The Oakville Gas Plant: Are we sufficiently outraged now?

[Argus]

About the same price as the Canadian Spy Palace (CSE Offices) that Harper is building.

Don't start using CBC talking points, please. It costs a lot to build the place because of the high technology and security issues involved.

Remember the DND bill for renovating the Nortel complex in the city's west end was a billion dollars too.

[Argus]

citation request. Particularly one that speaks within a properly contextualized timeline... particularly one that presumes to negate the mandate of the Ontario Power Authority. Define "bad spot" in this context.

I remember reading about the fuss years ago, and though it was insane to locate power plants that close to homes and schools. I couldn't undrestand why they would put them that close. I still don't understand it, unless the land was part of the deal and someone made a big profit on it (which knowing the liberals I wouldn't doubt for a second).

Waldo, you are reflexively trying to defend an indefensible position simply because the people involved are liberals. It was moronic to locate these plants there, it was a shocking breach of trust to cut them simply for crass, self-serving political reasons, and it was idiotic to then compensate the companies to the degree they did when that was not required under the contracts.

[waldo]

I remember reading about the fuss years ago, and though it was insane to locate power plants that close to homes and schools. I couldn't undrestand why they would put them that close. I still don't understand it, unless the land was part of the deal and someone made a big profit on it (which knowing the liberals I wouldn't doubt for a second).

Waldo, you are reflexively trying to defend an indefensible position simply because the people involved are liberals. It was moronic to locate these plants there, it was a shocking breach of trust to cut them simply for crass, self-serving political reasons, and it was idiotic to then compensate the companies to the degree they did when that was not required under the contracts.

it's not so BogesSimplistic! As I'm aware, the original siting choices were arrived at without political intervention... I believe it's a fairly safe bet to state that as 'factual' given nothing (as I'm aware), has come forward to contradict it. Some of the driving criteria for siting was cost based; again, costs related to GTA transmission facets and related existing deficiency/aging aspects. Additionally, local health boards and even up to the actual Ontario Chief Medical Officer brought opinion forward to advise there were no health concerns related to the site positioning.

the indefensible you speak of isn't... again, the Liberal party did not pick those sites... mandated authorities did. On one hand, political expediency is charged over the closures, and yet should we expect an equally voracious charge of political intervention if a party, any party, were to actually pick or influence the locations chosen? The cutting you speak to is equally defensible, if you carry that defense beyond the singular target Boges (and you, apparently) presume upon. Again, the Liberals were not singular in their expressed intent/resolve to close the plants.

as for the rest, I'll wait for what surely will follow - some manner of analysis of the audit, one that factors the closing costs against presumed savings that were highlighted, that properly factors against decisions made (rightly or wrongly) in a fully contextualized timeline, that properly factors in the legal implications (if any) of not closing the plants and/or not settling with the builders (TransCanada, et al). Against all that, until the audit itself is scrutinized, I'll also reserve judgement on the auditor herself... audits/auditors are not infallible. Nothing shows that more than the relatively recent heavily criticized energy related audit from the Ontario Auditor General.

[Boges]

Additionally, local health boards and even up to the actual Ontario Chief Medical Officer brought opinion forward to advise there were no health concerns related to the site positioning.

Wanna cite that?

the indefensible you speak of isn't... again, the Liberal party did not pick those sites... mandated authorities did. On one hand, political expediency is charged over the closures, and yet should we expect an equally voracious charge of political intervention if a party, any party, were to actually pick or influence the locations chosen? The cutting you speak to is equally defensible, if you carry that defense beyond the singular target Boges (and you, apparently) presume upon. Again, the Liberals were not singular in their expressed intent/resolve to close the plants.

And we see, especially with the Scarborough Subway, that the Liberals have no problem overruling the "mandated authorities".

They also did it here. Just way to late to and now the costs are huge. Also who cares if the opposition wanted the plants cancelled? Do you have any evidence they EVER supported putting them there in the first place?

The opposition's opinion on this has no baring on the Liberals culpability here because, as you say, they had no say in the decision to place the plants there in the first place. And even if their opinion, from the start, was that the plants shouldn't have ever been placed there, the Liberals wouldn't have listened to them.

As for the rest, I'll wait for what surely will follow - some manner of analysis of the audit, one that factors the closing costs against presumed savings that were highlighted, that properly factors against decisions made (rightly or wrongly) in a fully contextualized timeline, that properly factors in the legal implications (if any) of not closing the plants and/or not settling with the builders (TransCanada, et al). Against all that, until the audit itself is scrutinized, I'll also reserve judgement on the auditor herself... audits/auditors are not infallible. Nothing shows that more than the relatively recent heavily criticized energy related audit from the Ontario Auditor General.

