PC’s introduce “Ensuring Affordable Energy Act”

Lisa ThomsonMPP Lisa Thompson
You have been clear—and Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak and the PC Caucus has listened. We need to do something immediately about industrial wind turbines in our communities.

I was proud to introduce the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act today.

We know that energy issues; particularly wind turbine issues have been of great concern in many communities, including my own riding of Huron-Bruce. The Ensuring Affordable Energy Act addresses many of these issues.

The Ensuring Affordable Energy Act contains six key pillars:

  • Wind turbines will only be placed in willing host communities, and municipalities will be given full veto over wind turbine projects in their communities;
  • Wind power must be affordable—meaning the cost per kilowatt hour must line up with other sources of generation;
  • The costly feed-in tariff (FIT) program will be eliminated;
  • Municipalities will have the ability to decide whether or not they want to promote wind energy;
  • The Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine will be protected from wind turbines; and
  • Municipalities will receive their planning powers for renewable energy back

This bill will ensure that environmentally sensitive areas like the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine will be protected, municipalities will have their planning power back and the controversial, highly subsidized FIT program will be cancelled.

This bill is scheduled to go to second reading debate on April 18th, 2013. PC Leader Tim Hudak and the PC Caucus would appreciate your support.


Lisa Thompson, MPP
Deputy PC Energy Critic

38 thoughts on “PC’s introduce “Ensuring Affordable Energy Act”

  1. Now here’s a Politician who has their head screwed on straight. The real question is can she be heard above all the brainwashed red coats.

  2. Why should a municipality have the right to decide whether to expose people including children to the harms caused by industrial wind turbines?!

    Municipal “control” is not the answer here, it’s a red herring.

    • Municipal control will do nothing for those of us who have already been sold out by our councils. Why would I want to give the right on sighting turbines to someone like Randy Hope, Mayor of Chatham/Kent, who is now host to well over 500 turbines. At least she indicates there must be some kind analysis on affordability and hopefully the PC’s are taken up again by gov’t subsidies which merely concentrate power in Toronto. Energy subsidies merely shift labour and capital away from economically viable projects that would actually help grow our economy to those projects that have political preference. Further, subsidies increase the incentive to lobby and perpetuate mediocrity in technological innovation by removing the incentive to lower costs and compete in the marketplace without the subsidy.

  3. I am so fully with you. Politicians need to listen to their people b/c they were put there by their people.

  4. Where is the resolve in this “Ensuring Affordable Energy Act” for the people who have had and have turbines being built to surround their homes right now.

  5. How will Thompson’s Act affect existing IWT developments? Or projects which already have a REA? Nothing I have read addresses that. Does someone know?
    Or will the removal of the FIT program take care of that, or is that only for new REA’s?
    Otherwise many of us will still be SOL.

  6. MPP Thompson
    Thanks for your continuing efforts against wind energy.
    I fear it will take a lot more because the premier refuses to listen to us.
    McGuinty has probably signed contracts with wind energy that can’t be broken without great costs to Ontario. unfortunately he won’t get what he deserves, not in this lifetime. Beyond I’ll provide the sauce for a slow roast.

    • With all the cronyism uncovered with the issuing of many of these contracts and they can’t be broken? Or are they afraid to rasie this issue because of the influence of the fat-cats who got these contracts?
      If you think Enron was bad it was peanuts to what has taken place here.

    • I hear you Sandra, but any contract can be broken – if the will is there to break it. Yes, it could be costly, but not as costly as moving forward with these projects. After all, aren’t we already paying for hydro debt costs on our monthly bills?
      I hope the McWynnety government is paying attention to the people of this Province.
      From where I sit, & I am not affected either way reguarding these IWT, however, I am just disgusted with the government and it’s non compliance to protect it’s citizens. The health of the people, the community and the environment should be first and foremost over any mandated (corrupt) greed / green act.

      We can prevent this !! It just takes the WILL of a community.

