 
Sentrex Wind Services Inc.
 
Sentry Electrical (Canada) Inc.
 
Senvion Canada Inc.
 
SgurrEnergy Ltd.
 
Shell Canada Ltd.
 
Shermco Industries
 
Sherwood Electromotion Inc.
 
Siemens Canada Limited
 
Signal Energy Constructors
 
Sika Canada Inc.
 
SNC-Lavalin Environnement Inc.
 
Solas Energy Consulting Inc.
 
Spirit Pine Energy Corporation
 
SPX Hydraulic Technologies
 
Stantec
 
Stikeman Elliott LLP
 
Stoel Rives LLP
 
Stonebridge Financial Corporation
 
Suncor Energy Services Inc.
 
Surespan Wind Energy Services
 
Sussex Strategy Group
 
Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation
 
Synergy Cables USA Ltd.
 
Synergy Land Services Ltd.
 
TE CONNECTIVITY
 
TEAM-1 Academy
 
TechnoCentre Eolien
 
Technostrobe
 
Telecon Inc.
 
Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc.
 
Tetra Tech
 
Thomas & Betts Canada
 
Thunder Bay Port Authority
 
TimberWest Forest Corp.
 
Toronto Hydro Corporation
 
Torys LLP
 
TransAlta Corporation
 
TransCanada Energy Ltd.
 
Tribute Resources Inc.
 
TSP Canada Towers Inc.
 
Tulloch Engineering Inc.
 
TWR Lighting Inc.
 
Ultra Torq Hydraulic Bolting
 
Unirope Ltd.
 
Valard Construction
 
Vestas Canada
 
Virelec Ltd
 
WEB Wind Energy North America Inc.
 
Westburne
 
Williams Form Hardware & Rockbolt
 
Wind Dynamics Inc.
 
Wind Energy Institute of Canada
 
Wind Power Inc.
 
Wind Simplicity Inc.
 
Wind Systems Magazine
 
WindAxis
 
Winergy Drive System Corporation
 
Woodward Inc.
 
wpd Canada
 
WSP Canada Inc.
 
Zephyr North Ltd.
 
 

 

If the Ontario Liberal Gov’t was Smart, They Would Cancel These Wind Contracts!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
 

Prospects of negative governmental

action in Ontario’s energy sector

By James J. Shanks

When investments are made in the private sector sophisticated financial models are developed, complete with multiple inputs, all designed to predict a range of best and worst case scenarios. If a significant model input strays beyond its originally anticipated value range for example, if customer demand for a business’s products collapses then the financial model for the business may fail. If so, stakeholders in the business will likely face a restructuring of their investments. 

The chances of a restructuring are far less likely when government is the main customer of the business, not only because governments are presumed to have deep pockets, but also because, in those businesses where government acts as an intermediary between the business and the ultimate consumers of the business’s products, the government’s intermediation tends to insulate the business from model failure and its usual consequences. Nevertheless, if model failure is severe and persistent enough, history in Canada suggests that governments may be tempted to impose a restructuring even on these sorts of businesses. 

In the years leading up to Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program, it was generally accepted that Ontario was approaching a near-term shortage of electricity as surging demand threatened massive brownouts.  Government financial models, no doubt, assumed that the cost of developing renewable energy infrastructure involving long-term power purchases at prices significantly above market could be recouped by steadily increasing electricity rates over time, all without unduly reducing customer demand.1 However, subsequent experience seems to suggest that Ontario’s electricity demand may have been more elastic than anticipated, especially as many urban and rural electricity consumers have reacted to increasing prices by switching some of their electricity needs to lower-priced natural gas and propane. Moreover, as price increases in the Province have outpaced those in neighbouring jurisdictions (leaving Ontario’s electricity prices 30-60% higher than in those jurisdictions), some large commercial users have reacted by moving their operations out of Ontario, further depressing overall demand.2  In fact, far from remaining steady, electricity demand in the Province is now projected to decline until at least 2021.3

Even as electricity demand has declined, Ontario’s generating capacity has increased.  Overall generating capacity in Ontario has increased by 13% since 2003, while demand has decreased by 10% since 2005.4 The end result has been a large and continuing surplus of generating capacity, with Ontario’s generating capacity expected to exceed forecast (normal weather peak) demand this summer by 25-50%.5  Partly as a consequence, electricity spot prices in the Province have plummeted, sometimes falling to $0.025/kWh.6  Higher-priced, surplus Ontario electricity is sometimes resold to neighbouring jurisdictions at a substantial discount7 and the Global Adjustment amount charged to Ontario consumers has now risen to record levels.8

