Unless you are very involved in local or provincial politics, you may have not been aware of the McGuinty government's latest response to the legacy that is Walkerton.
Justice Dennis O'Connor made a number of recommendations on how water should be regulated and protected, and the Ontario government, not wanting to appear as obstructionist, has gone ahead on a number of fronts.
People in Sydenham are well acquainted with the one scheme - a Regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that sought to impose exacting standards on tap water. Unfortunately for them, this could only be accomplished through the construction of a multi-million dollar treatment plant that is costing 270 households roughly $25,000 each to hook into, not to mention $40 a month in perpetuity. Most galling for them was the report of the province a couple of years later recommending that such measures not be imposed on communities of les than 10,000. The fact that the local MPP, Leona Dombrowsky, was the Minister who signed off on the Regulation adds more salt to the wound.
Now, the province has passed Bill 43 - the Clean Water Act, which creates new boards - "drinking water source protection committees" - who will oversee everything from water quality standards to who can access ground water in the first place.
Committees will be required to develop "protection plans" that include: policies intended to end existing threats to drinking water, and to prevent future activities from becoming threats to drinking water; a list of activities that are prohibited in certain locations within the protection area; a list of activities that are not permitted until a risk assessment has been submitted to the permit official, a risk management plan developed, and a permit issued; a list of locations where a person cannot make Planning Act applications, build, or change the use of a building without a permit; and guidelines for the issuance and renewal of permits.
Translation - the province is setting up local committees, neither answerable to Queen's Park or local municipalities, that can decide everything and anything related to ground water.
You get a building permit from your township, pay all of the fees and jump through all of the hoops. You have done everything according to the book. Unfortunately, some "committee" decides that you can't have a permit to drill a well. You want to appeal, of course, but who do you talk to?
The local township is not in charge, the Ministry of the Environment says that they are not in charge because the committee is 'arm's length', and it is not clear who you can talk to.
Even worse, what if the committee decides to go after existing wells? Where you find an existing well, you find an existing home, where people are likely making mortgage and property tax payments on. Can the committee take a perfectly habitable home and declare in uninhabitable, causing families to lose not only their homes, but the single biggest financial asset they possess?
I believe that protection of ground water is important, but so too is protection of property owners' rights, the right of citizens to redress, and the right of local governments to act on behalf of their constituents.
Creating committees not answerable to individuals or governments, who can act without explanation or justification, and can do so without being accountable to the public for their actions might clean the water, but it muddies people's lives and the democratic process.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
More questions than answers
Like most parents with young children, I can be a bit obsessed about their future prospects - especially the quality of education they receive.
My son Ethan's school, St. Patrick's in Harrowsmith, fared decently in the Fraser Institute rankings. Indeed, it was the top ranked rural school - public or separate - in the area covered by the Limestone District and Algonquin and Lakeshore District Boards.
Mind you, there were at least 10-12 elementary schools, mostly Kingston-based, that ranked higher. I took that with a grain of salt. Family income and education levels have an impact, and Kingston is a university and public service town, so incomes and education levels are no doubt higher in the city core.
Then, today, the CD Howe Institute comes up with its own rankings - designed to 'correct' for such issues as family incomes, education, and such.
Clearly, Kingston schools in the less affluent areas moved up in the rankings, and the schools in the wealthy areas held their own.
The good news was that my son's school was the top rural performer once again. The bad news is that it remained roughly int he same position as in the Fraser study.
For the longest time, I have felt that rural schools were getting shortchanged compared to their urban counterparts. The fact that urban schools - rich and poor - can shift so dramatically in the two rankings, while rural schools remain static, does not give me hope of being wrong.
It comes down to separating what is different between urban and rural schools.
We know that teachers' training is standardized in the province, and that the possibility of good and bad teachers runs equally whether it is a rural or urban school, so take that out of the equation.
We also know that the curriculum and the tests are also the same, so remove that as a factor.
We could look at family incomes, and the education level of parents, but the good folks at the CD Howe Institute have removed that difference.
Same teachers, same lesson plans, same standardized tests, and remove the family's economic and education levels as factors - urban schools can move with ease up the rankings while rural schools are glued in place.
The only factor that is not accounted for is how much we spend on rural schools compared to urban ones, or what programs and facilities are available to rural students compared to their city counterparts.
Liberal and conservative think tanks seem to differ on what makes some schools better than others. The only thing they agree on is that rural schools are mired in the middle - and that is cold comfort to any parent in this riding.
My son Ethan's school, St. Patrick's in Harrowsmith, fared decently in the Fraser Institute rankings. Indeed, it was the top ranked rural school - public or separate - in the area covered by the Limestone District and Algonquin and Lakeshore District Boards.
Mind you, there were at least 10-12 elementary schools, mostly Kingston-based, that ranked higher. I took that with a grain of salt. Family income and education levels have an impact, and Kingston is a university and public service town, so incomes and education levels are no doubt higher in the city core.
Then, today, the CD Howe Institute comes up with its own rankings - designed to 'correct' for such issues as family incomes, education, and such.
Clearly, Kingston schools in the less affluent areas moved up in the rankings, and the schools in the wealthy areas held their own.
The good news was that my son's school was the top rural performer once again. The bad news is that it remained roughly int he same position as in the Fraser study.
For the longest time, I have felt that rural schools were getting shortchanged compared to their urban counterparts. The fact that urban schools - rich and poor - can shift so dramatically in the two rankings, while rural schools remain static, does not give me hope of being wrong.
It comes down to separating what is different between urban and rural schools.
We know that teachers' training is standardized in the province, and that the possibility of good and bad teachers runs equally whether it is a rural or urban school, so take that out of the equation.
We also know that the curriculum and the tests are also the same, so remove that as a factor.
We could look at family incomes, and the education level of parents, but the good folks at the CD Howe Institute have removed that difference.
Same teachers, same lesson plans, same standardized tests, and remove the family's economic and education levels as factors - urban schools can move with ease up the rankings while rural schools are glued in place.
The only factor that is not accounted for is how much we spend on rural schools compared to urban ones, or what programs and facilities are available to rural students compared to their city counterparts.
Liberal and conservative think tanks seem to differ on what makes some schools better than others. The only thing they agree on is that rural schools are mired in the middle - and that is cold comfort to any parent in this riding.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Our energy future
On the weekend, I was reading an article in the National Post about a new subdivision in Calgary - one that hopes to be the first truly energy self-sufficient community in Canada. Two developers, in partnership with the federal government, are spearheading this initiative.
The major parts of this scheme call for houses to be R-2000 compliant, and for each garage roof to be covered by an array of solar panels.
Developments in solar panel technology, from the advent of the photovoltaic cell, to new manufacturing methods, are making solar more and more affordable. While the cost of solar electricity generation is still far and above what we pay for traditional sources, the price is about 20 percent of what it was a decade ago. Like computers, advances in technology and mass marketing, are leaving us with systems that are more powerful and less expensive. Probably within the decade we will see solar power systems that no more expensive than mainstream technologies.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Ontario can benefit from all of this?
First, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) have not been able to have generation keep pace with demand for quite some time. Add to this the fact that a significant portion of our supply comes from coal fired plants, which the government wants to shut down due to CO2 emissions.
Secondly, if you read the fine print, you realize that up to 20 percent of the power sent out over the lines is lost in transmission. This could be due to a combination of factors, including an aging power grid, or the effect of sending electricity over long distances.
Third, despite those of us who heat with electric, the peak demand is in the summer, not the winter.
Lastly, building new capacity is expensive, and usually cost overruns are the order of the day. Already the debt servicing charge on your bill can be as high as what you pay for the power you consume.
The province has already allowed for the possibility of individuals and companies to sell surplus solar generated electricity back to the grid at over 40 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to buying it at roughly 6 cents). A good deal...if you can afford it.
To be self sufficient with solar, one would have to spend up to $50,000 for the equipment and installation, making this deal only for the very wealthy.
Here's a plan.
First, have Hydro One offer a credit financing capacity for individuals and businesses to purchase solar power systems, for little or no money down.
Once the system is operational and tied into the grid, Hydro One buys the power at the going rate of 42 cents, and charges you the 5-6 cents as per normal.
The difference between what you sell and what you use would constitute the monthly payment on the system.
