Hudak says his plan will shave HST from hydro bills

Richard J. Brennan, Toronto Star

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is promising to remove the provincial portion of the HST from hydro and heating bills.

Hudak also said Thursday a Tory government would also remove the debt retirement charge from home hydro bills for a total savings of almost $300.

“I will fight this unfair burden and make energy more affordable for Ontario families,” he told reporters.

Hudak has made energy costs a centrepiece of his campaign for the Oct. 6 election.

The Tory promise would remove eight percentage points of the 13 per cent Harmonized Sales Tax from residential hydro bills and from residential home heating bills.

“After talking to families, party members and our unprecedented ‘Have Your Say Ontario’ survey, it’s clear that people in Ontario want relief from Dalton McGuinty’s HST and skyrocketing hydro bills,” Hudak said.

The PC leader said his promise would give a typical Ontario household $275 in immediate relief from energy bills.

The Tory measure would cost about $1.2 billion in lost tax revenue from heating and electricity.

Hudak acknowledged that he can’t scrap the HST across the board as it would mean paying back more than $4 billion given to the province by Ottawa to implement the harmonized tax.

94 thoughts on “Hudak says his plan will shave HST from hydro bills

  1. its shutup about the turbines and I will give you a break on your hydro read between the lines —its called change the subject cover up the Greed

    • In April 2010, the Ontario PC Caucus put forward a motion in the Ontario Legislature that called on Dalton McGuinty to place a moratorium on industrial wind farms until an independent, comprehensive study of the health and environmental impacts of these projects is completed.

      The Ontario PC Caucus also called on the McGuinty government to restore planning authority over these industrial wind farms to municipalities – a right he stripped away with his so-called Green Energy Act.

      Regrettably, the McGuinty Liberals voted against the PC motion and, for the last year, have continued to let Toronto bureaucrats force wind farms into communities where they are not wanted.

      In fact, only when the energy minister himself faced growing local opposition in his eastern Toronto riding, did the government backtrack on off-shore wind projects until further study could be done.

      However, just two weeks later, the government unbelievably announced a massive expansion of industrial wind farms, although they were careful to make sure none were located in Liberal held ridings.

      What’s worse is the cost of Dalton McGuinty’s expensive energy experiments are driving up the cost of energy for Ontario families, seniors and businesses.

      According to the well regarded Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the cost of Dalton McGuinty’s expensive energy experiments – which also include smart meters and the multi-billion subsidies contained in the sweetheart Samsung deal – will add an additional $732 a year to typical family hydro bills by 2015.

      The Ontario PC Caucus believes renewables should be a part of Ontario’s energy supply mix, but they must be at prices families, seniors and businesses can afford and in communities that want them.

      An Ontario PC government would do things differently.

      First, we are going to stop signing deals on these expensive energy experiments that are driving up hydro bills and are simply unaffordable to families.

      And second, we will restore local decision making powers by taking it away from political staff in downtown Toronto and giving it back to local communities.

      You have to ask, why is it you can have a say on a new Tim Hortons or 7Eleven, but not on an industrial wind farm? We think you’ll agree, that is just plain wrong.

      In closing, on behalf of Mr. Hudak, thank you again for sharing your concerns with him.

      We invite you to take part in our online survey at, which is the largest survey of its kind in Ontario history. Tim Hudak believes he always gets the best advice on how to move Ontario forward from everyday families, seniors and small business owners. He welcomes your advice on how to best provide relief for families, how to get government focused on your priorities, and how to create more and better private sector jobs.

  2. I wonder why Tim Hudak has not recently repeated his promise(?) to call for a moratorium on IWTs.

  3. Price Freeze a la Ernie Eaves!! That’s what we need to shut us up!!

  4. This is a response that I recieved Tim Hudak’s team from an email I sent regarding a wind project:

    “The Ontario PC Caucus believes renewables should be a part of Ontario’s energy supply mix, but they must be at prices families, seniors and businesses can afford and in communities that want them.

    An Ontario PC government would do things differently.

    First, we are going to stop signing deals on these expensive energy experiments that are driving up hydro bills and are simply unaffordable to families.

