County News

The devil in the detail

Posted: June 30, 2011 at 12:12 pm   /   by   /   comments (3)

County sends wind energy developer cost recovery agreement back for more legal review

Robert Quaiff, councillor for North Marysburgh, tried to sound the alarm at a committee of council meeting late in May. He had just received his agenda documents for the meeting two days earlier. Among the 200-plus pages was an innocuous report spelling out an agreement between the municipality and wind energy developer Gilead Power Corporation. The agreement, the report explained, was needed to recover costs the municipality was incurring in reviewing proposed plans for the development of the nine-turbine project on Crown Land at Ostrander Point.

But Quaiff complained that the agreement was premature and besides, council had twice proclaimed a moratorium on industrial wind energy development until certain questions were answered by the developer and the province. Questions they’ve been asking for more than a year. What would it say about the seriousness of its moratorium if it was also making deals to recover money from the developer? Quaiff also warned that an agreement forged as narrowly as suggested would inevitably be used as a template, or a building block for further agreements.

“At some point we have to draw a line in the sand,” said Sophiasburgh Councillor Terry Shortt, in support of Quaiff’s request for further review.

Planning Commissioner Gerry Murphy assured council that what was before council was merely a “pre-development agreement” and the municipality had already spent about $10,000 in staff time and legal fees reviewing proposals by the developer. Further the agreement in no way bound the municipality to future obligations.

Though torn, most of council concluded that, despite the distaste of signing an agreement with a developer that continues to dodge and sidestep its questions, it was better to take the money than stand on principle.

That might have been the end of the story. However, with more time, Quaiff was able to take a closer look at the the proposed agreement. The more he read, the angrier he became.

He fired off an email before the next council meeting urging his colleagues to pull the agreement and send it back to staff and the County’s lawyers for more detailed review.

Leading the list of his concerns was the title of the document. Though it was presented as a “predevelopment agreement” in the report, the actual title in the formal legal document had been changed to “development reimbursement agreement.”

Items in the preamble discussed the need for road repairs and fire department access—details that seemed to go far beyond the scope of pre-development.

Later Quaiff observed that in paragraph 11 the municipality agreed it would not require any confidential information from the developer, which seemed an overly broad undertaking by the municipality. For Quaiff, the clause presented the developer a means to withhold any information it didn’t want released, merely by declaring it confidential. He cautioned that going along with this wording might preempt the County from getting pertinent information about the health of residents or the welfare of the County’s infrastructure.

Murphy says the intent of the agreement, despite the title, remains narrow and defined to predevelopment.

“Basically they mean the same thing—or at least that is the intention,” explained Murphy.

He also explained that the preamble was written as a catch-all for various aspects of development of the project—that references to roads and fire protection are mentioned in a general sense and not part of the specific agreement.

“The agreement we are working with today has its origins in a cost recovery agreement that we ask other developers to enter into with us.That is what we started with. Along with our lawyers we developed and refined it to suit a renewable energy project.”

On the issue of confidentiality and freeing Gilead from disclosing information it deems private, Murphy allowed that this wording might be tightened up or perhaps eliminated.

“In consultation with our lawyers we couldn’t foresee any reason why would need to access confidential information, or information that wasn’t in the public domain,” said Murphy. “It was added as part of the legal review.”

But he struggled to explain why it was added or how it protected or benefited the municipality. Meanwhile Quaiff is pleased council has sent it back for closer legal review.

“This is the first of such an agreement,” said Quaiff, “it could be the first of many. I think we should get it right.”

Comments (3)

write a comment

Comment
Name E-mail Website

  • July 12, 2011 at 4:00 am Ernest Horvath

    http://tgap.wordpress.com/the-gap-proposal/
    This is the energy direction we should adopt .
    It benefits us all.
    One wonders why with over 28 Billion of our tax dollars going to set up for profit energy producers in the next 10 years with fixed 20 year prices..even if prices go down.
    Why McGuinty or the environmental groups didn’t chose the option that benefitted Ontarians

    Reply
  • July 9, 2011 at 8:26 am Ernest Horvath

    First , I am not against alternate electricity production at all. With the right planning and direction , everything has it’s place .
    It’s not all bad and and it’s not all good.
    In the our area alone there are over 4000 acres quietly optioned by Industrial Wind turbine companies . And hundreds of acres of farmland for solar.
    It would mean you couldn’t drive anywhere without them looming over you .

