Economic Impact

(a)  Taxes and Subsidies
Wind companies are really developers, who are in the wind-energy business not because they are interested in being “green” but because they are benefiting from generous subsidies provided by the Ontario Government, i.e., by us. The current wind power subsidization rate is roughly 9 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to 3 cents per KWh for hydro power and 5 cents for nuclear and fossil fuel energy), burdening the consumer for the 20-year duration of the wind-power contracts. Wind companies also benefit from tax credits and tax havens, and reap (or are set to reap) huge profits in a short time (cf. the sale of Vector Wind Energy to Canadian Hydro Developers for $5.3 million). Ontario taxpayers pay not only for the subsidies, but will also pay for the higher costs of energy – higher than they might have been if wind turbines had never been built. Based on the above considerations, current ambitious plans for significantly increasing the share of wind power in Ontario's electricity supply should be thoroughly reviewed, and in the meantime, a moratorium should be placed on construction of industrial-scale wind energy installations in Ontario.

(b)   Tax Revenues
Some local governments have welcomed wind-turbine installations because they see them boosting tax revenues.  However, extra tax revenues will be offset by the need for extra services (e.g., firefighting, road maintenance) and by the potential loss of taxes from properties whose value has plummeted because of the installations.  Further residential building is unlikely to occur. People are fleeing from wind-turbine neighborhoods, not flocking to them. In addition, the income from local tourism will fall: wind turbines draw very few tourists.

(c)    Property Values
Loss of income is not just a matter for local governments. No one wants to live in the midst of an industrial wind installation, and property owners are likely to suffer significant financial losses. There are already instances of families who have been unable to sell their properties for any amount of money, and who have simply closed the door and walked away.

(d)   De-commissioning
There are many unanswered questions about what happens if the developer does not produce enough electricity to sell to the grid, or for some other reason finds the turbines unprofitable. If the turbines fall into disrepair, who fixes them? Who dismantles them? The developers on Wolfe Island have not put aside a fund to take down the turbines, should government policy change, subsidies get cut, or the turbines wear out, or turn out to be inefficient and too expensive to run. Have they factored de-commissioning costs into their proposals for Amherst Island?

(e) Conclusion
Risking the quality of our landscapes and the financial well-being of property-owners (both participating and non-participating) for a technology that is very expensive, extremely inefficient and potentially short-lived is simply irresponsible. There is already mounting evidence that governments who permit, or inflict, wind-energy industrial plants on their citizens are doing everyone a grave disservice.