    And second, we will restore local decision making powers by taking it away from political staff in downtown Toronto and giving it back to local communities.”

    • It appears that Mr.Hudak dosen’t understand that IWTs don’t work and are a waste of money.

  5. Unfortunately it appears the PC’s
    will honour any FIT contracts/projects
    already approved, which means half
    of Ont. is screwed whether Hudak
    be elected or not.

  6. Bad, vote-buying policy, just like the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit.

    Based on loss-adjusted consumption of 10,000 kWh/year and assuming a current all-in price of 16 cents/kWh and that the OCEB would also end prematurely, Tim’s plan would save the average residential consumer $ 23.50/year on their electricity bill (over the OCEB).

    Oh, and it’d have to be paid somewhere else. Doh !

    • I don’t know what he offered aside from the release I read this morning – if he, properly, ends the OCEB then I believe we are talking about 12% coming off (the DRC being a little over 4%) instead of 10%, but …
      Electricity shouldn’t be taxed in the first place, because it is regressive as poor households do pay a far greater share of their income on power – which led here, as Aldyen Donnelly said it would, to programs for lower income households. Great work for bureaucrats – one taxes it, and another gives it back!
      Hudak’s 12% is 2 more than the Liberal’s 10% OCEB, which was to counter NDP calls for the removal of the 8% of the HST by giving 2% more.

  7. Mr Hudac knows better…

    He says, “First, we are going to stop signing deals on these expensive energy experiments that are driving up hydro bills and are simply unaffordable to families”.

    What has made Hydro Bill unaffordable is the failure of Ontario Hydro and the extreme costs to run and maintain an aging nuclear power source. The true cost of hydro in Ontario is hidden in the tax subsidies to the traditional sources of electricity. Come on Tim, stop treating us like stupid sheep. Deal with the issue of current source, supply and efficiency or we just keep paying the construction companies for more nuclear and gas companies for electricity. I guess its about who’s pocket you want to fill.

    How about the guy that produces his own power?

    • Scott, you are being misled, even before GEA and Ernie for that matter, we are paying huge dollars in capital for the development and maintainence on Nucks.

      We also spend a large amount of cash for conservation and efficiency of all sources of power by every government. Its kinda interesting that we force electrical and gas producers to spend money to reduce how much a customer will use.

  8. So you do not think your dime has gone to the retirement of many executives of the other sources of electricity. I understand you do not like wind turbines in your back yard but why would a person in Bruce or Pickering be put in a risk position for you to get electricity. NIMBY…that all this is. I do read and have been across this country, Europe and the US. Wind is not the solution, but is it a part of it. If your issue is about tax money being used…then you need to do some reading out Ontario Hydro to start with. The fit program will develop local power sources owned by local people, just recently in eastern Ontario a Church put up solar panel to help reduce costs and supply energy to the grid. Without Fit that would not have happen.

    • So the rest of Ontarians are supposed to support local churches?

      How can wind be a solution when wind turbines work at best 25-30% of the time? Would you buy a car that worked at best 25-30% of the time? Or when the wind blows.

      They also can cause people bodily harm!

      Ontario’s nuclear plants are not in an earthquake zone.

    • NAIMA Canada, applauds the Green Energy Act.

      “We’re thrilled with the proposed legislation, especially the portions that require clearly revealing energy efficiency and consumption values to people buying or leasing properties,” stated Steve Koch, Executive Director of NAIMA Canada.

    • “NAIMA Canada … announced today that it has been approved for membership in The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, (REEEP). The goal of REEEP is to expand the global market for renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable development through policy initiatives and the financing of innovative energy projects.

      “Our REEEP membership is important and appropriate because it will allow us to advance policies that seek cleaner and more efficient energy practices,” said Stephen Koch, executive director of NAIMA Canada.”

    • No Barbara, we should not be supporting churches we should be supporting anyone that either reduces our need for producing electricity or that adds to the production of electricity without the HUGE capital costs we incure to build more nuks and gas/coal fired generation. Even hydro costs prohibit many non-governmental companies from investing in such a production method.