Most likely, you would run significant surpluses in the summer, which would pay down the system quicker. In the winter, when generation is lower, you may only generate enough for your own use. This means, however, your Hydro One bill would only relate to paying for your system, and not both the system repayment and your hydro use.
The bigger the solar arrays, the better, which makes this idea perfect for farmers. Barns have enormous roof lines and, by virtue of being near pasture land, have almost no tree cover to block sunlight.
Such a scheme could be tested in partnership with OMAFRA, where participating farms could place systems on barns and outbuildings, and the electricity generation and usage are monitored for one season. Improvements and changes could then be incorporated into a bigger plan.
At first blush, the plan, if workable, accomplishes four things:
1. It reduces or eliminates the electric bill for the participant;
2. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to bring generation capacity on-line than big mega projects, which, in turn, does not add to Hydro One's stranded debt of over $30 billion;
3. It is locally produced, so it reduces the amount of power lost in the grid, and protects areas from brownouts and major disruptions;
4. It is zero emission technology that gives us latitude concerning coal fired plants.
While I am not someone skilled in the science of this technology, we do need to explore options that will meet Ontario's demand for power, and save green - in our environment and in our wallets.
The major parts of this scheme call for houses to be R-2000 compliant, and for each garage roof to be covered by an array of solar panels.
Developments in solar panel technology, from the advent of the photovoltaic cell, to new manufacturing methods, are making solar more and more affordable. While the cost of solar electricity generation is still far and above what we pay for traditional sources, the price is about 20 percent of what it was a decade ago. Like computers, advances in technology and mass marketing, are leaving us with systems that are more powerful and less expensive. Probably within the decade we will see solar power systems that no more expensive than mainstream technologies.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Ontario can benefit from all of this?
First, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) have not been able to have generation keep pace with demand for quite some time. Add to this the fact that a significant portion of our supply comes from coal fired plants, which the government wants to shut down due to CO2 emissions.
Secondly, if you read the fine print, you realize that up to 20 percent of the power sent out over the lines is lost in transmission. This could be due to a combination of factors, including an aging power grid, or the effect of sending electricity over long distances.
Third, despite those of us who heat with electric, the peak demand is in the summer, not the winter.
Lastly, building new capacity is expensive, and usually cost overruns are the order of the day. Already the debt servicing charge on your bill can be as high as what you pay for the power you consume.
The province has already allowed for the possibility of individuals and companies to sell surplus solar generated electricity back to the grid at over 40 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to buying it at roughly 6 cents). A good deal...if you can afford it.
To be self sufficient with solar, one would have to spend up to $50,000 for the equipment and installation, making this deal only for the very wealthy.
Here's a plan.
First, have Hydro One offer a credit financing capacity for individuals and businesses to purchase solar power systems, for little or no money down.
Once the system is operational and tied into the grid, Hydro One buys the power at the going rate of 42 cents, and charges you the 5-6 cents as per normal.
The difference between what you sell and what you use would constitute the monthly payment on the system.
Most likely, you would run significant surpluses in the summer, which would pay down the system quicker. In the winter, when generation is lower, you may only generate enough for your own use. This means, however, your Hydro One bill would only relate to paying for your system, and not both the system repayment and your hydro use.
The bigger the solar arrays, the better, which makes this idea perfect for farmers. Barns have enormous roof lines and, by virtue of being near pasture land, have almost no tree cover to block sunlight.
Such a scheme could be tested in partnership with OMAFRA, where participating farms could place systems on barns and outbuildings, and the electricity generation and usage are monitored for one season. Improvements and changes could then be incorporated into a bigger plan.
At first blush, the plan, if workable, accomplishes four things:
1. It reduces or eliminates the electric bill for the participant;
2. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to bring generation capacity on-line than big mega projects, which, in turn, does not add to Hydro One's stranded debt of over $30 billion;
3. It is locally produced, so it reduces the amount of power lost in the grid, and protects areas from brownouts and major disruptions;
4. It is zero emission technology that gives us latitude concerning coal fired plants.
While I am not someone skilled in the science of this technology, we do need to explore options that will meet Ontario's demand for power, and save green - in our environment and in our wallets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