      • Not just any contract can be broken but those contracts obtained by fraud ,influence peddling and bribes can be broken.

  7. Yes S and D. Totally agree. The wording in this bill is a slap to any of us who have fought for so long to protect everyone from the adverse effects of turbines, including the uneducated and including people with council members who are corrupt. It tosses the fact that people are getting sick everytime another project goes in, off into the ditch. Imagine the rush of windies to municipal seats.
    OMB hearings made sure municipalities never have say anyway. Provincial Policy Statement demands municipalities ‘shall’ allow turbines and aggregate taking.

    • It’s not a “slap”, it’s a positive start in the right direction. Lisa Thompson didn’t create this problem. If you alienate everyone who is trying to fix this mess, and/or prevent it from getting worse, no one is going to listen to you any longer.

    • While I agree with Moray Watson that one step in the right direction is better than no steps at all ….

      It wasn’t so long ago (September 19 / 2012) that I took Lisa Thompson to task for saying this:

      “We need to look at how wind development has affected communities in Wolfe Island and Essex and Kent – areas where it’s been OK.

      My emails to Ms Thompson confirmed that she was properly quoted, especially on the section: “areas where it’s been OK”. However, my subsequent tough questions re Lisa Thompson were moderated into oblivion by OWR, who presumably didn’t want to upset Lisa, our apparent ally.

      So, it seems that the rules of the game have changed … it’s now open season for “slapping” …

  8. Pingback: Ways to improve Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA) | Project Locations & Maps of Turbine Farms in Ontario

  9. Were either the Wolfe Island or the C-K wind fiascos done with the consent of the majority of residents?
    Look who got the financial benefits from the Wolfe Island project while the rest of the people will have their property devalued and their health put at risk.
    These wind projects are put in to benefit the host landowners and the developers. Everyone else loses.
    The Affordable Energy Act appears to benefit landowners and developers.
    The cost per killowatt hour being comparable to other types of generation is straight out of the “green” handbook.

  10. Oh my! Even The Economist is getting things figured out…


    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
    The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

    The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

    Hey no Kidding — we don’t need no stinkin’ giant fans

    Paging all Wynners! Pay attention now!

  11. Quote from the September 19 / 2012 OWR posting:

    barbara says:
    09/20/2012 at 12:34
    Agreed, likely a typo mistake. But keep sending her the information she needs to have to bring up at QP debates. Doubt if her staff has the time needed to dig up information.

    Some typo! Isn’t it the job of an MPP’s staff to dig up information for the introduction of an upcoming bill? Don’t have the time???

    The remainder of Ms Thompson’s remarks can be seen here:


    Just to be clear, I do appreciate some of what she has done for us, her intentions MAY well be honourable, but I also think she could be somewhat of a liability in the long run.

    Judge for yourself whether Lisa Thompson is an ally or an opportunist.

    • Lisa Thompson is only one member of PC MPPs. What about unkown influences in the preparation of the Affordable Energy Act?
      Yes, but the staffs do what the MPPs direct them to do.
      A great deal more has been learned about the Wolfe Island IWT saga since Thompson made that statement.

      • Don’t think Lisa thompson should be made the fall gal in this situation either.

  12. Give your MPP or Tim Hudaks office a call and talk to them. Then also ask yourselves, who do you want to win the next election and consider it from that point of view.

    • Global Warming . ORG, March 27,2013
      Republished from the Wall Street Journal, the WSJ 2013 ECO:nomics conference
      Crony Capitalist Conference turns sour.
      “CalPERS Chief Investment Officer on green investments: A noble way to lose money”
      The CalPERS, pension fund, green energy fund started in 2007 with $460M and now at $900M has a return of MINUS 9.7% to date. CalPERS invests in clean tech.
      You can follow the link to the WSJ

      Why dosen’t the PC party understand what is taking place? Or for that matter the Liberals and the NDP?