      And you do not need to live in an earthquake zone to have a major issue with nuks. Pickering has had many leaks in recent years, three mile island and chernobl where not in an earthquake zone

    • Yes Lynne,

      Those are all comments I agree with. I do believe there should be a label on every house that says how efficient it is with the use of all fuels.

      Yes I do support REEEP because it brings efficiency into a conversation with renewable energy, and to use it where it makes sense.

      I hope that your views are as open as mine.

  9. It is ridiculous to pay anyone 80 cents/kwh.

    What’s ridiculous is to pay money for an electrical bill when you use NO electricity. That debt reduction line on your bill is the results of selling electricity for below what it costs.

    • What is 0.7 cents/kWh on NO kWh?

      You might have to travel to the other continents to find out worldly wise one.

    • Scott,

      When you pay your electrical bill you have the energy you use and then you have transmission costs and debt reduction. If you shut off everything in your house, you will still be required to pay money for the ability to have used it.

      It pays to travel around in the world sometimes Scott

    • You actually made a series of stupid statements.

      It is perfectly logical to pay for a service, regardless of the utlization of that service. The wires to my home are the same regardless of my use.

      But you specifically, and quite stupidly, implied people who used no electricity paid the DRC.

      They don’t.

  10. I never called anyone a name and I am calm. I have a hard time understanding how your position is going to fix the electrical shortage and reduce pricing without subsidizing something.

    • I didn’t realize we had a shortage in Ontario? Don’t we keep selling our excess for even less than we paid to produce it?:(

    • Simcoe Surfer,

      Sometimes this is in a shortage of electricity and sometimes we are in an abundance of electricity. The latter is less common.

      That is why we have signed a deal with Ohio, Quebec and others to BUY electricity.

      We sell it for a lose because it is cheaper than shutting the facilities down when we have more than we need.

      Come on people. This is all common knowledge

  11. PS….Electrical producers do not have to pay other than the debt and the transmission charges.

    Solutions are being found internationally. Hudac’s comments are not a solution to the problem.
    Just a note that the nuclear and gas fired electrical plants do not use their own electricity. They send it out to the grid and buy it back as well. So there is no difference.

  12. You have lost me with your comment “I don’t believe any energy should be subsidized. This is the most valuable thing to human survival and we need to subsidize it? Doesn’t make sense.”

    If it is the most valuable, economics says the cost will increase due to the demand. We subsidize health care, housing and other things we believe are key to human survival. And have been for a long time.

    “What electrical shortage? We’re constantly selling off this excess electricity at a huge loss.”

    This statement is only valid outside of peak times. If we had Solar and Wind we could shut down or reduce power to a point that would keep the grid operational. We need to note that during a 30 degree day we also buy electricity for a huge premium.

    Technically we cannot stop the flow of electricity and we must maintain the system or we have failure like we did a few years back, the whole east coast went down.

    • Stephen,
      The whole East coast went down because a tree branch fell on a transmission line in Ohio. This had nothing to do with a shortage or surplus of electricity.

      Cost does not rise with demand if additional supply keeps up with the demand.

      You should know that wind turbine power is not even figured in base load because it is not dependable. The power may or may not be there when needed.

    • More nonsense.

      Top 10 demand hours this year.
      Average net exports are 2605MW during them.

      08-Feb-11,19,21651,22621, 970,45.94

      Since 2007, there are 4 hours where demand was above 25000MW – 2 of which we were net exporters.

  13. Here is where your aguement falls apart “There certainly IS a difference between 6 cents and 80 cents. Come on now.”

    6 cents is not the real cost, add in the tax subsidies, the debt reduction, etc.

    “If they can compete, like any other business, with what people are able to afford, then fine….do it…..but don’t get giddy and expect a generous handout on the backs of others because you are “green”.

    They are competing with a subsidised organization that currently supplies us. People are getting generous handouts on the backs of other and it is not green.

    I can agree with your statements only if the subsidies currently given to the nuclear, gas and coal electrical production are removed… and if that was to happen…we may be close to the 80 cent mark.

    • Stephen,

      Two wrongs don’t make a right. Keeping on being stupid about electric production and this will catch up with the government sooner or later.

    • Barbara,

      The people do not get the realities of capital cost, maintanence or peak demand. So government does get away with it.

      To vote in any of the current leaders in Ontario will not fix this problem. Untill we as voters understand the FULL impact of our decisions.

    • Steven,
      Do agree that people do not know the realities involved in Ontario electric production and that the current leaders most likely fix these problems. They will try to find an easy way out of this present electricity mess.

      People sure do need help in understanding thes issues. Keep throwing out your ideas and maybe a solution can be found.

    • Great Comment Barbara. We need constructive conversations on the bigger problem so that the solutions are apparent. The challenge we have is that for every issue you have with Wind, someone has the same number with nuclear or coal or gas or solar. It is a challenge that most politicians do not want to take on as they will piss someone off.

  14. Sorry,

    This is a regulated commodity, it has nothing to do with what the market would bear.

    And your knowledge of the Ohio driven blackout, you need to do some reading.

    Wind and solar have very high potential on a warm and sunny day. Air mass lift is huge, another area you need some reading on.

    Your comment is exactly what caused many of the issues of today “If anyone tried to charge a ridiculous amount, like McGuinty is allowing, they would be squashed out of existence.” That is what caused the debt load at Ontario Hydro, selling electricity for a price below cost, they got squashed out of existence and we are still paying the bill. At 6 cents we are still below cost and will be paying for it long into the future. That to me is dumb.

    Interesting chating with you, but the removal of the FIT program and the Samsung deal (which I am not a supporter of) will not reduce your electrical bills. This province needs to develop a plan for electrical growth and efficiencies, until that happens, these conversation are just political rhetoric.

    Have a great day

    • Top 12 demand hours last summer.
      Average wind production 67.5MWh

      Lift potential eh?

      Date,Hour,Ontario Demand,Total Wind (MWh)

    • Lift is the movement of hot air rising and cool air falling

    • The data is clear. The average capacity factor for wind turbines during the months Ontario experiences peak demand hours is 17, and every one of the top 12 hours last year it was far below that.
      Lift don’t enter into it.

    • Stephen,
      Yes it is a regulated market and also a monopoly.This monopoly was set up so that there would not be lots of energy providers in any given area with each company’s electric lines running all over the place just to serve a few customers in every given area.Was supposed to make electricity cheaper.

      In the case of private electric companies it’s supposed to be cost plus a reasonable return on investment.

      The original idea of Ontario public owned electric production was to remove the profit portion and supply electricity on a cost basis only. But things sure have gotten out of hand with the costs.

      So this is where we are today with costs way out of hand and how can this be corrected?

  15. So this is about wind production, not about the electricity problem. I am very happy you have taken an interest in this issue, and it has been going on for much longer than 5 years.

    Wind production is only one part of the system. If you want to remove that from the mix you have that right to that opinion. Some want to remove nuclear from the mix. Soon we may not have a mix cause everyone wants something else.

    When it comes to other renewables, please spend at least 5 years on those, then spend another 5 years on the electric grid and production issues across North America. Then you need another 5 to be close to my tenure in this arena. Your cold hard facts are not as cold and hard as you may think. There are always two sides to every story and I hear your side.

    Now I get it. Thanks for the chat

    • Stephen,

      If wind turbines had been any good at producing electricity they would have been used years ago.

      This does not mean that the Ontario electricity issues have wisely handled over the years.

    • Wind turbines have been good at producing electricity. They have been used in Europe for years. Remember they are not positioned as the oly solution to producing electrical power.

    • Barbara

      As an FYI

      “The first known electricity generating windmill operated was a battery charging machine installed in 1887 by James Blyth in Scotland, UK. The first windmill for electricity production in the United States was built in Cleveland, Ohio by Charles F Brush in 1888, and in 1908 there were 72 wind-driven electric generators from 5 kW to 25 kW. The largest machines were on 79 ft towers with four-bladed 75 ft diameter rotors. Around the time of World War I, American windmill makers were producing 100,000 farm windmills each year, most for water-pumping. By the 1930s windmills for electricity were common on farms, mostly in the United States where distribution systems had not yet been installed. In this period, high-tensile steel was cheap, and windmills were placed atop prefabricated steel towers.”