In summation, some of the model inputs in the Province’s original financial models may already have strayed beyond their initially anticipated value ranges, suggesting at least the possibility that model failure has occurred in the sector or that it may be imminent.  If so, then recent entrants into Ontario’s energy sector, otherwise dependent on the continuance of long-term government purchases, are quite right to be concerned about the possibility of a government-imposed restructuring in their sector.

Unlike private sector restructurings which typically involve a court process, government-imposed restructurings generally take the form of confiscatory legislation or some other form of negative governmental action.  It should come as no surprise that governments in Canada have from time to time engaged in various sorts of negative governmental action, invariably with the intent of modifying (or even abrogating altogether) undesirable government obligations.  Such action has even occurred previously in Ontario’s utility sector.9 For example, in the 1930’s, successive Ontario governments enacted several pieces of legislation abrogating various contractual commitments to private sector power producers, all with the intent of assisting the then-fledgling, and government-owned Ontario Hydro to become the dominant power producer and distributor in the Province.  Indeed, overall, scholarly research suggests that negative governmental action usually occurs (if it occurs at all): (a) when technological change in a given industry sector is occurring rapidly, (b) when pricing, demand or other important financial variables cannot be perfectly forecast, and (c) when governments have entered into long-term contracts that cannot easily be altered.10 In other words, the restructuring risk increases on model failure occurring within this context.  

Negative governmental action can take many forms, including specifically, the passage of legislation modifying government payables, authorizing or curing contract breaches, limiting court access, amending or cancelling contract commitments, and even expropriating completed projects. A recent, well publicized, example of negative governmental action in Canada occurred in the early 1990s when the federal government summarily cancelled several long-term contracts with private sector participants for the redevelopment of Toronto’s Pearson Airport.11 Bill C-22, passed by the House of Commons provided that: (a) all contracts relating to the redevelopment were declared not to have come into existence or to have had any legal effect, (b) all obligations, rights and interests arising out of the contracts were declared not to have come into existence, (c) no action or proceeding, including for damages for breach of contract, could be brought against the government, and (d) every action against the federal government was summarily dismissed.  Bill C-22 also authorized the relevant federal Minister, for a period of 30 days, to enter into agreements with aggrieved stakeholders to pay compensation in such amounts as the Minister considered appropriate.  Notably, compensation for lost profits was expressly prohibited under the legislation. 

Using Bill C-22 as an example, it may appear at first blush that governments in Canada hold all the cards when it comes to negative governmental action. However, stakeholders should note that there are various countervailing influences that will moderate the actual exercise of such extraordinary power. For example, government will be mindful of reputational concerns.12 Specifically, international credit rating agencies may react to negative governmental action by downgrading the subject government’s public debt due to increased “country risk”, thereby increasing future borrowing costs for the subject government. Foreign governments may impose “tit-for-tat” sanctions on projects in their jurisdictions that are intended to hurt nationals of the expropriating state. Judgments rendered by sympathetic foreign courts may be executable against the subject government’s assets located in foreign jurisdictions. And finally, equity investors in non-related sectors may avoid investment in the jurisdiction altogether for fear of falling victim to similar governmental action.

Aside from reputational concerns, some jurisdictions offer constitutional safeguards against negative governmental action without due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution are good examples.  Unfortunately, no such constitutional protection currently exists in Canada.13 Specifically, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no express provision for the protection of property, economic, or even contract rights.14 And based on a string of Charter cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is unlikely that any general protection of this nature will be implied any time soon.15 Instead, stakeholders in Canada will have to derive comfort from the fact that Canadian courts will generally construe confiscatory legislation very strictly against the subject government, straining if at all possible to find that the legislation does not exclude the payment of appropriate levels of compensation or review by the judiciary. Nevertheless, if the legislation is sufficiently precise, even a strict constructionist approach will be of little use to an aggrieved stakeholder.