      • So losing a possible $90M of employees pension funds is a “noble way of losing money”
        Wonder how much Ontario pension money has been lost in clean tech investments?
        Bet the employees won’t think it’s such a “noble way” of losing their pension money on bad investments.

  13. Isn’t it time for a reality check? Lisa Thompson isn’t part of government. Even if her Bill receives a Second Reading, with a Liberal government still in place and an equally insane NDP party in support it will not receive support at any third and final Reading. That’s reality!
    If there were an election tomorrow and Hudak and his party were elected to what could be no more than a minority government there would still be no chance of such a bill succeeding. Whilst Lisa Thompson’s heart may be in the right place we still have no clue just how many PC politicians are already ‘beholden’ to the Ontario wind energy industry.
    We need politicians who are prepared not only to immediately repeal the GEA but also to approve legislation to hold the wind energy industry entirely responsible and liable for all the harm they have already inflicted on Ontario.
    Until then we are totally on our own! Two rants in one day are far too much!!! 🙂
    Andrew Watts

    • Correct me if I’m wrong, but …

      Wouldn’t a minority PC government, even under the GEA, be able to approve or disapprove IWT projects based on any number of (valid) reasons without permission from the Liberals and NDP?

      Would they not be able to direct the MNR and MOE to decline IWT developments on crown land based on environmental concerns without consulting with the opposition?

      Why couldn’t a Hudak minority be run like McGuinty’s “major minority government”, in other words, full speed ahead on anything they want, or don’t want?

      Even if the governing PCs triggered a non-confidence vote, do you think the opposition would bring the government down and force another election so soon? For any reason?

      I guess what I’m alluding to is this: If Hudak happened to win a minority government, I believe that he would be in a position to bring IWT development to a halt … IF HE WANTED TO.

      As for installed IWTs, it remains to be seen what the legal ramifications would be for removal, compensation, etc. That would be the next step to bringing back some sanity.

      • Yes theoretically he could call a moratorium on any new IWT development, something The PCs have talked about in the past. The absolute quickest way to end any new development would be to lower the FIT tariff dramatically, I would think this would be possible as a regulatory fiscal measure, without legislation, but I don’t know. As the executive power, even a minority government could do a host of things to stop development. Of course they could be defeated by the Lib/NDP opposition, but as you say not in the short term. Certainly a Hudak government would be a vast improvement over any Lib/NDP regime.

      • I’m not knowledgeable enough but wouldn’t a new government of whatever party have to repeal the Green Energy Act before they could effectively stop the approval process for wind energy projects??? Again, I’m not certain but wouldn’t that have to passed by a vote in the House?
        Could it be just as easy as a Conservative MoE of a minority government sending out an internal Memo to all those involved in wind energy approvals and say ‘Stop’?
        I do agree the PCs are the only party making any attempt at all to reassess the wind energy issue but just don’t see them in a position to make any changes enough to stop this wholesale destruction of rural Ontario any time soon………………
        Andrew Watts

  14. The Liberal government did a review of the FIT structure a year or so ago. We were invited to participate in a questionnaire on the subject. The results of that review may not have been implemented yet. I also remember McGuinty making some changes to the solar tariff structure.
    This leads me to think that rate changes are possible without new legislation, the existing government does posses a lot of power on fiscal matters.Without the 13.5c kwh subsidy wind companies would wind up very quickly.

    • Did McGuinty not announce a moratorium on off-shore wind turbine development, one that is under legal dispute? I am thinking the government of the day could simply announce no new development if they so desired.

  15. Bloomberg, March 27, 2013
    “Bulgaria may suspend as much as 40 percent of wind and solar-capacity as part of its effort to stem oversupply and stabilize electricty generation.”
    “Bulgaria’s grid is suffering from power overloads caused by a rapid increase in wind and solar capacity coupled with decreasing domestic consumption in the face of a weak economy.”
    “Protests against high electricity bills and poverty toppled the government of Boyko Borissnov on Feb.20.”

Leave a Reply to Rose Wakegijig Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *