SHOULD ONTARIO PURSUE OFF SHORE WIND POWER GENERATION IN

THE GREAT LAKES?

A Decision Analysis Review of Generation Alternatives for the Province of Ontario

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Masters of Engineering and Public Policy Inquiry

Prepared by: Jim Sanders

Student ID 0902230
Prepare for Dr. Gail Krantzberg, Director
December 14, 2011

1
Abstract

This research paper discusses the recent development of energy policy in the province of
Ontario with the goal of addressing the question, should Ontario pursue the development of
wind turbine electrical generation in the Great Lakes?

As early as 2003 the Ontario provincial government set a policy goal of eliminating coal as an
input fuel for electrical generation in an effort to improve the health of Ontarians and to
improve the general environment. To replace the loss of the coal fired generation capacity and
to account for growing electricity demand, alternative input energy sources of some form would
be needed. Between 2003 and 2006 incremental nuclear, natural gas, hydro and wind electrical
generation capacity was added to the provincial system along with first retirement of a major
coal facility. The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, brought into law in 2009, provided
Ontario an accelerated economic and regulatory pathway for the development of additional
renewable electrical capacity. At the same time, potential on-shore and off-shore wind
developments were offered attractive purchase rates for their output at multiples of the
market price together with long term binding contracts through the Ontario Power Authority’s
new Feed in Tariff program. Public objections to on-shore wind developments were growing
with each new proposal and by early 2011 the provincial government had halted the
development process for all off-shore projects. In 2010 and 2011 the government also halted
proposed natural gas fire distributed generation projects in Oakville and Mississauga.
Eventually the province would need to agree to some source of new electrical generation or
back away from the primary policy goal. Off-shore wind in the Great Lakes offers a significant
source of energy that will be hard to pass up for any jurisdiction that supports renewable
energy.

This paper will offer a perspective on the current energy policy in Ontario through the lenses of
rational policy development over the last eight years. Policy development that lead to the
aggressive pursuit of renewable electrical generation and the mounting challenge of deciding
which generation type to construct given often conflicting policy demands. A decision analysis
model was developed and is presented in this paper that uses financial, environmental, social,
political and technical general criteria to compare electrical generation alternatives. This model
uses an Analytical Hierarchy Process to compare off-shore wind generation relative to other
likely generation alternatives for Ontario. This analysis, including a sensitivity analysis,
concluded that the off shore alternative was the least preferred. Despite this conclusion, it is
recommended to that an independent study be completed to study the environmental and
technical implication of the off shore alternative given the significant renewable energy
potential of the wind resource in the Great Lakes.

2
Table of Contents

1. Introduction 6
2. A Rational Policy, Application for Energy Policy Development 8
2.1. Societal Value Preferences and Their Relative Weights 9
2.2. Know all of the Policy Alternatives 10
2.3. Know all of the Consequences of Each Policy 12
2.4. Calculate the Costs and Benefits of Each Policy Alternative 13
2.5. Select the Most Efficient Policy Alternative 13
3. Energy Use in the Province of Ontario 15
3.1. Distinction Between Energy and Electricity 15
3.2. Electrical Energy Demand in Ontario 16
3.3. Electricity Energy Supply 18
3.3.1. Supply Change from 2003 to 2011 18
3.3.2. Future System Supply 19
3.3.3. Long Term Electrical Supply Implication for Wind Generation 21
4. Potential for Wind Generation in the Great Lakes 22
4.1. Estimates of Wind Energy Available in the Great Lakes 23
4.2. Proposed Offshore Wind Projects in Ontario’s Jurisdiction 23
5. Decision Analysis for Future Electrical Generation in the Province of Ontario 24
5.1. Decision Model Using Analytic Hierarchy Process 25
5.2. Decision Hierarchy for Coal Generation Replacements 26
5.3. Relative Importance of the General Criteria 27
5.3.1.Financial Sub Criteria Relative Importance 28
5.3.2.Environmental Sub Criteria Relative Importance 29
5.3.3.Political Sub Criteria Relative Importance 30
5.3.4.Social Sub Criteria Relative Importance 31
5.3.5.Technical Sub Criteria Relative Importance 33
6. Generation Alternatives to be Considered for Decision Analysis 33
7. Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Base Case 35
8. Sensitivity Analysis 37
8.1. Most Favourable Scenario for Off Shore Wind 37
8.1.1. Financial 38
8.1.2. Environmental 38
8.1.3. Technical 38
8.2. Least Favourable Scenario for Off Shore Wind 39
8.2.1.Financial 39
8.2.2.Environmental 40
8.2.3. Technical 40
9. Results of the Sensitivity Analysis 41
10. Conclusions 41
11. Recommendations 42

3
Appendix 1: Smog Days for Ontario for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Appendix 2: Ontario’s Energy Use by Source 1990 to 2009

Appendix 3: Ontario’s Electrical Generation Capacity by Fuel Source 2003 to 2011

Appendix 4: Map of Trans-boarder Smog from the US to Ontario

Appendix 5: Great Lakes Statistics

Appendix 6: U.S. Electrical Generation By Fuel Type from the EIA 1997 to 2011

Appendix 7: 2009 FIT Program Prices Compared with 2011 FIT Program Prices

Appendix 8: Potential Wind Energy in the Great Lakes

Appendix 9: Decision Analysis Hierarchy of Goal and Criteria

Appendix 10: Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Base Case

Appendix 11: Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Sensitivity with Maximum Favourable Scenario
for Off Shore Wind

Appendix 12: Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Sensitivity with Minimum Favourable Scenario
for Off Shore Wind

Appendix 13: Ontario Electricity Price History

Appendix 14 : Capital and Operating Costs by Generation Source Fuel

Appendix 15 : North American Natural Gas Prices (Henry Hub Basis)

Appendix 16 : World Natural Gas Consumption and Reserves for US EIA 2009.

Appendix 17: Map of Existing and Proposed Wind Generators in Ontario

List of Tables

1. Energy Policy Milestones for the Province of Ontario 14

2. Peak Electrical Demand and Electrical Energy Demand for Ontario 17
3. Changes in Installed Generating and Supply by Fuel Type, 2010 to 2030 20
4. Rank Scale Used for AHP Relative Comparisons 25
5. General Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model 27
6. Financial Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model 28
7. Environmental Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model 29
8. Political Criteria Relative Importance for Base Mode 30
9. Social Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model 32
10. Technical Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model 33
11. Results of Generation Alternative Comparisons Using AHP Model 36
12. Results of the Sensitivity Analysis 41

4
List of Figures

1. 2004 Energy Use by Source for the Province of Ontario 16

2. Typical Ontario Winter Electricity Demand Profile 17
3. Ontario’s Forecasted Electrical Energy Demand 2010 to 2030 18
4. Ontario’s Incremental Fuel Source Changes by Year 20
5. of the 2011 Ontario Provincial Election Results 31

Declaration of Conflict of Interest and Disclaimer:

As a current employee of Enbridge Gas Distribution Incorporated in the role of Director of Natural Gas
Storage, I do have access natural gas industry information that has played a role in the preparation of
this paper and in the development of the decision model presented. Enbridge is engaged in most forms
of energy gathering and production, transportations, storage and distribution. This includes oil, natural
gas, natural gas liquids and electricity. Enbridge also owns and operates on shore wind facilities in
Ontario as well as solar photovoltaic facilities.

Although a current employee of Enbridge Gas Distribution Incorporated none of the material prepared
and/or presented is intended to reflect the opinions or positions of Enbridge Gas Distribution
Incorporated or Enbridge Incorporated. This material has been prepared by me and for the sole purpose
of the McMaster University Masters of Engineering and Public Policy program and is in no way intended
to reflect the view or position of any Enbridge organization. This material has not been directly drawn
from any current or future Enbridge project and is not intended to influence the direction or any
decisions related to any Enbridge programs, projects or initiatives. Any subsequent material or opinions
offered do not reflect the opinions or position of Enbridge in any way.

5
1. Introduction

This paper will present a decision process used to provide one answer to the question, should Ontario
develop wind turbines in the Great Lakes for electrical power generation? To meet the original and
ambitious goal of eliminating coal fired generation in the province of Ontario and the subsequent
ambitious goal of creating a renewable energy economy major changes to the Ontario electrical system
would be and are necessary, starting with the source of the electricity. Thousands of megawatts of
installed capacity will be needed to replace the remaining coal fired generation plants and to meet the
growing demand within the province. Using the global criteria of financial, environmental, political,
social and technical issue with sub-criteria in each area, a decision analysis is completed for a selection
of potential electrical energy resource. The focus will be on the Ontario jurisdictions, which touches all
of the Great Lakes except Lake Michigan. Renewable energy development programs in Ontario
accelerated in 2009 and 2010 based on the passing of Bill 150 or the Green Energy and Green Economy
Act in 20096. The goal of this paper will be to present a balanced view of the potential for offshore wind
generating projects in the Great Lakes considering not only the short term economic and political goals
but also the inevitable social, environment and technical concerns.