    • Stephen,
      Thanks for the wind energy history. Enjoyed reading it. But farmers got rid of their wind mills as soon as the electric lines ran down their roads. Electricity from the grid was cheaper and more reliable.

      The installation of IWTs in the UK has led to about~30% of the population being forced into energy poverty. The wind costs are just too great.

      Keep up your input as this all needs to be sorted out.

    • Stephen as you pointed out politics has been allowed to play to large a role in Ontario electric production.

  16. I always get this sick feeling when I try to trust a politician.

    When Hudak says he’d only give wind turbines to communities that want it, he is really saying, if your corrupt township council wants turbines, then you’ll get them. Where is the protection all around for EVERYONES health, no matter how sold out your council is?? Actually this statement scares me because it makes me think that he really doens’t believe the health issues. Only money…

    • You are correct, Hudak is not going to get rid of wind turbines. He has no choice, he a current system that is failing.

      For the politician, power from being elected.

    • Stephen, installing wind turbines will not fix anything. In fact they cause instability to the grid. All Mr. Hudak has to do is install scrubbers on the remaining units at the coal plants, build a new reactor, maintain hydro-electric and natural gas. Your meme about the failing system is green propaganda.

  17. It is 4:44pm on a hot humid Thursday afternoon. I just went on the IESO Wind Tracker. 72 MW was apparently being produced between ll:00 am and 12:00 pm.
    No updates since that time. Must have been too embarrasing for the wind people
    to even update. I can see three wind turbines from my kitchen window. The only
    thing moving those blades today (to keep the ball bearings from being damaged),
    was good old nuclear, coal, and gas power. Where is the common sense in all of
    this wind and solar hype?

    • The carbon capture system is just another eco-nut idea that costs a lot of money.

      What the “greenies” are really after is to regulate the amount of particulate matter in the air and this means no more wood burning devices in Canada if on the national level. Same goes for the Provincial government.

      Ontarians in the North country had better be on the lookout for this one. Don’t be foolish enough to think this won’t happen.

    • The environmental movement has already brought to North America light bulbs for $50 each,Chicago “green” toilets, San Francisco “green” sewers and look at the $ 10 million renwewable energy mess the eco-nut brought to Los Angeles colleges before he was told NO more.

    • If you want to see what the future holds for renewable energy in Ontario take a look at what happend in the Los Angles Community College system. What happened there is nothing more than a miniature of Ontario’s furure with renewable energy run by eco-nuts.

      Los Angeles Times,0,4909175.story

      L.A. Community Colleges’ green energy plan proves wildly impractical. The blunders ost taxpayers $ 10 million.”

    • Barbara,

      sounds like a conspiracy issue, to freeze the people in the north. Kinda of a stretch. Its probably more about CO2 than PM but Harper is looking at PM 10

  18. Awe Stephen. Put a garbage bag over your pillow so it doesn’t get wet. Oh maybe get a time life magazine rather than Liberal and wind company brochures to read.
    Ya. Go to your david suzuki or sierra web site where you can have a comforting chat with someone who thinks the air is already cleaner.

    • Your response is put forward to what ???show your ignorance to my political standing and preference.

      Comments like this show a personal issue with something you do not have an reasonable response too.

      I am sorry for your handicap

  19. This more of create an ARTIFCIAL DEMAND for products and services which in turn is supposed to promote new economic and job growth.

    But what it does is to shift money away from one older sector into another new “green” sector which results in job loss in the older sector. This is an example of government having the “force” to move money around in an economy but not the ability to create new jobs. Governments don’t create jobs they can only move money around. Make work government jobs only move money around as well.

  20. If wind power, and I mean from small home versions to larger farms can reduce enough to remove even a small amount of coal or nuclear production, I say its worth it.