    The prices and subsidies are so great here in Ontario that people from all over the world are buying up farmland to take advantage of this lucrative opportunity.

    If one understands what is driving this direction the Liberals have us on , it is difficult to get behind it. Despite all the carbon foot print this or that , and all the reasons used to shut coal plants down and the push to move away from fossil fuels as reasons to look at other ways to produce electricity they are only smokescreens to keep you off track.

    You see , until the early 2000’ s Ontario had a public utility producing electricity. It was paid for by all of us and we subsidized the costs through our taxes to keep costs affordable.

    Then our good friend Mike Harris for some odd reason , decided that it costs us all too much money and it should be turned over to private enterprise to provide us with electricity. We were told that by doing this it would open this market up to competition and it would actually lower prices. Harris is oddly enough is at Magna by the way who are manufacturing solar panels…..

    In 2011 we are still looking for competition and lower prices.

    It would be a hard sell if Harris said that a few companies were lobbying to take over the electricity business in Ontario and wanted an opportunity to make a profit off a captured market . Because up to now they weren’t getting the opportunity. Doesn’t sound so attractive put that way , does it ?

    Well , Harris sold Ontario Hydro , the Liberals were voted into power with the promise to stop the deal , unions took this to court as well and we ended up with the nonsense we have now. The Liberals have done a quiet dismantling of what used to be a great system for the public good. It is now become a cash cow for electricity producers.
    It seems that the old Ontario Hydro debt that was claimed to be unmanageable could be paid off in 8 years . The huge financial burden of Ontario Hydro was lifted off our shoulders , the costs are no longer bankrupting us and we all know this unsustainable because…they said so.
    Sure didn’t lower our taxes any . In fact it hasn’t created competition , didn’t lower prices either.
    Quite the opposite..prices are skyrocketing.
    The money that was to be saved didn’t stop the unfair healthcare surcharges , it didn’t stop rural hospitals being closed , and the move to huge centralized hospitals far from where people in rural areas live. It hasn’t stopped the closing of rural schools and the transporting of our children to centralized mega schools.

    What in fact has been accomplished by this move to privatize electricity production?

    Well , it has given a captured market to an industry to profit off.

    For some , those that are in the industry and those now wanting to take advantage of the FIT programs to sell us electricity , it’s all good. It’s better than good. We are getting robbed with the prices they are getting.

    For the rest of us , well our money just doesn’t go as far.

    I used to grab the discounted meats at grocery stores that are close to their expiry dates. Now I leave them because I know that there are more and more people that are finding it harder to get by.
    Did you know that the average income for Canadians is under $50,000 a year ?
    I have no idea how people like seniors , people on disabilities , single families or even people in the middle income bracket are getting by.

    it’s not all because of electricity to be sure but it plays a huge part. Because as this cost rises , it gets passed on to us from everything in our lives. From grocery stores to municipal taxes.

    Take away all the media spin , the promises , the culture of fear , the claims of jobs , the claims of cleaner air ,it’s all garbage.
    It doesn’t matter how electricity is produced , it could be Wind Turbines , solar ..whatever ….the profit based direction is what should be the discussion.
    The fact that we are being robbed should be the discussion.
    It is unethical and wrong.

    Reply
  • July 2, 2011 at 1:47 am Lori Smith

    Well done Robert Quaiff! There is far too much secrecy when it comes to the contract the wind developers try to get from the landowners and now council. Seeing as Japan, the USA and Europe are challenging Ontario’s Green Energy Act at the WTO, we should be very very cautious about signing anything with any wind developers.

    Reply