The widely accepted concerns over global warming resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels and the
simple fact that fossil fuels are a non-renewable energy source has lead to the emerging and growing
renewable energy industry(s) in world. Looking specifically at the Great Lakes area and Ontario, the
provincial government of Ontario established a policy goal of eliminating the existing coal fired
generating capacity of 6440 MW by the year 2014.5 To accomplish this an ambitious plan of electricity
conservation combined with a Feed In Tariff or FIT program for renewable electricity generation was
solidified with the introduction of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 20094. With this act and
the FIT program, wind power was immediately made more economical with contract rates of 13.5
cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for on-shore wind projects and 19.0 cents per kilowatt hour for off-shore
projects.12 This pricing compares quite favourably, from the owner’s perspective, to the current average
weighted price for Ontario in 2011 of 2.94 cents per kWh (see Appendix 13).

Today Ontario has installed approximately 800 onshore wind turbines on the eastern shore of Lake
Huron and on the northern shore of Lake Erie with an installed capacity of approximately 1500 MW.
Although there are several proposed offshore projects none have received approvals at this point and in
fact in February of 2011 the provincial government placed a moratorium on any further work on off

6
shore wind projects. The reasons given at the time was the need for further research in to the
environmental impacts of offshore wind in the fresh water bodies.35 Others speculated that this was
simply a political move designed appease the growing public opposition to large scale wind
development of any form and specifically opposition from the sitting governments currently held
ridings.40

With coal fired generation capacity remaining in service and still providing electrical energy to the
province in 2011 and growth in demand for electricity, the provincial government will need to move
forward with some form of incremental generation. This paper will review the development of energy
policy from the perspective of a rational policy as defined by T.R.Dye.4 Dye outlined a series of elements
needed to establish what he referred to as a ration policy with the specific goals of establishing public
policy that should not cost the public more than the benefits of that policy and that policy makers
should seek to maximize social gain. This would likely be a reasonable approach and one that would
likely be a good approach for establishing an energy policy in Ontario.

With the rational policy development framework reviewed a summary of the current electrical energy
supply and demand in the province is given in an effort to provide additional background and directional
information as input into the policy development and decision making process. Using information from
the period that the current provincial energy policy as evolved (2003 – 2011) we can see that progress
has been made toward the implementation of renewable electricity generation and some progress on
the elimination of coal fire generation, however, there is still considerable work required.

With all of this background information in place a decision analysis model, developed for this paper, is
presented that uses the Analytical Hierarchy Process developed by Tom Saaty.45 This model is applied
to the electrical generation alternatives available to Ontario after eliminating nuclear and hydro
alternatives as given in Ontario’s electrical generation future along with the assumption that the goal of
eliminating coal fired generation by 2014 will in fact be met. Large scale on shore wind, off shore wind,
solar photovoltaic’s, distributed generation combined cycle natural gas and the conversion of the
remaining coal fired generation plant to natural gas are all evaluated as reasonable alternatives. The
decision process model weights the general criteria of financial, environmental, political, social and
technical attributes for the comparison of the various generation alternatives. A base scenario is
established with an admittedly somewhat subjective result that is then tested against a sensitivity
analysis for the off shore wind alternative.

7
With the results from the base scenario, a most favourable scenario for off shore wind and a least
favourable scenario for off shore wind, conclusions with recommendation are offered.

2.0 Energy Policy Development as a Rational Policy Model

Leading into the 2003 Ontario provincial election the Ontario Liberal Party set the direction for a
significant shift in energy policy for the province. In the party`s election platform document,
Government That Works for You, The Ontario Liberal Plan for a More Democratic Ontario1 , the Liberal
Party identified the need to address the health and environmental impacts from air pollution and
specifically air pollution from the coal fired electrical generation in Ontario. This theme is repeated in 3
sections of the document with the greatest emphasis under the Growing Strong Communities section.
Here the party states,`` We will shut down Ontario’s coal-burning power plants by 2007 and replace
them with cleaner sources of energy.”, and goes on to tells the reader that,” The days of burning coal
will soon be behind us. We will move to clean alternatives like natural gas and exciting renewable
sources like hydro, wind and landfill methane. This will increase supply, open up new markets and create
thousands of new clean energy jobs.” To achieve these ambitious goals new and sweeping energy
policies would be required, however, this would not be realized until 2009 with the passing of Bill 150,
The Green Energy and Green Economy Act.9

In the text Understanding Public Policy by T.R. Dye, the concept of a rational policy is defined.4 This
concept simply states that the cost for a public policy should not exceed the benefits of that policy and
that policy makers should seek to maximize social gain. For the government controlled electrical system
with the inherent technical and financial systems, a rational policy model would seem to be a likely
route for a successful path to a cleaner and renewable energy future.

1. know all of the societal value preferences and their relative weights
2. know all of the policy alternatives
3. know all of the consequences of each policy alternative available

4. calculate the costs and benefits of each policy alternative

5. select the most efficient policy alternative

8
2.1 Societal Value Preferences and Their Relative Weights

To build a rational policy Dye first identifies the need for a government to know all of the societal value
preferences and their relative weights. In the case of public health versus coal derived energy this
value choice would appear to be clear. Under the last term of the previous Ontario Conservative
government (1993 – 2003) the number of smog alerts and smog days had increased dramatically from
the previous 4 years (Table 1, Appendix 1) going from 14 advisories and 28 smog days to 27 advisories
and 73 smog days. At that time Ontario had 4 coal fired generating plants operating that produced
approximately 18 % of the electricity for Ontario (Appendix 3, Figure 4). The links between the negative
health effects from smog generated from coal fired electricity generation and societies desire to
improve overall health is not difficult to define and communicate. Offering a policy to close dirty and
polluting coal plants would appear to match the Ontario society’s values. The relative weights may be
slightly more complicated given the probabilistic nature of health for any given member of society when
compared to the immediacy of an electric bill. The part of the policy that was not articulated or perhaps
not fully understood at the time was the implication to the cost of electricity if the capacity provided by
the coal plants was to be replaced. The previous government had fixed the retail electricity cost at 4.3
cents per kilowatt hour and it would not be unreasonable to assume that Ontario society would prefer
to not have electricity rates increase or at least not increase dramatically. The impact of higher
electricity costs being not only the higher costs to the individual rate payer but also the potential job
losses from higher input costs to business and industry.

2.2 Know all of the Policy Alternatives

Next Dye suggests that a government should know all of the policy alternatives to construct the rational
policy. The immediate and simplest choice leading into this policy change would appear to be the
elimination of coal fired generation. This would then be followed by a program to replace the needed
capacity with alternatives that are cleaner, renewable and would have an overall positive impact to the
Ontario economy. This assumes that this policy issue is or can be isolated to coal fired generation. If the
specific problem to be addressed however, is more generally the negative implications and impacts of
smog then a rational staring point in developing alternatives for this new policy would be to understand
the source of the smog and reduce or eliminate those sources starting with the largest sources. In June
of 2004, the new Liberal government complete a study that did just that. The Ontario Ministry of the
Environment’s report titled, Ontario’s Clean Air Action Plan: Protecting Environmental and Human

9
Health in Ontario2 shows that from the Ontario originated sources of smog the electricity sector,
accounted for 15 per cent of the nitrous oxide emissions, 25 per cent of the sulphur oxides, 6 per cent
of the particulate matter and less than 0.5 per cent of the volatile organic compounds while the
transportation sector accounted for 63 per cent of the nitrous oxide emission, 5 per cent of the sulphur
dioxide, 29 percent of volatile organic compounds and 10 percent of the particulate matter. Another
known source of smog was and is the trans-boarder pollution from the US northeast and central states.
From the 2004 Ontario Ministry of the Environment report we see that approximately 50 per cent of the
smog realized in Ontario at that time came from the United States Midwestern states (Appendix 4,
figure 4). The quantity smog from the coal fired generation in Ontario would then appear to be third
behind trans-boarder and transportation sources. The policy alternatives from a priority perspective
would then lead to corresponding policies in that order.