  21. Once again ignorance is bliss. If wind turbines produce any electricity in the summer that will reduce the draw from other sources. FACT

    Your comments would pertain to this government in Ontario, the past government in Ontario, the current Federal government and many municipalities.

    Take the blinders off, this is not about wether you are wearing a red, green or blue jersey people.

    PS Hapers spending in the last two years were to create new jobs. Moving monet around is exactly what a government is to do. Has anyone here taken political science or economics???

  22. PS

    NOTE THAT CEEA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION, ITS ABOUT USING IT EFFICIENTLY. Saving Money, that is why all governments, including Conservative, Liberal, NDP and BLOC have all invested in what CEEA does EFFICIENCY

    Jeez people, stop making stuff up

  23. Last summer, Ontario suspended its purchase of two new replacement reactors when their cost reportedly topped $26 billion — $20 billion more than expected in 2007.

    Here is another good reference to reduce out of province purchases thru any internal increases

    Ontario electricity policy refers to plans, legislation, incentives, guidelines, and policy processes put in place by the Government of the Province of Ontario, Canada, to address issues of electricity production, distribution, and consumption. Policymaking in the electricity sector involves economic, social, and environmental considerations. Ontario’s electricity supply outlook is projected to deteriorate in the near future due to increasing demand, aging electricity supply infrastructure, and political commitments, particularly the phase-out of coal-fired generation. Policymakers are presented with a range of policy choices in addressing the situation, both in terms of overall system design and structure, and specific electricity generating technologies.

    Ontario finds itself faced with choices that define energy policy debates throughout the western world: the role of markets vs. centralized planning and what Amory Lovins has termed “hard” versus “soft energy paths”; i.e. continued reliance on large, centralized generation, particularly nuclear and coal, or moving towards decentralized technologies, including energy efficiency and low impact renewables. As such, how Ontario electricity policy evolves in the near future will be of relevance to other jurisdictions facing similar options or challenges.

    And what about a loss of current electricity…it happens quite often.

  24. Thats a great response to the issues presented in the website. Educating people is part of the job.

    This one seems a little more challenging than some.

    Have a great weekend

  25. Stephen,

    Would you mind explaining what is efficient about IWT electricity production? You wouldn’t buy a car that only operates when the wind blows?

    • Its like a hybrid car that runs on electricity till it needs the gasoline. Better than gas all the time.

  26. Ignorance is bliss.

    That’s quite a statement coming from an expert at being ignorant.

    YTD coal production is down about 70-80% in Ontario.
    YTD net exports are up 56%.

    We, Ontarians, are replacing a source that meets demand with one that doesn’t, and we have the statistics to show all increased wind is doing, to a market that already had an abundance of sources with output unrelated to demand peaks, is increasing exports.
    You could argue that it must come out of production somewhere. That is too simple – but I’m sure you are doing your best.

    On this site, you are telling people who have lost their homes, people disenfranchised in their own communities, and people impoverished by the regressive nature of increased energy pricing, that theoretically they are taking the hit so that much less clean jurisdictions of New York, Michigan, and New England can receive our dumped excess to reduce the emissions from their local production.

    Your ignorance may be your bliss – but it is detrimental to the bliss of others.

  27. Hey guys, either all this circular reasoning has made Stephen dizzy, or he is yanking your chain.

  28. “CEEA has been lobbying for fuel switching and customer-based generation for the last several years through it’s participation on the Building Code Energy Advisory Council (BCEAC).

    “It is great to see the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s directive parallel CEEA’s objectives. CEEA has been pushing the government to concentrate on energy conservation, greater energy efficiency in codes and standards, fuel switching and customer-based generation for the last several years. It’s a big win for CEEA and all Ontarians.” said Ken Elsey, CEEA’s Executive Director and CEO.”

    Sounds like more than just energy efficiency to me.

  29. C’mon Stephen, CEEA is partnering with the Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance:

    “The draft National Strategy on Energy Efficiency recommendations and model programs that were put together earlier this year in cooperation with the Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance (CanREA) and participating stakeholders was delivered to the Prime Minister’s Office on November 25th. CEEA, CanREA and the participating organizations are hopeful that a meeting with the Premier to discuss the proposed recommendations will take place shortly.”

  30. I would love to hear his explanation as to why our electricity bills have exponentially increased since McGuinty took power. He
    (Stephe)can only support what gives his paycheck just as the rest of the minions. Yes Stephen you are a minion and you talk about your “political standing”. You need to zoom into reality about the cost of electricity and don’t ask brainwashed 8 year olds who don’t have to work to pay the bills. Come on October election :).(Btw you should turn on your spell check Mr political almighty). FIT is a rip off and that’s it. If IWTs were so great than they should be self sustained. End of story.

  31. the money you refer to is for the development of a program for ideling police and emergency vehicles. It reduces cost from fuel use and removes exhaust.

    This is also supported by Conservative governments. Its not about a liberal view.

  32. I would like to thank all the people that have contributed to this post. It was interesting to see you views.

    Your objections to wind turbines is strong and I commend you for taking a stand. Your personal shots at me are not required when you can provide a solution to the problem. So far I have not seen anything said that will provide an opportunity to take wind out of the electrical mix. I truly believe if you can do that you will find your wind issue goes away.

    If you have any other comments, please send them to me c/o CEEA.

    Good luck to you all.

  33. Dear Lynne,

    Fuel switching is just providing a choice for many consumers from electric to gas and others.

    You think there is an electric supply issue now, wait till electric vehicles are the norm. Everyone plugs in at the same time. Oh no.

  34. Jef,

    Where do you think the electricity needed to charge the vehicle batteries comes from? Coal ,nuclear, natural gas,hydro,wind,solar power?

    Would you like to depend on wind and solar to charge your vehicle? Better have a tank full of gasoline all of the time in your hybrid if you depend on wind and solar.

    Besides with wind and solar electricity production you have to operate a backup system which means that two electricity production systems must be built and paid for. What a waste of money!

  35. Jef, so nice of you to drop by and tell us what to do. Surely, with such fulsome praise, Mr. Koch must be an engineer with many years experience in the power generation industry. Oops, I guess not. Mr. Koch has a degree in business administration from Lansbridge University.

  36. Mr. Koch,

    I see you are a strong supporter of wind turbines. The Ont gov’t has been at this for a few years now and committed endless billions towards it. That is a heck of a lot of money there must be some benefits showing up.

    I wonder if you could tell us some of the benefits that we can see today? Is our air cleaner? Have electricity bills gone down? Has unemployment dropped? Anything?

    Maybe there is some unobvious improvement in another area that we wouldn’t think of. Crime rates down? Better health care? Better education? Reduced poverty? Is the $300,000,000,000 Ont debt gone? Better roads? Less traffic jams? More wildlife and natural areas? Anything at all?

    Please do answer. There is so strong of feelings in favor of these wind turbines and so much money spent that the benefits must be showing up somewhere.

    • David,

      You forgot to ask Mr. Koch if there were any personal financial benefits that we could see today.

  37. Mr.Koch
    First of all we don’t have a problem.
    We could end this conversation at that .
    Canada contributes 3% of the globes CO2 emissions.
    30% less than Germany the idol of IWT industry.
    Compare to the USA and China at 54% combined.
    Now , lets be reasonable here.
    Our pollution levels are so insignificant it hardly bears mentioning.

    I think it is admirable that the media hype and spin has worked so well on people to part with their money without any real questions.
    But that is the power of media today.

    We both also know we don’t have an energy crisis either.
    Here’s where it went wrong for your business..the GEA
    If your industry thinks it can override the communities that have to live with these IWTs I suggest a reboot.
    What goes up can go down.And they will.
    If your industry wants a future in Ontario I suggest sitting down with municipalities and it’s residents to map a out a plan that works.
    Because the people do not recognize the McGuinty GEA legislation as acceptable.
    In the fall the Liberals are done as a party.
    In doesn’t matter who is running the province after the election.
    Unless these IWTs are put where they are acceptable to us Mr. Koch..they are coming down

  38. “Wind is like a hybrid car.”

    Hybrid cars can store energy and this
    energy can be used if and when needed.
    Wind energy is intermittent, unreliable, has
    to be backed up 7/24 and is therefore

  39. Earnest,
    Germany has a population of 160 million people vs Canada’s 30 million. That’s 8 times our population yet their emissions are only 30% more. Is that something to brag about? It reinforces the fact that Canadians are big wasters per capita.

    • Germany’s population is about 1/2 that.
      Regardless, it reinforces we have a different climate, a different economy, and a much broader area for far fewer people.

    • Jef,

      Just what are Canadians wasting electricity on and which do you propose eliminating? Which electric uses are you willing to give up?

      Canada is ia much colder country than Germany and so requires more energy use for heat. Requires more energy to get from place to place since the population is so spread out across a continent. Germany is only a small compact country and so is Denmark.

    • Possibly we should concentrate our
      efforts on convincing Russia, China,
      India to stop polluting the environment,
      otherwise what we do here (Ont.) is of
      no consequence and/or significance.
      Wind/solar power are not the solution.
      They are not alternative energy’s, they
      are at best costly, inefficient supplemental
      energy’s that wreak havoc on our natural

  40. Sorry to disappoint you Jef, 1 MW of wind is not the equivalent of 1MW of any other conventional source of electrical generation. Even though it’s a 2 MW turbine it never, never produces 2 MW. On avg. it produces only 25% of it’s capacity which means it must me supplemented by something else. Because of wind’s erratic nature, the backup is fossil fuels. (sorry storage such as batteries or pump storage are nowhere near the ability to compensate). Studies in Colorado, Germany and Denmark have show that fossil fuel generation is not replaced by renewables simply because these must stay in spinning reserve, working inefficiently waiting for wind to bail out of the grid at the drop of a hat. Take off the green coloured glasses and crunch the numbers and see for yourself.

  41. Jeff lets debate , what do you want to debate ?
    We have scientists on opposing sides on global pollution and the causes and cures.
    Let me ask you this ,do you honestly think that scientists which are fighting “carbon” as a commodity to speculate , love their children and grandchildren less than those pushing for making carbon a commodity to earn profits from?
    Do you not think that if in fact the world was coming to an end they too would want their grandchildren to “survive”.?
    3% is insignificant….
    By the way Jeff I see you use energy too.

  42. Waste energy?….and ?????????

    We don’t have an energy shortage..come on now.

    PS what did you think of the space shuttles going up and the 350 satellites sent up just last year alone.?
    1.5 million pounds of thrust…and use over a million gallons of rocket fuel.
    Come on now..stop listening to the CBC

  43. Barbara,
    I have relatives in France and they don’t have 50 inch tvs (or multiple tvs per home), big homes with two people living in them, don’t use electricity to heat their homes, drive more fuel efficient cars, use more public transit …just to name a few.

    Our R20 building code is insufficient as well for our climate.

    Canada doesn’t shoot off space shuttles nor does Ontario to be more specific.

  44. Jef. Or should I call you Stephen. You say relatives use no electricity to heat the house ? Cause they BURN WOOD. I also like the hybrid theory to reduce the use of gasoline. In comparison to IWTs I will buy a dual fuel hybrid BUT I would like tax payers to pay me to drive it under electric power and I also like to get a tax credit AND HST exemption on my gasoline. And when the battery runs out there needs to be people on the side of the road on standby (since batteries don’t forever give) to push my car home. On a quiet calm day we can use natural gas generation to charge the batteries (any normal being would say why not just burn natural gas in the vehicle) but I guess this is why we have such intelligent people like you in the position you are in. Stupid is as stupid does. Remember that phrase? Now look in a mirror. BS talk earlier about subsidies on nuclear power etc. Lol. Our debt retirement charge is of no comparison to the increse in charges since green alternatives came in. Day all you want. No one will believe you. YOU LIE STEPHEN. I mean JEF.

  45. Yes, Gore likes to keep his Tenn. property/farm well lighted at night.

Comments are closed.