In such circumstances, Canada’s free trade agreements may assist, but only if the stakeholder is a national of a treaty-protected country. As is well known, Canada is a signatory to a number of free-trade and foreign investment protection agreements, some of which prohibit confiscatory action without payment of appropriate compensation.  For example, under Article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), no federal or provincial government is permitted to “nationalize or expropriate an investment of a [US or Mexican] investor…or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation”, unless such action is: (a) for a public purpose, (b) effected on a non-discriminatory basis, (c) effected in accordance with due process, and (d) carried out upon payment of compensation equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment.  

Particularly instructive here is the case of Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico16, a NAFTA case brought by an American company against the state of Mexico in 2000.  In that case, an arbitral tribunal ruled that, as a result of numerous laws and other negative governmental actions passed and undertaken by Mexican state and municipal authorities, Mexico had effectively expropriated Metalclad’s newly-constructed waste facility in Guadalcaza. The tribunal awarded Metalclad US$16,685,000 in damages representing Metalclad’s sunk costs of the investment.17 While damages awarded against Mexico did not include an amount on account of discounted lost profits, such damages are thought to be sustainable under NAFTA in certain circumstances.

Equally instructive is a 2012 NAFTA case brought against Canada by the Abitibi-Bowater group and involving certain confiscatory legislation passed by the Province of Newfoundland. In this case, the provincial legislation provided for: (a) the expropriation of significant Abitibi-Bowater properties used for hydroelectric generation and transmission, (b) the cancellation of various hydroelectric contracts between the Abitibi-Bowater group and the Province, and (c) the termination of certain timber and water rights. While the legislation provided for compensation for the expropriated properties, no compensation was to be forthcoming for the terminated timber and water rights. The Abitibi-Bowater group brought a NAFTA claim asserting that the Newfoundland legislation constituted an expropriation of its assets without appropriate compensation contrary to NAFTA Article 1110. Faced with the prospect of an uphill fight, the Canadian government opted to settle the claim for $140 million.  

Besides NAFTA, and as indicated above, several bilateral trade arrangements exist which contain similar foreign investor protection.18 Importantly, the proposed multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated with several Asia-Pacific countries and the proposed Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (not yet in force) will also contain similar investor protection. Once implemented, these new trade arrangements will significantly expand the list of treaty-protected countries and the range of foreign stakeholders that will be able to benefit from investor protection.  Notably however Canada’s trade agreements cannot be used by Canadian nationals to protect themselves against negative governmental action occurring within Canada in relation to their domestic investments.   

With the recent re-election of Ontario’s Liberal government, stakeholders in Ontario’s energy sector are, no doubt, breathing a little easier, as putative threats to tear up the Province’s FIT contracts are now much more clearly off the table.19 Most assuredly, the restructuring risk has subsided.  Still, the issues here are as much financial as they are political, and history in Canada suggests that negative governmental action can never truly be ruled out.  If financial model failure occurs and is considered severe and persistent enough, then negative governmental action will remain a distinct (even if remote) possibility. 

1 The comprehensiveness of the Government’s original financial models has been questioned by Ontario Auditor General in the Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor-General of Ontario.

2 Remarks of Greg Abel, Chairman, President and CEO of Spectra Energy, to Economic Club of Canada, June 24, 2014.  See also “Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act”, R. R. McKitrick, Report prepared for Fraser Institute, 2013, and also “High Ontario Electricity Prices Hamper Ring of Fire Processing and Other Industry”, L. Di Matteo, February 6, 2011.

3 Ontario’s Electricity Surplus: An Opportunity to Reduce Costs”(the “Ontario Surplus”), a publication of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance Research Inc., July 2012.

4 See Ontario Surplus, supra.  See also “Eighteen Month Outlook: From March 2014 to August 2015” (the “18 Month Outlook”), a publication of the IESO, p. 4.

5 Based on 18 Month Outlook, Tables 3.1, 4.3-4.5.
 
6 See Ontario Surplus, p.3.
 
7 “Ontario’s Power Trip: Power Dumping”, Gallant, P., Financial Post, July 20, 2011, and “Ontario’s Power Trip: Province lost $1.2-billion this year exporting power”, Gallant, P., Financial Post, December 2, 2013.
 
8 “Ontario power fee sets new record: The global adjustment — a fee added to the market price of electricity in Ontario — has reached a record high”, Walton, T., The Toronto Star, September 3, 2013.
 
9 “Regulatory Failure and Renewal: The Evolution of the Natural Monopoly Contract”,  J. Baldwin, Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada 1989.
 
10 See Baldwin, Chaps. 3, 10 and 12, for example.  See also “Public Accountability in the Age of Contracting Out”, E. Atwood and M.J. Trebilcock, (1996) 27 Can. Bus. L.J., v. 27, n. 1, p. 1, at p. 38.
 
11 A more recent instance occurred when in 2008 the Government of Newfoundland expropriated various power generating and transmission assets of the Abitibi-Bowater group (discussed further below in this article) pursuant to the Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act (Newfoundland).
 
12 See for example “A Constant Recontracting Model of Sovereign Debt”,  J. Bulow & K. Rogoff (1989) Journal of Political Economy, 155.
 
13 For a contrary view regarding the government’s right to implement negative governmental action, see “Is the Pearson Airport Legislation Unconstitutional?: The Rule of Law as a Limit on Contract Repudiation by Government”, P. Monahan, (1996) Osgoode H.L.J., v. 33, n. 3, p. 411, where the author argues that where legislation like Bill C-22 purports to deny access to the courts, the legislation breaches the rule of law implicitly enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore is unconstitutional.
 
14 While the Canadian Bill of Rights provides an explicit right to the “enjoyment of property” and the right not to be deprived thereof without due process, the Canadian Bill of Rights only applies to federal laws, may not entitle the aggrieved party to compensation if the confiscatory legislation provides otherwise, and creates rights that do not have the same status as Charter rights. 
 
15 Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3; The Attorney General of Quebecv. Irwin Toy Limited, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Whitbread v. Walley [1991] 2 W.W.R. 195 (SCC);Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. R. (1999), 167 F.T.R. 165 (Fed. T.D.), affirmed (1999), 1999 CarswellNat 1978 (Fed. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 252 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.);Energy Probe et al. v. The Attorney General Of Canada et al., (1994) 17 O.R. (3d) 717 (Ont. C.J.); and Shaw v. Stein, 2004 SKQB 194. 
 
16 See Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (NAFTA), Award. For an unsuccessful appeal of the NAFTA award to British Columbia Supreme Court, seeUnited Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., 2001 BCSC 664.
 
17 Damages were based on the claimant’s actual investment in the property because the facility had not been operational long enough, and thus had not established a sufficient record of profitability, such that damages for lost profits could be proven.  The tribunal suggested that a “fair market value” award of damages for a going concern with a history of profitable operations would usually be based on an estimate of future profits, subject to a discounted cash flow analysis.  See  also Biloune, et al. v. Ghana Investment Centre, et al., 95 I.L.R.183, 207-10 (1993).
 
18 See, for example, Article 9.1 of the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement, Article G-10 of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and Article 8.11 of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement (not yet in force), all of which provide compensation for expropriatory measures taken by the federal or any provincial government.
 
19 See, for example, the Alliance for Renewable Energy’s view of the threat in: “June 12 Provincial Election will determine the Future of Ontario FIT Programs”,  June 3, 2014.
  
 
NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on the Web site in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action, based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this Web site. Gowlings professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.
  
 

 
 

 

 

How Much Proof Do The Wind-Pushers Need, Before They Stop Harming Innocent People?

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Vibroacoustic Disease, or VAD, is a chronic, progressive, cumulative, systemic disease. Exposure to high-intensity/low-frequency sound and infrasound can lead to Vibroacoustic Disease. Studies have shown that environments with high-intensity sound over 110 dB, coupled with low-frequency sounds below 100 Hz, place people at high risk for developing Vibroacoustic Disease. For example, Vibroacoustic Disease has been identified in disk jockeys, due to loud music exposure.
When exposed to high-intensity/low-frequency sound, which includes loud music, the body is subjected to powerful sound vibrations. This noise stressor leads to: homeostatic imbalance, disease, interference with behavior and performance, visual problems, epilepsy, stroke, neurological deficiencies, psychic disturbances, thromboembolism, central nervous system lesions, vascular lesions in most areas of the body, lung local fibrosis, mitral valve abnormalities, pericardial abnormalities, malignancy, gastrointestinal dysfunction, infections of the oropharynx, increased frequency of sister chromatid exchanges, immunological changes, cardiac infarcts, cancer, rage reactions, suicide, and altered coagulation parameters.

Infrasound exposure INCREASES the rate of development of Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD). “The evolution of VAD is classified by three stages based on years of noise exposure – mild (1-3 yr), moderate (4-9 yr) and severe (10-15 yr).”

“VAD is essentially characterized by a proliferation of extra-cellular matrix. This means that blood vessels can become thicker, thus impeding the normal blood flow. Within the cardiac structures, the parietal pericardium and the mitral and aortic valves also become thickened. The most recent VAD studies have been suggesting that infrasound exposure may be crucial to the rate of evolution of VAD. Occupational exposure to infrasound is suspected to cause an increase in the rate of thickening of the pericardium and cardiac valves in commercial airline pilots over that of flight attendants (Alves-Pereira et al, 1999).”
In addition, sources of low-frequency noise that place people at risk for developing Vibroacoustic Disease are rock concerts, dance clubs, “Powerful car audio equipment,” water jet skies, and motorcycles. (Source: VIBROACOUSTIC DISEASE: THE NEED FOR A NEW ATTITUDE TOWARDS NOISE, by Mariana Alves-Pereira and Nuno Castelo Branco).

“Among the most serious on-the-job consequences of untreated VAD are rage-reactions, epilepsy, and suicide. VAD patients do not have the usual suicidal profile: after the event, if unsuccessful, they remember nothing, and are confused about the entire episode (Castelo Branco et al, 1999). Similarly, patients who suffer rage-reactions also appear confused and seem to remember nothing (Castelo Branco et al, 1999). These events can have dire consequences if they occur on the job. Not only can other individuals be injured, but also costly sophisticated equipment could become irreparably damaged.” (Source – VIBROACOUSTIC DISEASE: THE NEED FOR A NEW ATTITUDE TOWARDS NOISE, by Mariana Alves-Pereira and Nuno Castelo Branco)

The stages of Vibroacoustic Disease are as follows:

Stage 1 – MILD (1-4 years) Slight mood swings, indigestion, heartburn, mouth/throat infections, bronchitis
Stage 2 – MODERATE (4-10 years) Chest pain, definite mood swings, back pain, fatigue, skin infections (fungal, viral, and parasitic), inflammation of stomach lining, pain and blood in urine, conjunctivitis, allergies.
Stage 3 – SEVERE (> 10 years) psychiatric disturbances, hemorrhages (nasal, digestive, conjunctive mucosa) varicose veins, hemorrhoids, duodenal ulcers, spastic colitis, decrease in visual acuity, headaches, severe joint pain, intense muscular pain, neurological disturbances. (Source – MONITORING VIBROACOUSTIC DISEASE, by Branco, Pimenta, Ferreira, and Alves -Pereira)

“After four years of exposure, the individual tends to recognize the existence of memory lapses, mood changes become more pronounced, and a variety of simultaneous ailments can appear. In the advanced stages, neurological disorders include epilepsy, balance disorders, and a marked increase in cognitive impairment. The palmo-mental reflex – a primitive reflex that is frequently present in several pathologies associated with cognitive deterioration – is a common feature in VAD patients. Facial dyskinesia triggered by auditory stimulus has also been identified in LFN-exposed workers.” (Note: LFN is low-frequency noise).

Psychiatric disorders, such as suicidal tendencies and rage-reactions, are some of the most tragic consequences of unmonitored LFN exposure. Respiratory disorders appear within the first four years of exposure, and can progress into shortness of breath, and focal pulmonary fibrosis. This is independent of smoking habits.” (Source – MONITORING VIBROACOUSTIC DISEASE, by Branco, Pimenta, Ferreira, and Alves-Pereira)

Studies have been done to see what effect vibrations have on the human body. As high-intensity/low-frequency sounds (extreme amplified bass) rattles a boom car, the occupants in it, secondary listeners, and structures surrounding it, this study is interesting to note. (WBV is Whole Body Vibration).

“Vibration is believed to cause a range of problems. These include:

· Disorders of the joints and muscles and especially the spine (WBV)
· Disorders of the circulation (hand-arm vibration)
· Cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine, and metabolic changes (WBV)
· Problems in the digestive system (WBV)
· Reproductive damage in females (WBV)
· Impairment of vision and/or balance (WBV)
· Interference with activities
· Discomfort

The most frequently reported problem from all sources of WBV is low-back pain arising from early degeneration of the lumbar system and herniated lumbar disc. Muscular fatigue and stiffness have also been reported.” (Source – ATSB – ROAD SAFETY REPORTS: HEAVY VEHICLE SEAT VIBRATION AND DRIVER FATIGUE)

The SUN AND WEEKLY HERALD (Sun-Herald.com) recently interviewed Dr. Robert Fifer, the Director of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, at the Mailman Center for Child Development at the University of Miami. He discussed Vibroacoustic Disease and its relation to infrasound and boom cars. The article states, “But the physical vibration so prized by car audio fanatics, and despised by their victims, is largely produced by sounds pitched too low to hear, called subsonic or infrasonic sounds. Medical research over the past four decades shows that exposure to infrasound can have devastating effects on the human body and mind that go far beyond mere hearing loss.”

The article goes on to discuss the fight-or-flight adrenaline response and how it is also triggered by LPALF (large pressure amplitude – low-frequency noise) or high-intensity/low-frequency sound. In other words, the fight-or-flight adrenaline response can be triggered by sounds you don’t even hear!
At loud enough volumes, infrasound can “shake an object o bits the same way a soprano’s high motes can shatter a wine class.” (Source – INFRASOUND: I’M ALL SHOOK UP! – Sun and Weekly Herald, Sun-Herald.com, 8/24/2003)

Listening to classical music, such as Mozart, can increase your IQ, heal the body, and increases brain development in babies. Classical music enhances abstract thinking. On the other hand, listening to loud, hard, grunge rock, rap, or new age music actually interferes with abstract thinking. Gansta/porno rap is a favorite choice for listeners addicted to loud, bass sounds. Gangsta/porno rap (for example, Eminem) and some acid or hard rock (Marilyn Manson) glorifies violence, suicide, illegal drug use, murder, killing police officers, rape, and promotes hatred against society, women, and the law.

Music AFFECTS and REFLECTS your state of mind. In addition, your behavior reflects your personality.

Finally…the Scam is Being Exposed! They Know They Are NOT Helping Our Environment!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

It’s about something

Posted on August 21, 2014 by  

Ms. McCarthy is now saying that the Clean Power Plan is not about climate. Ms. McCarthy’s July 23 testimony on the Clean Power Plan was that it is not about climate or pollution control.  This contradicts the June testimony, the web site and the federal register notice.  So it’s about something.  

From the Bonner Cohen, Heartland.org:

EPA’s recently announced restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with reducing pollution, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted in Senate hearings. Instead, said McCarthy, EPA imposed the restrictions based on a belief imposing expensive renewable energy on the electricity marketplace will stimulate the economy.

‘Not About Pollution Control’
“The great thing about this proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control,” McCarthy told the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee July 23. “It’s about increased efficiency at our plants. It’s about investment in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”

McCarthy’s comments came as a shock to utilities facing steep costs attempting to comply with the proposed restrictions. The comments also came at a time when the Obama administration’s prior EPA restrictions have pushed U.S. electricity prices to an all-time record high.

Contradicts Prior Testimony
McCarthy’s Senate testimony represents a significant departure from the way EPA defended its proposal before lawmakers just a month earlier. At a June hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe offered a different explanation. Citing Section 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes EPA to regulate certain pollutants, McCabe made that argument in her testimony:

“Chairman Upton, this is not an energy plan. This is a rule done within the four corners of 111 (b) that looks to the best system of emission reduction to reduce emission.… This is a pollution control rule as EPA has traditionally done under section 111 (d).”

McCarthy’s comment didn’t escape the attention of climatologist Roy Spencer.

“This gaffe could come back to bite the EPA,” Spencer wrote on his website. “The Endangerment Finding was all about the negative effect of ‘carbon pollution’ on the environment. Now we find out ‘this is not about pollution control’?”

In her testimony, McCarthy repeatedly emphasized EPA views its rule as an investment opportunity for the business community, while downplaying the cost it would impose on consumers.

“This is an investment strategy that will not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design,” she said.

So CO2 restrictions are not about climate and all the supposed health benefits are not about pollution control, they are energy efficiency, jobs and economic programs.  Sounds like EPA is getting caught with a reg that obviously doesn’t do what they said it was designed to do and are scrambling.