So your opinion is that the auditor is full of Sh!+? I look forward to reading your analysis of the costs associated with the cancellation or a report contradicting her claims. Premiere Wynne certainly didn't refute her claims and accepted responsibility for what happened.

BTW the McGuinty was interviewed today and he said multiple times that the plants placed in the wrong location. So in his opinion, the mandated authorities had it wrong from the start. So why the one year delay from awarding TransCanada with the contract and the ultimate cancellation of the plant?

Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[Boges]

BTW here's the report.

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/oakville_en.pdf

An interesting excerpt.

The Premier’s Office committed to compensating TCE for the financial value of its contract for the Oakville plant, even though events occurred that we believe could have enabled termination of the contract at a much lower cost—The contract for the Oakville plant contained protection to relieve both TCE and the OPA of any financial obligations if events beyond their control (force majeure events) caused the plant’s commercial operation date of February 8, 2014, to be delayed for more than 24 months. Therefore, given Oakville’s strong opposition to the plant, it may well have been possible for the OPA to wait it out, with no penalty and at no cost. TCE filed notices of force majeure in December 2009 and March 2010, signaling its recognition that the measures the Town of Oakville were taking required it to get an extension to complete the plant.

A contract is a contract right? The OPA told TransCanada that there's a chance that this plant never gets built because of opposition. Which it never did get built. The contact allowed for this and the Province had no obligation to compensate TCE.

Then here.

On August 5, 2011, the Province, the OPA and TCE entered into an arbitration agreement that laid out the framework for the arbitration. As with the Premier’s Office’s commitment to TCE the year before, the framework waived the clause in the Oakville plant contract that gave the OPA a defensible claim of not owing TCE lost profits (that is, the clause stating that only if the Government took discriminatory action through legislation or similar means would the OPA be liable for damages such as loss of profits, with the OPA’s cancellation of the plant not meeting the definition of discriminatory). An arbitrator, agreed to by all parties, was also not to consider the possibility that TCE would not have been able to obtain the necessary approvals to construct and operate the Oakville plant. Thus, all of the provisions in the Oakville plant contract that gave the OPA opportunity to minimize damages were explicitly removed from the arbitration framework. This put TCE into a considerably advantageous position in the determination of damages through this arbitration process.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[waldo]

Wanna cite that?

ya sure... I'll get right on that... just as soon as you respond to my earlier citation request! Gee, did that tick you off? Did asking you to substantiate your broad sweeping claims... tick you off!

.

And we see, especially with the Scarborough Subway, that the Liberals have no problem overruling the "mandated authorities". They also did it here. Just way to late to and now the costs are huge. Also who cares if the opposition wanted the plants cancelled? Do you have any evidence they EVER supported putting them there in the first place?

the "no problem" you speak to apparently was quite the problem that associates to raised concerns from constituents; issues related to, rightly or wrongly, presumed concerns over both environmental and health impacts raised by constituents.

.

So your opinion is that the auditor is full of Sh!+? I look forward to reading your analysis of the costs associated with the cancellation or a report contradicting her claims. Premiere Wynne certainly didn't refute her claims and accepted responsibility for what happened.

obviously you have extreme comprehension difficulties. Reserving judgement on the audit is one I clearly applied caveats around. Until I read analysis of that audit I'm not simply following your lock-step parroting of whatever partisan bs you presume to flog. I gave you an analogy to a recent failed Ontario provincial audit - one significantly criticized by numerous independent sources.

.

BTW the McGuinty was interviewed today and he said multiple times that the plants placed in the wrong location.

duh! Really... isn't hindsight a wonderment! Perhaps you should try another angle - perhaps you should rail against the Ontario Power Authority and the original site choice criteria/decisions. Short of that you could try to claim political intervention influencing the Ontario Power Authority. Try that angle... sure you can!

.

[waldo]

it may well have been possible

yes... a most interesting excerpt! Quite the liberty/leap for an auditor to presume upon possible court proceedings/outcomes... or one-sided interpretations of an arbitration process! Well done Boges - you really should stop digging your hole.

[Boges]

ya sure... I'll get right on that... just as soon as you respond to my earlier citation request! Gee, did that tick you off? Did asking you to substantiate your broad sweeping claims... tick you off!

So you're admitting you just heard this and can't find citation. Regarding your request for citation, if at some point the PCs did support the placement of this plant, I'd imagine we'd be hearing about if from the Liberals. So I'll assume they opposed it from the start.

the "no problem" you speak to apparently was quite the problem that associates to raised concerns from constituents; issues related to, rightly or wrongly, presumed concerns over both environmental and health impacts raised by constituents.

I'm not in a position to declare whether the placement of the plant was right or wrong. That's clearly not my area of expertise. But the flip-flop by the Liberals is shocking, you'd have to agree. It becomes even more shocking if you consider that they came close to election time. They seemed adamant these plants were placed correctly at the time.

obviously you have extreme comprehension difficulties. Reserving judgement on the audit is one I clearly applied caveats around. Until I read analysis of that audit I'm not simply following your lock-step parroting of whatever partisan bs you presume to flog. I gave you an analogy to a recent failed Ontario provincial audit - one significantly criticized by numerous independent sources.

And I'd be eager to read this analysis. But are you saying the public is go to completely disregard this report until that analysis has been done? What if it's never done. As want point to you concede her opinions have merit?

duh! Really... isn't hindsight a wonderment! Perhaps you should try another angle - perhaps you should rail against the Ontario Power Authority and the original site choice criteria/decisions. Short of that you could try to claim political intervention influencing the Ontario Power Authority. Try that angle... sure you can!

.

The OPA can't be elected. I have lots of problems with how Power Generation is done in this province. But do you blame them or the government that allows them to do the things they do? Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[Boges]

yes... a most interesting excerpt! Quite the liberty/leap for an auditor to presume upon possible court proceedings/outcomes... or one-sided interpretations of an arbitration process! Well done Boges - you really should stop digging your hole.

I think you should focus your derision appropriately.

This story has been picked up by all local and even national news outlets I'm aware of. And not once have I heard anyone call her claims into question. If you know of any. . . please share.

Even Liberal friendly news outlets like the Star have acknowledged this is a scandal the Liberals have to wear.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/10/08/premier_kathleen_wynne_must_focus_on_social_justice_and_leave_the_gas_plant_scandal_in_the_past_editorial.html

Now that Ontario’s auditor general has put the true cost of the gas plant cancellations at an astounding $1.1 billion, Premier Kathleen Wynne will be hard-pressed to find a way out of this sorry political saga. And what a mess it is.

I have multiple reason's to hate this government. But I'm thinking most people think spending $1 billion and getting absolutely nothing in return rubs most honest people the wrong way. So I'll focus on it, call me pragmatic that way. Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[waldo]

So you're admitting you just heard this and can't find citation. But if at some point the PCs did support the placement of this plant, I'd imagine we'd be hearing about if from the Liberals.

what? More of your comprehension failings! I simply highlighted your petulant return to my earlier asking you for a citation... the one you ignored... the one you still ignore.

I'm not in a position to declare whether the placement of the plant was right or wrong. That's clearly not my area of expertise. But the flip-flop by the Liberals is shocking, you'd have to agree. It becomes even more shocking if you consider that it came close to election times. They seemed adamant these plants were placed correctly at the time.

asked and answered. I highlighted your selective application of your trumped up outrage. Again, the local party candidates opposed the plants during the campaign... Hudak himself opposed the plants. Your selectively applied flip-flop is set against these inconvenient (for you) facts.

And I'd be eager to read those analysis. But are you saying you're going to completely disregard this report until that analysis has been done? What if it's never done. As want point to you concede her opinions have merit?

you're eager to read analysis on the merits of the audit... a critical assessment of the audit? Oh my... always nice to read someone undercut their own partisan puffery! I told/implied what I would do... with caveats stated, I will hold cautious reservation. To me, one of the uncertainties I hold is the veracity of claimed savings from relocating versus closing costs... not the outright eventual accuracy of them; rather were they accurate, as best known, at the time of decision making. Clearly, given your magnanimous position/slant, you should be able to reconcile this, right?

The OPA can't be elected. I have lots of problems with how Power Generation is done in this province. But do you blame them or the government that allows them to do the things they do?

ultimately, the government is responsible for the outcome. You're seeing the Liberal government assume that ultimate responsibility. However, are you suggesting a government, any government, without impetus, should arbitrarily supersede and presume upon the expertise of an organization mandated to properly make and recommend assessments?

[Boges]

asked and answered. I highlighted your selective application of your trumped up outrage. Again, the local party candidates opposed the plants during the campaign... Hudak himself opposed the plants. Your selectively applied flip-flop is set against these inconvenient (for you) facts.

Why should I be outraged at Hudak? He had no say in the placement of the plants. The Liberals did. Why aren't you outraged at the Liberals since you clearly think the placement of the plants was fine?

you're eager to read analysis on the merits of the audit... a critical assessment of the audit? Oh my... always nice to read someone undercut their own partisan puffery! I told/implied what I would do... with caveats stated, I will hold cautious reservation. To me, one of the uncertainties I hold is the veracity of claimed savings from relocating versus closing costs... not the outright eventual accuracy of them; rather were they accurate, as best known, at the time of decision making. Clearly, given your magnanimous position/slant, you should be able to reconcile this, right?

I'm sure if you highlighted your concerns with the auditor herself she'd be happy to comply. Why should the onus be on me to defend the audit she spent months preparing? I'm just reporting her findings.

Do you know of any people, other than yourself that are as critical of her findings as you are that are willing to do a critical assessment of her audit? When hearing TCE was planning to sue I was assuming the cost would be high. This revelation doesn't change my opinion on the matter. It just ads to the apparent incompetence of the government.

Oh and where are the critical assessments of the April Auditor report on the Mississauga Plant Cancellation?

ultimately, the government is responsible for the outcome. You're seeing the Liberal government assume that ultimate responsibility. However, are you suggesting a government, any government, without impetus, should arbitrarily supersede and presume upon the expertise of an organization mandated to properly make and recommend assessments?

That's exactly what they did, didn't they? I'll ask again. Are you not as outraged at the Liberals actions because they cancelled a plant you believe was appropriately placed? Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[waldo]

Why should I be outraged at Hudak? They had no say in the placement of the plants. The Liberals did. Are you outraged at the Liberals since you clearly think the placement of the plants was fine?

just pointing out your most selective (faked trumped up) partisan outrage! You've got to make up your mind... are you "outraged" over the original siting, or the closing? Pick one, or both... just be clear and specify, hey! I'm only outraged at your fake outrage!

I'm sure if you highlighted your concerns with the auditor herself she'd be happy to comply. Why should the onus be on me to defend the audit she spent months preparing? I'm just reporting her findings.

how droll of you! Why the strawman? Again, with caveats stated, I hold cautious reservation, waiting on an eventual evaluation of the audit.

Do you know of any people, other than yourself that are as critical of her findings as you are that are willing to do a critical assessment of her audit? When hearing TCE was planning to sue I was assuming the cost would be high. This revelation doesn't change my opinion on the matter. It just ads to the apparent incompetence of the government.

tis early grasshopper... a few scant hours have gone by. I appreciate this is but a lifetime for fevered partisans, but really, c'mon... your rush to judgement is noted!

That's exactly what they did, didn't they? I'll ask again. Are you not as outraged at the Liberals actions because they cancelled a plant you believe was appropriately placed?

any appropriateness I might attach to the plant siting is one relying on the expertise of those mandated to assess/recommend siting. Decisions to close must be evaluated for their worth, on their merit. Again, you won't get the answer your strawman fronting is screaming out for - again, with caveats fully stated, I hold cautious reservation waiting for (presumed independent) analysis of the audit.

[Boges]

just pointing out your most selective (faked trumped up) partisan outrage! You've got to make up your mind... are you "outraged" over the original siting, or the closing? Pick one, or both... just be clear and specify, hey! I'm only outraged at your fake outrage!

I'm outraged that $1.1 billion was spent for nothing. And you shouldn't label that as "fake". It's genuine considering the multiple previous examples of this government wasting money in a similar fashion.

I think the Liberals should have either stuck to their guns or cancelled the plants before they were passed the point of no return. I would have been happy with either of those decisions.

how droll of you! Why the strawman? Again, with caveats stated, I hold cautious reservation, waiting on an eventual evaluation of the audit.

tis early grasshopper... a few scant hours have gone by. I appreciate this is but a lifetime for fevered partisans, but really, c'mon... your rush to judgement is noted!

Fair enough. Maybe you can enlighten me on likely places to find such analysis. Still not sure where to find an analysis of the audit done in April. Google's no help.

any appropriateness I might attach to the plant siting is one relying on the expertise of those mandated to assess/recommend siting. Decisions to close must be evaluated for their worth, on their merit. Again, you won't get the answer your strawman fronting is screaming out for - again, with caveats fully stated, I hold cautious reservation waiting for (presumed independent) analysis of the audit.

Fine don't yell and scream and stamp your feet. It's not productive anyway since the NDP won't bring this government down for several more months. FTR I'm not doing any of that either. Outrage can be demonstrated in other ways.

I just think that if you really appreciate the "expertise of those mandated to assess/recommend siting" then you'd completely oppose them canceling the plants for political reasons.

And BTW it's not me who says they were cancelled for political decision. The current premiere has admitted as much herself.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/02/28/wynne_admits_scrapping_gas_plants_was_political_decision.html

Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[capricorn]

In 2010 and 2011, the government listened to the advice of experts and began to build gas fired power plants on locations in Oakville and Mississauga over the objections of local residents.

Over time, it became evident that the concerns of the residents in those communities were legitimate.

----

It's important to note that the new facility in Napanee will help meet Ontario's electricity needs - the new facility will provide clean, reliable energy to schools, businesses, and thousands of homes.

http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2013/10/premiers-statement-on-the-auditor-generals-report.html

I suppose the power plant is not as dangerous for Napanee residents as it would have been for Oakville and Mississauga residents. :angry:

[The_Squid]

About the same price as the Canadian Spy Palace (CSE Offices) that Harper is building.

At least you get a spy palace! For $1B Ontario gets to NOT build something....

[waldo]

In 2010 and 2011, the government listened to the advice of experts and began to build gas fired power plants on locations in Oakville and Mississauga over the objections of local residents.

Over time, it became evident that the concerns of the residents in those communities were legitimate.

legitimate concerns??? You really are messing with the Boges narrative!

[GostHacked]

So Waldo, you are not concerned that a potential billion dollars has been wasted on a plant that has not even been built yet? Regardless of the reasons for the loss, what could Ontario do with a billion dollars when the province already has a high debt load?

[jacee]

http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2013/10/premiers-statement-on-the-auditor-generals-report.html

I suppose the power plant is not as dangerous for Napanee residents as it would have been for Oakville and Mississauga residents. :angry:

Are people there concerned?

[The_Squid]

So Waldo, you are not concerned that a potential billion dollars has been wasted on a plant that has not even been built yet? Regardless of the reasons for the loss, what could Ontario do with a billion dollars when the province already has a high debt load?

That's what I don't get... How does anyone defend the government waste of a billion dollars? (never mind that they said it would be $40M)

Especially when the government admits to completely screwing up and confirms that they wasted a billion dollars! How does one come to their defence? He rejects the auditor's findings? Not even the gov't rejected the auditor's report!

[PIK]

About the same price as the Canadian Spy Palace (CSE Offices) that Harper is building.

At least we are getting something for our money. We are talking about 8 billion gone because of him. Everybody going berserk over a couple mil in the senate scandal but yet still try and give dalton a free ride. In that interview he started by blaming the other parties, those other would not have built them in the 1 st place, and they wopuld have gotton out of it for nothing. And if we had a election today toronto would put them back into power .....AGAIN.

[capricorn]

legitimate concerns??? You really are messing with the Boges narrative!

You did notice, didn't you, that the link I provided was issued by the Ontario Liberals? It's obvious that the "legitimate concerns" that preoccupied the Ontario Liberals were more in relation to their losing seats than their fretting over the safety of residents.

[Jimmy Wilson]

At least we are getting something for our money. We are talking about 8 billion gone because of him. Everybody going berserk over a couple mil in the senate scandal but yet still try and give dalton a free ride. In that interview he started by blaming the other parties, those other would not have built them in the 1 st place, and they wopuld have gotton out of it for nothing. And if we had a election today toronto would put them back into power .....AGAIN.

Erm...3.1 Billion missing from the anti-terrorist fund...26 Billion missing in offshore accounts...Graft given to Conservative friendly people,like the Irvings,for exhorbitently pricey naval appropriations...

Spare us the simplistic ideologically driven Con faux outrage...

[Jimmy Wilson]

I read this in the Hamilton Spectator a few days ago...

It is the privatization of Ontario Hydro that is the genesis of what got us into this mess..Liberal incompetence didn't help...

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/10/09/the_banality_of_billiondollar_boondogles_cohn.html#

If the link doesn't work,it's Martin Regg-Cohn's column from last week in The Toronto Star...

[gunrutz]

Erm...3.1 Billion missing from the anti-terrorist fund...26 Billion missing in offshore accounts...Graft given to Conservative friendly people,like the Irvings,for exhorbitently pricey naval appropriations...

Spare us the simplistic ideologically driven Con faux outrage...

I wasn't aware that the government was resposnible for people moving money offshore, and surely only conservatives do it,, and yea, it's not like we need ships or anything, but good job getting the con quip in, clearly you have no ideological skeletons in your closet. Btw, did you notcie this thread was about provincial policitcs, namely the ontario gas plant fiasco?

[brian66]

The Ontario NDP decided to not support the PCs in a non-binding non-confidence motion related to the gas plants.

http://looniepolitics.com/ontario-ndp-demonstrate-dancing-skills/