In 2004 the provincial government commissioned a study titled, Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing
Ontario`s Coal Fired Electricity Generation9 to consider the alternatives relative to the base of
maintaining the coal fired generation capacity. In this study the alternatives considered included the
status quo with coal fired generation unchanged, new incremental natural gas fired generation,
incremental nuclear through the refurbishment of existing Ontario units along with new dedicated
natural gas fired generation and finally, maintaining the coal fired generation capacity with new
emission control systems. The fact that this report, issued in 2005, did not consider renewable energy
sources as a viable alternative.

2.3 Know all of the Consequences of Each Policy

Dye then tells us for a rational policy we need to know all of the consequences of each policy
alternative. When considering smog reduction policy alternatives the Ontario government of 2003
would have had to choose from the smog sources of trans-boarder, transportation or electrical
generation emission sources.

The consequences of any attempt at tackling the trans-boarder sources from the US would likely have
been limited given the federal jurisdictional implications. In addition, the US states relied heavily on coal
fired generation (approximately 50 % of electrical energy produced in 2003) and would not have easily
or quickly offered to reduce or eliminate this source on Ontario’s behalf. (Appendix 6, Table 1.1) The
2004 Ministry of the Environment report offers a number of action items from the Canadian federal

10
government and the US governments that ultimately could assist in the effort to meet Ontario’s smog
reduction goals but no direct Ontario policy solutions are given. Although the positive consequence of
dealing with the trans-board emissions would clearly be significant the consequence of extraordinary
efforts with little or no results was likely a deterrent to pursuing this option as the primary policy.
The transportation sources could be reduced with lower point source emissions through cleaner fuels,
more efficient internal combustion engines or simply with less use of petroleum based transportation.
The 2004 Ministry of the Environment report offers a number of action items that target transportations
emissions through regulations. They include required vehicle inspections with emissions limits, tax
incentives and rebates for alternative fuels and most significantly a joint funding announcement for the
Toronto Transit Commission of $ 1 billion over five years for modernization, maintenance and
expansion. The likely hood of positive consequences from all of these transportation initiatives is
reasonable however all required cooperation and motivation from other stakeholders including the
general public. They also have the possibility of negative consequences including higher licensing and
fuel costs for cars and trucks, higher vehicle purchase and maintenance costs to meet new emission
standards and finally higher federal and provincial taxes to pay for expanded transit systems along with
the higher tolls for use of the transit systems.

The one source of smog that the Ontario government had direct control over (both operational and
regulatory) was and is the electrical sector. As noted in the 2004 Ministry of the Environment report the
closure of the Lakeview Generating Station was a clear policy decision taken by the Ontario government
and back by specific regulations. “The coal-fired Lakeview Generating Station in Mississauga will have to
cease burning coal by April 30, 2005 (O. Reg. 396/01).”2 The positive and intended consequences of this
closure would be reasonably assured, measureable and highly visible to the voting public. An obvious
consequence of closing generating station however, would be the need to replace the generating
capacity with some other form of input fuel. The 2005 Ministry of the Environment report, Cost Benefit
Analysis: Replacing Ontario`s Coal Fired Electricity Generation presents the alternatives considered at
that time. In this study the alternatives considered included nuclear, natural gas and emission controls
for coal. The consequences assessed dealt with externalities of health impacts ranging from minor
illness to acute deaths through an equivalent monetary value of each impact in addition to the standard
capital and fixed and variable operating costs. From this study neither coal alternatives appeared
attractive with the nuclear and natural gas combination yielding the greatest social benefit. Moving
ahead with the planned coal plants closures was now reinforced and targeted for 2007. The 2400

11
megawatt (MW) coal–fired Lakeview generating station in Mississauga located on the shore of Lake
Ontario was the first (and remains the only) closed in 2005. The four remaining coal plants, Nanticoke,
Lambton, Thunder Bay and Atilokan were still in operation and provide the province with approximately
6000 MW of capacity. The next coal plant closure, or conversion in this case, was the Thunder Bay plant
which was to be converted to natural gas before 2007. Work began in 2005 but was halted in 2006 with
the unexpected consequence of local opposition. Local opposition to the conversion was primarily
related to projected job losses related to the shipping and handling of coal and ash though the harbour
and rail systems along with the planned staff reduction at the plant after the conversion. As the 2007
election approached, this project was cancelled with significant payments made to suppliers for work
completed to that point.

2.4 Calculate the Costs and Benefits of Each Policy Alternative

For the rational policy development the next step is the calculation of the costs and benefits of each
policy alternatives. The costs and befits for the trans-boarder emission and the transportation
emissions were not assessed in detail given that the Ontario government had targeted the government
controlled electrical sector for the smog solution. As noted earlier the trans-boarder emissions did not
have a reasonable tactical solution and fell outside of Ontario jurisdiction. The transportation sector
driven primarily by petroleum products could have been and can be significantly impacted through the
expansion and integration of public transit systems. This however requires major funding from all 3
levels of government and is funded through tax revenues and fairs increases, neither of which are
readily accepted by the general public. More recently the concept and promotion of electric vehicles
has been suggested as an alternative that could reduce emission from transportation sources. The costs
for the individual electric vehicle would be a personal cost however the incremental infrastructure to
meet the electrical load increases would need to be considered.

This leaves the cost and benefits for the policy alternative for smog emissions related to electrical
generation. At the start of the policy development process to address smog problem in Ontario, the
2005 report, Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario`s Coal Fired Electricity Generation, addressed the
cost benefit question for the Ontario based electricity generation alternatives. This report recommends
a combination of natural gas and nuclear power to address the electrical power needs of Ontario while
eliminating coal fired generation and considering a total cost perspective including the health and
environmental implications (externalities). This recommended solution had a projected total cost of $ 22

12
billion compared to the then existing coal fired generation scenario of $ 49 billion and $ 32 billion even
with the introduction of further emission reductions through scrubbing. The direct cost of this plan
would be generated from the refurbishment of existing nuclear units (and potential new nuclear units)
in addition to the new builds of natural gas fired generating plants. Fortunately for the Ontario
government, these cost would not be funded through general tax revenues but rather through
electricity rates administer by the Ontario Energy board and seen by consumers through their monthly
electricity bill and not as a income tax increase.

2.5 Select the Most Efficient Policy Alternative

Finally, T.R. Dye notes that the policy makers next need to select the most efficient policy alternative.
From the policy alternatives available to address the smog issues in Ontario, the policy measures
identified by Ontario provincial government related to the government controlled electrical system are
likely the most efficient. The limited number of decision makers and the existing regulatory and control
structure of the Ontario Power Authority, the Ontario Energy Board and the Independent Electrical
System Operator certainly streamline the execution of any desired policy direction changes. From the
initial election platform material of the 2003 Liberal party through to the passing the Green Energy and
Green Economy Act and finally the 2010 Long Term Energy Plan the Ontario Provincial Government has
consistently presented the need to eliminate the coal fire generation in the province and taken steps to
achieve that goal. As a measure of efficiency of this policy one could look at the number of smog
advisories and smog days, however isolating the cause of these changes could be very challenging and
certainly beyond the scope of this paper.

This concept simply states that the cost for a public policy should not exceed the benefits of that policy
and that policy makers should seek to maximize social gain.

For a public policy to be rational the cost of the policy should not exceed the benefits of that policy and
that policy makers should seek to maximize social gain. The current energy policy for the province
appears to have started as a health and environmental policy that evolved into an energy policy and
specifically a green energy and green economy policy. Starting with the original commitment to close
the coal fired generating plants by 2007 in 2003, to the point of applying the harmonized sales tax to
energy consumption in 2010 and placing a moratorium on offshore wind projects in 2011, this policy
appears to have been a series of incremental policy steps rather than one coherent and rational policy.

13
In the William Dunn text, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Second Edition, 1994, Conclusions:
Evaluating Policy Performance, he notes that, "Many goals of public policies and programs are vague.
This means that the same general goals can and do result in specific objectives that conflict with one
another". In the case of the development of a green energy policy to address smog problems and to
create a green economy the overall goal of reducing smog may be achieved at the expense of the overall
economy. In a March 2011 report, The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the
UK, the renewable energy industry in the UK was found to have had a net negative impact on the
economy because of the higher cost of electricity and the need for heavy government subsidies, ”The
report’s key finding is that for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost.”11 The
policy to close all coal fired generation by 2014 remains in place and continues to direct the
development electrical infrastructure in the province together with the Green Energy and Green
Economy Act.

Table 1: Energy Policy Milestones for the Province of Ontario

Energy Policy Milestones for the Province of Ontario

Year Milestone
2003 Liberal Party wins majority 2003 Ontario provincial election
2003 Commitment to close coal fired generating plants by 2007
2005 Lakeview Generating Station (coal fired) closed
2005 Commitment to close coal fired generating plants by 2009
2006 Commit to spend $ 46 billion to rebuild nuclear reactors
2006 Commit to close coal fired generating station by 2014
2007 Liberal Party wins 2 nd majority in Ontario provincial election
2008/9 Global economic crisis – significant manufacturing job losses in Ontario
2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act passed
2010 Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan is released
2010 Harmonized sales tax is applied to energy consumption
2011 A moratorium is placed on off-shore wind turbine projects

14
3. Energy Demand and Supply in the Province of Ontario

To answer the question of whether or not any incremental development of electrical generation is
required including the possibility of off-shore wind, the overall assessment of the current and forecasted
demand and supply situation needs to be understood. The potential changes to the supply mix can
come from an increased demand for electricity, the need to replace existing generating capacity that has
come to the end of its useful life or simply the desire to switch from one input energy source to another.
The Ontario government has attempted to address this issue through Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan
released in 2010.5

3.1 Distinction Between Energy and Electricity

Frequently the term “energy” is used interchangeably with the primary energy source of electricity. The
2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act14 of 2009 is in fact the green electricity and green electric
economy act when considering that the act’s contents deal only with the provincial electrical system and
policies. The 2010 Long Term Energy Plan issued by the Ontario Minister of Energy is in fact the long
term electricity plan. The plan deals with the generation, transmission and policy matters for the Ontario
electrical system. This potential confusion becomes meaningful when considering the development of
province wide “energy” policy base on the premise of significantly reducing the environmental and
health impact to Ontarians. From the Long Term Energy Plan we get the impression that the coal fired
generation contribution to the air issues in Ontario is the most significant contributor to the air pollution
problems in the province. “Worst of all, Ontario relied heavily on five air-polluting coal plants. This
wasn’t just polluting our air, it was polluting our lungs. Doctors, nurses and researchers stated
categorically that coal generation was having an impact on health increasing the incidence of various
respiratory illnesses. A 2005 study prepared for the government found that the average annual health-
related damages due to coal could top $3 billion. For the sake of our well-being, and our children’s well-
being, we had to put a stop to coal.” This leads to a limited focus on the coal fired generation
contributions to the emissions concerns, intentional or other wise, while missing other more significant
contributors.

From the federal department of natural resources, Natural Resources Canada, we see that in fact at the
time of this policy development, 2004, that electricity only accounted for 18 % of the energy use in the
province and from Ontario’s Independent Electrical Systems Operator or the IESO we can see that coal
fired generation accounted for 17 % of the electrical energy produced in the province at the same time

15
(see Appendix 3). This then equals approximately 3 % of the total energy use in the province in 2004
while petroleum base energy consumption accounted for 35 % of the energy use and natural gas use
accounted for an additional 32% of energy use. If the primary goal of this energy policy shift was to
ensure “...our well being, and our children’s well-being...”5 then why would the energy policy not target
the 67 % of fossil fuel use rather than the 3 % of specifically coal? As noted above, targeting the coal
fired generation may have been view by the policy makers as the most efficient policy alternative given
the provincial governments control over this sector and the likelihood of making progress with this
focus. None the less, this approach left significant room for additional air quality improvement from
other energy sources.

Figure 1: The 2004 Energy Use by Source for the Province of Ontario
2004 Energy Use by Source for Ontario

1%
5% 5% 18%
Electricity
4% Natural Gas
Oils,Gasoline,Diesel,Kerosine, Aviation Fuel
Propane,NGL,Still Gas
Coal+Coke

35% Wood, Wood Waste

32%
Other

Source: Natural Resources Canada

3.2. Electrical Energy Demand in Ontario

The demand for electricity generally is defined by both the peak demand which is usually given in power
unit megawatts (MW) and the energy requirements which are usually defined kilowatt hours or
megawatt hours. The peak power requirement is important given the need to match the peak system
demand in real time with the combined installed and available generating and import capacity. The
peak summer demand for electricity in Ontario occurred on August 6th of 2006 at 27,005 MW and the
peak winter demand occurred on December 20th of 2004 at 24,979 MW according to the IESO18 . The
demand for electricity varies by season, by day of the week and by hour of the day. The electricity
demand through the day can be seen from the IESO’s real time reporting with the minimum demand
typically between 3 – 4 am the maximum demand typically between 4 – 7 pm (figure 2).

16
 Figure 2 : Typical Ontario Winter Electricity Demand Profile

Source: The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator

The overall energy requirement again varies by season with a key contributor being the weather. For
example, hot summer days with little change between the daytime and night time temperatures will
drive a high air conditioning load throughout the day and night. Ontario’s peak annual energy
requirements occurred in 2005 with a total annual energy demand of 157 terawatt hours or 157 million
megawatt hours. In 2010 the Ontario’s electrical energy demand was 142 million megawatt hours which
was only up slightly from the previous year.

Table 2: Peak Electrical Demand and Electrical Energy Demand for Ontario

Source : IESO, 18 Month Outlook, December 2011 to May 2011

17
According to Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan there will be only a net 0.6% growth in electricity demand
over the next 20 years. This is assuming 28 million meagwatt hours annually of electrical energy
conservation linked to a displace 7100 megawatts of peak installed capacity from conservation by 2030.
Without significant incentives and targeted policies and programs this 14 % reduction in demand may be
optimistic or a minimum a challenge. The medium growth scenario given by the long term energy plan
then could be interpreted to be somewhere between a high of 198 terawatt hours and low of 170
terawatt hours with and without the assumed conservation impacts.

Figure 3: Ontario’s Forecasted Electrical Energy Demand 2010 to 2030

5
Source: Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan, 2010

3.3 Electricity Energy Supply

3.3.1 Supply Change from 2003 to 2011

Ontario’s current installed electrical generating capacity is 34,962 megwatts.19 This is made up of the
11,446 megawatts of nuclear, 9549 megawatts of natural gas, 7947 megawatts of hydro, 4484
megawatts of coal, 1412 megawatts of wind and 122 megawatts of other source such as wood, biogas
and solar. In addition, the province has access to 4800 megawatts of import capacity at any point in
time. All of these supplies will combine to meet the projected 142 million megawatt hours of demand
for 2011. It is worth noting that the installed capacities are not always the available capacities. Typically
a portion of the installed capacities will be unavailable for routine maintenance and in the case of the

18
nuclear fleet, often extended unplanned maintenance. For example, for the month of September of
2011 the IESO reported that the average available capacity for the month was 25,228 megawatts
compared to the 34,962 installed capacity or a full 27 % of the installed capacity.20

From 2003 to 2011, the generation supply mix in Ontario has changed significantly. The single largest
change has been the quiet addition 5634 megawatts of distributed generation capacity in the form of
combine cycle and simple cycle natural gas generators. Despite the recent policy reversals of the
planned installations of natural gas fire distributed generation facilities in Oakville and Mississauga, this
government has acknowledged the need for reliable, on demand and cost effective generation as a
foundation for the long term electrical energy plan in Ontario.5,31,32 From 2003 to 2010 the natural gas
fired plants provided a 77 % increase to the electrical energy supply going from 11.6 terawatt hours in
2003 to 20.5 terawatt hours in 2010. With a 2011 installed capacity of 9549 mega watts, natural fired
generating facilities are and will be the second largest source of electrical energy in the province next to
nuclear. The next largest change was the re-commissioning of several nuclear units at the Pickering and
Bruce nuclear plants. These units increased the installed nuclear capacity by 2752 megawatts and added
to a 32 % increase in supply from nuclear over the same period. Coal sources generation decreased by
66 % from 2003 to 2010 although there was a reversal of the reduction trend from 2009 to 2010 and the
total installed capacity of coal fire plants dropped by 3100 megawatts from a starting point of 7614
megawatts. Wind generation started in the province in 2006 and has steadily grown each year.
Currently wind generation accounts for approximately 2 % of the electrical energy of the province
contributing 2.8 terawatt hours in 2010. This will increase in 2011 with additional generating capacity
being completed this year bringing the total installed wind capacity to 1412 megawatts.

3.3.2 Future System Supply

From the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s Long Term Energy Plan we can see that the plan to meet the
projected demand of 198 terawatt hours calls for the elimination of all coal fired generation, growing
nuclear and hydro capacity marginally while significantly growing the renewable capacity and supply
while counting on significant conservation efforts (see Table 3).

19
 Figure 4: Ontario’s Incremental Fuel Source Changes by Year

Ontario Incremental Generation Source Fuel Changes by Year

2500

2000
Change in Generation Capacity MW

1500

1000 Nuclear
Hydro
500 Coal
Natural Gas
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Wind
-500 Solar
Other
-1000
Linear (Natural Gas)

-1500 Linear (Wind)

-2000

-2500
Year

Source: Independent Electricity System Operator

Table 3: Changes in Installed Generating and Supply by Fuel Type, 2010 to 2030
Ontario Long Term Electrical Energy Plan Changes by Input Fuel
2010 2030 Change 2010 to 2030

Fuel Ins tal l ed Annua l Ins tal l ed Annua l Ins tal l ed Annua l
Ca pa ci ty Production Ca pa ci ty Production Ca pa ci ty Production
(MW) (TWH) (MW) (TWH) (MW) (TWH)

Coal 6484 12.5 0 0 -6484 -12.5

Nuclear 11446 82.9 12000 91.1 554 8.2
Hydro 7947 30.7 9000 39.6 1053 8.9
Gas 8557 20.5 9549 13.8 992 -6.7
Wind 1311 2.8 10000 19.8 8689 17
Others 75 1.3 700 5.5 625 4.2
Sub-Total 35820 150.7 41249 169.8 5429 19.1
Conservation 6.3 27.7
Total 157 197.5
Notes :
1) No i ns tal l ed ca pa ci ty for na tura l ga s i s gi ven i n the LTEP. As s umed 2011 i ns tal l ed
ca pa ci ty ma i ntai ned to ma tch renewa bl e growth.
2) No s pl i t between wi nd, s ol a r a nd bi oma s s i s gi ven i n the LTEP. As s umed s pl i t a t ~10x for
s ol a r a nd bi oma s s .

Sources: IESO and Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan, 2010

The increase given in Table 3 for natural gas installed capacity is the 2011 forecasted capacity while the
annual production is given in the Long Term Energy Plan. The plan does not give the future or planned

20
natural gas fired generation capacity while all other fuel types have specific installed capacities and
annual supplies detailed. The plan notes that natural gas would continue at about 10 % of the overall
supply however, according the Independent Electrical System Operator, in 2010 natural gas fired
generation supplied 14 % of the provinces electrical energy. The Long Term Energy Plan does offer that
natural gas generation is needed to support the intermittent nature of the renewable capacity, to meet
local requirements and to meet overall system capacity requirements with the uncertainty of the
nuclear plan. Given all of this and especially given the significant growth planned for renewable fuel
types, it is inconsistent to plan for a reduction in the natural gas supply at 2030. For example, at only 50
% of the current ratio of renewable fuel types to natural gas energy, the 2030 energy supply from
natural gas would need to be approximately triple its current output, or 60 terawatt hours, compared to
the 2010 supply of 20 terawatt hours.

A final supply option not mention in the long term plan or highlighted by any of the government
organizations is the import capacity that Ontario has available from New York, Michigan, Minnesota,
Manitoba and Quebec. There is currently 4800 MW of peak import capacity available.5 Future
incremental renewable energy import capacity is possible from Manitoba and Quebec with the large
scale hydro electric power developments planned in both provinces.33,34 The current Ontario
government appears to be dismissing any reliance on imports and particularly any supply from the US
which still relies heavily of coal for power generations. “In 2003, Ontario was a net importer and much
of this imported supply came from U.S. coal power, which increased prices and reduced Ontario’s air
quality. Ontario is now a net exporter of electricity.”5 Given the policy goals of improving the heath
Ontarians and improving the environment in Ontario any dependence on coal fired generation from the
United States would be counterproductive, however increasing the transmission capacity and
establishing long term contracts with Manitoba and Quebec for their hydro potential would be a rational
fit.

3.3.3 Long Term Electrical Supply Implication for Wind Generation

Given the goal of reaching approximately 10,000 megawatts of wind by 2018, the province will need to
install wind capacity at roughly 5 times the rate seen between 2006 and 2011 or 1226 megawatts per
year. Considering that the total installed wind generating capacity is current only 1412 megawatts after
6 years of development (235 megawatts per year), reaching 10,000 megawatts by 2018 would be a

21
remarkable achievement. Making this challenge even more difficult is the province’s self imposed 2011
moratorium on off shore wind projects in the Great Lakes.36 Considering the only alternative then to be
land based wind turbine sites, what would the scope and scale of these projects be to meet the Long
Term Energy Plan goals? With the current individual wind turbines typical between 2 – 3 megawatt per
unit and the planned 10,000 megawatts of wind power by 2018, Ontario will need to add approximately
490 wind turbines per year for the next 7 years or 3500 wind turbines total. With the current set back
requirements for wind turbines from the nearest receptor of 550 m to 1500 m being challenged rather
vigorously and given the recent trend of the provincial government to reverse support for energy
projects given local opposition, then it is reasonable to assume that the set back requirements will
increase.33 Using an average set back requirement of 1000 m, the 490 wind turbines per year will
require an area of approximately 1500 square kilometres per year, at a minimum. This would
accumulate to a total land use of approximately 10,000 square kilometres over the next 7 years.
Although the land area of Ontario is over 1 million square kilometres, only 1 tenth of that area is within
a reasonable distance to the major population centers in the south. This certainly leaves the wind
section of the Long Term Energy Plan with a major and perhaps insurmountable challenge which brings
us back to the need to at least consider off-shore wind sites.

4. Potential for Wind Generation in the Great Lakes

Wind energy from off shores sites provide the potential advantages over on shore sites of higher wind
speeds, greater load factors and surface areas without existing landowner or adjacent landowner
conflicts. The potential disadvantages include the need for increased capital to build major facilities
below, on and above a large body of water, and higher operating costs. Off shore wind development
will likely require more extensive interconnect facilities to get the power gathered and back to shore
given likely objections to any project within visual range of shore. Building in salt water environments
brings the corrosive effectives of the oceans and building in fresh water can bring the challenges of ice,
including impacts, scorer in shallower waters for infrastructure placed or buried on the bottom and ice
build-ups on infrastructure above the water. Despite the advantages and disadvantages of off shore
wind, and in particular offshore wind the Great Lakes, the potential energy available to a relatively close
and large population base both on the US and Canadian sides of the lakes will be hard to ignore.

22
4.1 Estimates of Wind Energy Available in the Great Lakes

In 2008 the Ontario Power Authority commissioned a study to evaluate 64 potential off-shore wind
generating sites. This study was completed by Helimax Energy Incorporated and based on the given
potential projects sites determined that the available power would be approximately 34,000 megawatts
with an estimated load factor of 36.7.37 This would yield a potential energy output of 111 terawatt
hours per year. Recalling that the historical peak power demand in the province was approximately
27,000 megawatts with historical maximum annual electrical energy requirement was approximately
152 terawatt hours. Clearly this is a significant potential electrical energy source.

This significant energy resource will also be available and noticed by the United States and more
specifically the 8 Great Lakes boundry states. The United States Department of Energy through the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory completed a more general study of the wind potential for all off
shore sites surrounding the lower mainland of the United States.6 The Great Lakes region was included
in this study and for the limited constraints of water depths of 0 to 30 meters, average annual wind
speeds of 7 meters per second or more, areas within 50 nautical miles (93 kilometres) of shore and for a
tower height of 90 meters above the water, the available wind power was estimated to be 176,700
megawatts. . If the depth constraint is move to depths between 0 and 60 meters then the total
offshore wind resource potential grows to 283,100 megawatts. Although other constraints such as
avoiding, environmentally sensitive areas, shipping lanes, populated near shore areas and locations with
impractical transmission interconnects, would further reduce this potential wind resource it would
remain a significant and attractive.

4.2 Proposed Offshore Wind Projects in Ontario’s Jurisdiction

Without interest in investment and development in off shore in the Great Lakes any potential energy
from this resource would remain just that, a potential. Prior to the reinstatement of the moratorium on
off shore wind generation by province in 2011 and with the 19 cents per kilowatt hour feed in tariff rate
originally proposed by the Ontario Ministry of the Energy in 2009, there was considerable interest in
proceeding with a number of off shore projects. In the 2008 report complete by Helimax Energy for the
Ontario Power Authority 64 sites where identified and evaluated. It is worth noting that of these 64 sites
20 sites have the potential of producing more than 750 megawatts each. According to 4c Offshore, a UK
based engineering consulting firm that tracks offshore activities world wide, there are 23 proposed
projects for the Great lakes within the Ontario jurisdiction.38 Of these, the Wolfe Island Shoal project

23
proposed for the eastern end of Lake Ontario was considered the most likely to proceed with
Windstream Wolfe Island Shoal Incorporated being awarded a contract from the Ontario Power
Authority for this 300 megawatt project in April of 2010.39

In February of 2011 the Ontario Ministry of the Energy and the Ministry of the Environment issued a
statement halting all processes and application related to off shore wind development. The primary
reason given was that further scientific study was need and that provincial government would be taking
a cautious approach.35 In September of 2011, Trillium Wind Power Corporation announced that it was
suing the provincial government for $ 2.25 billion. From a Richard Blackwell Globe and Mail newspaper
article from September 28 of 2011, “ Trillium’s statement of claim, filed Wednesday in Ontario Superior
Court, also alleges that the decision was made for purely political reasons, to appease wind-power critics
in the run-up to next week’s provincial election.” Clearly the immediate prospects for the off shore wind
in the Ontario jurisdiction are on hold until the political will and energy imperative returns. Short after
an off shore project proposed for Lake Ontario with the New York State jurisdiction also pulled the plug
but in this case the New York Power Authority gave economic reasons for ending its support for the 150
MW project.42 “The state-owned New York Power Authority (NYPA) said on Tuesday it had ended the
proposed Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project due to high costs and the weak economy.” Whether for
environmental, political or financial reasons, potential off shore wind projects in the Great Lakes have
lost any momentum they may have previous had.

5. Decision Analysis for Future Electrical Generation in the Province of Ontario

With over 9000 megawatts of new renewable generation planned for Ontario over the next 20 years the
question of whether or not to proceed with development of off-shore wind projects will be asked again
at some point. To make that decision a number of factors will be considered by the policy makers
brought together with, hopefully, some comprehensive method to arrive at a rational decision. Using
the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Tom Saaty46 a model was constructed for this paper
to test the comparative merits of off-shore wind generation relative to the other alternatives available.
This model is outlined below with the results of a base scenario followed by a sensitivity test intended to
asses if off-shore wind in Great Lakes is more or less likely with changing circumstances.

24
5.1 Decision Model Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

First a decision hierarchy was constructed starting with the goal of replacing the existing (or remaining)
coal fired generation in Ontario with some preferred form of electrical generation. From this goal,
general criteria are defined which are intended to clarify the decision analysis and are further sub
divided to sub-criteria with the same intent at a more specific level.

With the decision hierarchy defined, relative importance comparisons of the general criteria for the
global weighting and relative importance comparisons of the sub criteria for their weighting is
completed. This exercise is highly dependent on the experience and values of the individual or groups
completing this exercise. When attempting to rank the relative importance of one criterion compare to
another there will frequently be a range of scores possible. For this paper the comparison is done
considering the view of the policy makers while keeping in mind the development of this policy and
ultimately the decision from a reasonably rational position. Certainly there are multiple outcomes
possible. As defined by Saaty, the ranking scale applied is given in table 4.

Table 4: Rank Scale Used for AHP Relative Comparisons

Ranking Scale
Ranking
Definition
Score
1 Equal Importance
2
3 Moderatly Higher Importance
4
5 Strongly Higher Importance
6
7 Extremly Higher Importnace
8
9 Singular Importance

With the decision hierarchy and the relative importance established for the general and sub criteria,
alternatives available for this decision are defined. For the generation of electricity in the province of
Ontario only alternatives currently available and of sufficient scale to reasonably meet the projected
demands are consider. This includes the longer term possibility of off shore wind despite the
moratorium currently in place. The alternatives are then compared for relative importance under each
of the sub criteria using the weighted results of the relative importance comparison for the general and
sub criteria. Summing the scores of each alternative under for all sub-criteria yields a total score. The

25
alternative with the highest score is considered the alternative with the greatest importance or the
recommended alternative.

5.2 Decision Hierarchy for Coal Generation Replacements

First, the government will need to confirm the primary goal of the decision to be made followed by the
general criterion to be used in assessing this decision. Improving the health Ontarian’s and their
environment through the elimination of coal fired generation and replacing it with more acceptable
alternatives continues to be a key policy goal for the current government, as it has been since 2003. A
number of sub-goals follow from this original goal that will aid in the decision process. Considering the
financial, environmental and political sub goals around this decision is a reasonable start. These general
criteria continue to be consistent themes in the government’s policy documents, such as the Long Term
Energy Plan and they are criteria repeatedly brought forward in the public debate on energy policy and
decisions. Costs of the externalities from coal or natural gas generation, the cost of the replacement
alternatives such as nuclear and re-election implications of changing the generation sources are all
examples that fit into these general criteria. The social impacts of changing the source of electrical
energy in the province are less obvious but certainly a factor to be considered. As can be seen in the
wind energy debate44, the local communities that the wind farms are located or proposed become
engaged in a debate about the local economic benefit, potential health impacts and aesthetics that can
ultimately create an unintended and previously unknown division in the community. The technical issue
related to modifying a real time large scale integrate electrical power network also needs to be consider
as part of the decision. The fundamental considerations of system integration, constructability and
reliability are examples of technical issues impacting this policy decision. Again, as seen this the Long
Term Energy Plan, the deteriorated state of the electrical system prior to 2003 is a common theme. The
general criteria of financial, environmental, political, social, and technical aspects are used in this AHP
analysis.

To complete the hierarchy each of these is further broken down into sub criteria for a more complete
assessment of the decision. Under the financial criteria the capital cost, operating and maintenance
cost, the ability for the solution to independently compete economically (economic sustainability) and
the cost of externalities are considered. For the environmental considerations atmospheric emissions,
the ability to reverse the impacts or remove the system, the potential for unintended environmental
spills and the impacts to natural habitat are used. Under the political general criteria the impact to the
political parties base support, the potential for opposition for nongovernmental organizations, how a

26
solution will fit with election timing and the tactical application for the governing party during their term
in office are assessed. Under the social criteria the sub criteria are net impacts to job creation, the
impact on the ongoing relationship between the United States and Canada and the impacts on the local
community. Finally, the sub criteria used for the technical general criteria are the level to which a
technology is existing and proven, the ability for the existing supporting infrastructure to support the
solution, the complexity of the and likely hood of success of the application and permitting process and
the factors effecting the ease with which the solution can actually be constructed.

These general and sub criteria make up the hierarchy used in this decision analysis model. The
graphical representation of the hierarchy is given in Appendix 9.

5.3 Relative Importance of the General Criteria

As given in Table 6, each of the general criteria is compared from the perspective of the policy maker to
establish the global priority of each. For the base case in the model financial criteria is considered to be
the highest priority with the environmental priority very close behind. As seen in both the Long Term
Energy Plan and in the Green Energy and Green Economy Act both of these aspects of the energy policy
are dominant. The technical requirements are third with the basic assumption that the technologies to
be used are feasible and available. The social aspects of the policy are forth in the weighting which given
the apparent lack of desire by the current government to deal with the potential complex and time
consuming social implications is consistent. Perhaps not sufficiently weighted in this base scenario is the
political aspects of the policy. Considering the redirection of several key decision during the
implementation of the energy plan in 2010 and 2011 leading up the 2011 fall provincial election the
political implications of energy policy decision could play a more significant role in the policy direction.
For this base scenario however, the short term implications of election related decision were not
considered to be significant.

Table 5: General Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model

Electrical Energy Generation Alternatives for Ontario (base wind in GL): Global Criteria
Fi na nci a l Envi ron Pol i ti ca l Soci a l Techni ca l Tota l s Global Priority
Financial 1.00 1.11 3.33 3.33 1.11 9.89 0.30
Environmental 0.90 1.00 5.00 1.25 1.33 9.48 0.29
Political 0.30 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.00 0.09
Social 0.30 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.60 0.11
Technical 0.90 0.75 2.00 2.00 1.00 6.65 0.20
Total 32.62 1.00

27
 5.3.1 Financial Sub Criteria Relative Importance

The relative weighting of the financial sub-criteria is given in Table 7. For the financial sub criteria of
capital and operating and maintenance costs, 2010 and 2011 data from the United States Energy
Information Administration and the 2010 Burt and Mullins paper, The Rush to Renewables is used.46,47
Considering the perspective of the Ontario policy makers the capital cost is less of an immediate
implication relative to the implication of increasing electricity rates and the cost of the long term
contract costs for generation development by non government entities. The Ontario Feed in Tariff
contract rates range from 10.3 cents per kilowatt hour to 71.3 cents per kilowatt hour which are 2 to 18
times the 2010 weighted average hourly price (see Appendix 13). In addition, the renewable require a
secondary electricity source that can rapidly respond to the fluctuations in renewable outputs. Since
2003 the Ontario electrical system has added over 5000 megawatts of natural gas fired generating
capacity to handle this requirement amongst others (see figure 3). The cost of externalities, although a
key policy driver, is a difficult concept to relay to the general public compared to the immediacy of a
hydro bill increase.

Table 6: Financial Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model

Sub-Criteria: Financial
Ca pi ta l OM Econ Sus Externa l i ti es Wei ghti ng Global Priority
Capital 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.80 3.30 0.18
OM 2.00 1.00 0.80 2.00 5.80 0.32
Econ Sus 2.00 1.25 1.00 2.00 6.25 0.35
Cost of Extern 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.75 0.15
Total 18.10 1.00

A relatively recent development in North America energy pricing is the decline and consistently low
price of natural gas relative to the price fluctuations and peak prices seen in the first decade of the 21st
century (see Appendix 15). From 2010 the Henry Hub price has fallen from highs in the range of $ 8 US
to prices below $ 4 US per 1 million BTU’s. This price change has been driven by the continuing growth
of the shale gas deposit developments throughout North America. These supplies have been made
economically and technically viable with the use of horizontal directional drilling methods combined
with hydraulic rock fracturing. From the United States Energy Information Administration we can see
that technically feasible shale gas reserves are multiples of the previously proven reserves. Assuming a
future with as high as $ 8 per 1 million BTU’s natural gas would then be an input fuel source at
approximate 3 cents per kilowatt hour. With gas fired co-generation and combined cycle technologies

28
available and the widespread direct end user applications for natural gas (by-passing the electrical
system all together) the near future price competiveness of other energy sources will be challenged.

5.3.2 Environmental Sub Criteria Relative Importance

The relative weighting of the environmental sub-criteria is given in Table 8. With a primary goal of
improving the health and the environment of Ontarians through the elimination of coal fire generation
the atmospheric emission of any solution will need to be weighted highly in the decision process.
However, if any of the solutions experiences a catastrophic spills into the environment then the long
term goal will be quickly forgotten and replaced with the realities of the acute impact. Any negative
impact on natural habitats is also an important factor when deciding which types of electrical generation
should be deployed in the future. If there is noticeable habitat loss it would be difficult to reconcile this
against the original goal of improving the environment of Ontarians. Finally, given the inevitable
unintended consequences of any solution, assessing the ability to reverse the impact of the generation
facility or system would be worth considering.

Table 7: Environmental Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model

Sub Criteria: Environmental

Atmos Emissions Reversibility Spills Habitat Impact Wei ghti ng Global Priority
Atmos Emissions 1.00 2.00 1.33 1.67 6.00 0.29
Reversibility 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.50 2.20 0.10
Spills 0.75 5.00 1.00 2.00 8.75 0.42
Habitat Impact 0.60 2.00 0.50 1.00 4.10 0.19
Total 21.05 1.00

Specifically, wind turbine electrical generation has the environmental advantage, when compared to
almost all other forms of electrical generation of not consuming any fuel and does not produce any
production related emissions such as nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, solid waste or radioactive waste. In addition the wind
turbine sites can be quickly and relatively easily be removed and restored. And yet the potential impact
to bird populations, aquatic life, bat populations, and human populations from noise and light flicker
appear to be true barriers to adoption of this technology. For the potential off shore solutions the
added implications to aquatic habit need to be considered along with the additional operational
impacts.

29
Environmental impact studies will need to be conducted on a project by project bases to ascertain the
environmental impact of each proposed project. There is no question that offshore wind has a
environmental advantage over coal, oil, natural gas and arguably hydro and nuclear. The macro view of
environmental impacts would suggest that offshore wind should be a desired solution to Ontario’s
energy needs. There is little doubt that wind power is environmentally sustainable when compare to
other forms of electrical generation.

5.3.3 Political Sub Criteria Relative Importance

With the energy policy (electrical energy) direction established by the Ontario government with specific
accountability through the Ontario Ministry of Energy and indirectly from the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment and Natural Resources any energy policy change and the decision process to concluded on
a new direction will certainly be influenced by real or potential political implications. As given in table 9,
the most significant political aspect of the decision process was determined to be the implications of the
election timing. The potential to elect or re-elect a

Table 8: Political Criteria Relative Importance for Base Mode

Sub Criteria: Political
Base Support Opp NGO's Election Timing Tactical App. Wei ghti ng Global Priority
Base Support 1.00 1.33 1.00 0.25 3.58 0.15
Opp NGO's 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.50 2.50 0.11
Election Timing 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 11.00 0.47
Tactical App. 3.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 6.50 0.28
Total 23.58 1.00

Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) or perhaps more importantly the potential to unseat an
existing MPP is strong motivation to shape policy. Leading up the 2007 and the 2011 provincial election
several energy related projects were halted including the 2011 decision to halt development of off shore
wind projects.30,31,35,40,43 The second most dominate aspect of the political sub criteria is the tactical
application of the policy direction for government. For example, with the 2008 and 2009 economic
retraction the provincial government was quickly able to link the health and environmental issues from
their previous mandate to the economic issues of the second mandate. The outcome was the Green
Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009. Next, the impact of a policy on a political parties base support
groups will influence the decision process. The outcome of the 2011 provincial election dramatically
shows the rural and urban split of the electoral base in the province with Liberal Government being
largely limited to the urban ridings. The off shore wind development moratorium addressed concerns
from local residents in Toronto and Kingston while the reversal on the natural gas distributed energy

30
plants in Oakville and Mississauga address local concerns in those communities as well. All of these
ridings elected Liberal candidates. Areas of the province that had developed opposition to the large
scale wind energy projects or had additional on shore projects planned all voted Progressive
Conservative or New Democrat.

Figure 5: Map of the 2011 Ontario Provincial Election Results

Source: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

New Democratic Party

Liberal Party

Progressive Conservative Party

The last political sub criteria weighted is the risk of opposition from None Government Organizations
(NGO’s). Ideally, any energy policies label as green energy would only attract positive support from
NGO’s. However, any large scale development will attract some opposition eventually from some like
minded group. Wind Concerns Ontario is an example group that brought together the growing
community base of opposition in the province to address the health and environmental impacts of large
scale wind turbine developments.44

5.3.4 Social Sub Criteria Relative Importance

To meet the need large scale electrical energy in the province, whether for the replacement of coal fire
generation or simply for new growth or the replacement of existing capacity, communities and the
people living this those communities will be impacted simply given the scale of the facilities required.
For this decision analysis the social sub criteria given in Table 10 have been used. The implication of job
creation or job losses are fundamental issue for government policy maker. If a new policy creates new

31
incremental employment or secures the future of existing jobs that policy would likely be considered a
success by the community enjoying the benefits of the wealth in the community. The highest weighted
social sub criteria are the impacts on the local community. In the case of a province wide policy, like
energy policy, some communities will benefit (in varying ways) while other communities will not.

Table 9: Social Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model

Sub Cri teri a: Soci al Impl i cati ons

Job Impacts US/CDN Relations Local Community Wei ghti ng Global Priority
Job Impacts 1.00 5.00 1.00 7.00 0.47
US/CDN Relations 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.40 0.09
Local Community 0.50 5.00 1.00 6.50 0.44
Total 14.90 1.00

Even within the certain communities the impacts will vary. The large scale wind turbine projects in
Ontario have been concentrated in rural communities on the shores of the Great Lakes (see Appendix
17). These communities have been impacted with the construction of the projects and with the
implications of the operation of these facilities. Additional electrical transmission facilities are being
constructed to connect the rural renewable generation facilities to the urban centres that demand the
power. The communities that the transmission facilities pass through are impacted by the construction
and operation of these facilities.48 The urban communities receiving the incremental green energy are
not impacted by the construction and operation of any of these facilities. In designing and
implementing energy policy in province an approach that provides the greatest benefit to the society as
a whole would be considered a rational policy, however far more communities may be negatively
impacted although the majority of the people impacted by the policy will realize a positive outcome. The
final sub criteria assessed under the social grouping is the impact to US and Canadian relations. Given
that a number of the Ontario based energy projects have broader jurisdictional implications and the fact
that the Ontario electrical grid is connected to several U.S. states, any energy policy changes that may
impact the U.S. must be considered as part of the decision process. In addition, the U.S. still sources
roughly half of its electricity from coal fired generation so by taking the zero coal policy decision in
Ontario at a minimum would send a message to the U.S. energy policy makers and perhaps not a
welcome one (see Appendix 6, Figure 4) . 49

32
 5.3.5 Technical Sub Criteria Relative Importance

The technical sub criteria defined for the decision analysis are given in Table 11. These sub criteria are
likely the most well established and well defined criteria for any large scale infrastructure policy and the
resulting projects.

Table 10: Technical Criteria Relative Importance for Base Model

Technical Feasibility
Proven Infra s tructure Permit and App. Permits Wei ghti ng Global Priority
Proven or Existing 1.00 1.33 1.00 0.20 3.53 0.14
Infrastrucure 0.75 1.00 0.20 0.50 2.45 0.10
Permit and App. 3.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 14.00 0.56
Constructability 2.00 2.00 0.20 1.00 5.20 0.21
Total 25.18 1.00

Existing or proven technology is preferred over new or experimental technology. Projects with existing
infrastructure that can be leveraged for the incremental assets are preferred. A previously exercised and
non controversial permitting and government approval process is preferred. And finally, projects that do
not require innovative construction techniques or construction methods with the fewest risks are
preferred. In the context of a new renewable energy policy that is intended to be implemented rapidly a
long drawn out and public permitting process would be catastrophic. The need to build quickly is the
next most critical attribute followed by the need for a proven operational history for the technology
being implemented ( on shore wind turbines) and finally, preferably no need for incremental
infrastructure.

6.0 Generation Alternatives to be Considered for Decision Analysis

In the decision process the next step requires a set of reasonable alternatives to compare. Using the
2010 Ontario Long Term Energy Plan as a starting point, the electrical generation alternatives available
were selected. For the purpose of this paper and within the model presented nuclear power is
considered a fixed requirement as defined in the 2010 Long Term Energy Plan. At 55 % of the current
electrical energy supply (82.9 terawatt hours from 11,446 megawatts of capacity)19 and given the base
load nature of this supply, realistically no alternatives are available at this time or for the foreseeable
future to replace nuclear. Similarly, hydro electric generation was not considered a variable at 20 % of
the current electrical energy supply (30.7 terawatt hours from 7,947 megawatts of capacity)19 and with
limited large scale incremental growth potential. A further assumption for the alternatives to be
considered is the elimination coal as an input fuel. Although this remains a possibility through either

33
maintaining the remaining Ontario Power Generation coal capacity (reduced to 3504 megawatts by the
end of 2011) or by constructing new coal capacity, a major energy, health and environmental policy
reversal by the Ontario government at this point is not considered probable. This leaves wind, solar,
biomass and natural gas input fuel types as possibilities (see Table 3).

For all of the remaining possible generation types only those that could provide large scale incremental
capacities are considered. To meet the replacement requirement of approximately 12 terawatt hours
per year from the elimination of coal and the projected growth requirement of 19 terawatt hours per
year over the next 20 years incremental small scale local generation may meet a portion of the need but
will not realistically meet the full requirement.5 In addition, the 2010 Long Term Energy Plan assumes
significant reductions in the projected energy demand through conservation of approximately 27
terawatt hours per year. The range of incremental electrical energy required could then be somewhere
between 12 terawatt hours with just the elimination coal to 58 terawatt hours with the elimination of
the coal fire generation, the full growth projection and the failure of any conservation efforts. This
would but the incremental electrical energy requirement in the range between the current hydro
electric contribution to the current nuclear generation contribution.

To meet this potential need, large scale wind, new and conversion natural gas projects and large scale
solar photovoltaic alternatives are considered. Both on shore and off shore wind generation
alternatives are considered understanding that the 2011 provincial moratorium remains in place.
Existing on shore projects in Ontario range from 10 megawatts in capacity to 200 megawatts with
proposed off shore projects potentially twice this size. The largest existing photovoltaic project in the
projects is 80 megawatts covering approximately 600 acres in Sarnia. Natural gas alternatives include
new distributed generation sites using higher efficiency combined cycle plants and the potential to
convert the existing coal sites to natural gas simple cycle facilities. Natural gas capacities are easily
scalable to meet the potential replacement and growth needs with the current natural gas capacity in
the province at 9540 megawatts, second only to nuclear.19 The alternatives to be used in the decision
analysis are then large scale wind on-shore (LSWONSH), large scale wind off-shore (LSWOFFSH), large
scale photovoltaic (LSSOLPV), distributed natural gas combined cycle (DISNGASCC) and the conversion of
existing coal plant to natural gas (EXCOALNG).

All of these alternatives have their advantages and disadvantages. The wind alternatives will require
significant capital and face the growing opposition from wide range of stakeholders but they do offer a
large scale renewable source of energy with the potential of a new supporting industry with incremental

34
employment. Off-shore wind specifically offers the scale potential of on-shore wind without the land
and land owner impacts but with higher capital and operating costs. The building large scale facilities in
the fresh water Great Lakes will also bring regulatory and environmental challenges not to mention the
jurisdictional and coordination challenges with the United States. Large scale photovoltaic facilities
require large land areas (or roof tops) and require significant capital but offer little to no operational
impacts (quiet and clean). Both wind and solar options require back-up generation capacity for the days
without wind and the nights without the Sun. Both also increase the challenge of managing the overall
electrical system with constantly changing input from a growing number of intermittent renewable
sources.50 The natural gas alternatives bring the need for an input fuel and the resulting output of air
emissions including nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and dioxide
and fugitive emissions of methane. These alternatives however provide electrical energy to the system
with little to no notice and require less capital for installation and construction. New natural gas plants
can also be located in most urban areas in Ontario using the existing natural gas transmission and
distribution system. Conversion of existing coal fired generation facilities to natural gas takes
advantage of the existing transmission system and could preserve at least some of the employment in
the locations of these plants.

7.0 Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Base Case

Using all of the general and sub criteria defined above each alternative is compared to the others using
the same ranking scale defined in Table 4. For example, under the financial general criteria the each
alternative is compared to the others under each sub criteria. Using the capital sub criteria, on-shore
wind is set at 1.00 with each of the other alternatives ranked relative to that score. In this case, off-
shore is ranked at 0.5 reflecting the expected higher capital costs along with solar at 0.2. The distributed
generation natural gas alternative is ranked at 8.00 with a lower expected capital cost and the
conversion of the existing coal plants at an even lower capital cost with a score of 9.00. This process
continues with each alternative held at 1.00 and the other alternatives ranked accordingly. The score
for each alternative is then totalled and weighted for a global priority under that sub criteria. This
process is continued for each of the global and sub criteria (see Appendix 10). Although as much
available information as possible is used in this comparison it is important to understand that there is a
certain level of personal judgement and experience used to score the comparisons. Multiple results are
possible.

35
With this process completed the alternative comparison scores are next weighted under each sub
criteria using the previously determined global priorities. The scores are then totalled for each
alternative for each general criteria and ranked (see Table 12). The highest scores represent the most
favourable alternative.

Table 11: Results of Generation Alternative Comparisons Using AHP Model

Alternatives
Sub Criteria Global Priority
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG
Capital 0.055 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.021 0.023
Financial

OM 0.097 0.013 0.004 0.019 0.035 0.027

Econ Sus 0.105 0.013 0.009 0.003 0.041 0.038
Cost Ex 0.046 0.015 0.015 0.010 0.004 0.003
Sub Total 0.30 0.048 0.030 0.034 0.100 0.091
0.0829 0.0091 0.0086 0.0464 0.0110 0.0078
Environmental

Atmos Emissions
Reversibility 0.0304 0.0091 0.0090 0.0091 0.0017 0.0015
Spills 0.1208 0.0359 0.0333 0.0377 0.0073 0.0067
Habitat Impact 0.0566 0.0046 0.0070 0.0083 0.0184 0.0184
Sub Total 0.29 0.0587 0.0579 0.1015 0.0383 0.0343
Base Support 0.0140 0.0009 0.0031 0.0067 0.0013 0.0020
0.0097 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0005 0.0005
Political

Opp NGO's
Election Timing 0.0429 0.0127 0.0118 0.0134 0.0026 0.0024
Tactical Application 0.0253 0.0021 0.0031 0.0037 0.0082 0.0082
Sub Total 0.09 0.0186 0.0209 0.0267 0.0127 0.0130
Job Impacts 0.0518 0.0104 0.0145 0.0028 0.0086 0.0156
Social

US/CDN Relations 0.0104 0.0029 0.0004 0.0020 0.0018 0.0033

Local Community 0.0481 0.0035 0.0082 0.0130 0.0097 0.0138
Sub Total 0.11 0.0167 0.0231 0.0178 0.0201 0.0327
Proven or Existing 0.0286 0.0017 0.0008 0.0015 0.0106 0.0140
Technology

Infrastrucure 0.0198 0.0014 0.0006 0.0018 0.0094 0.0066

Permit and App. 0.1133 0.0310 0.0043 0.0298 0.0257 0.0225
Constructability 0.0421 0.0026 0.0016 0.0070 0.0173 0.0136
Sub Total 0.20 0.0367 0.0073 0.0402 0.0631 0.0565
TOTALS 1.0000 0.179 0.140 0.220 # 0.234 0.227

First in general criteria category

Second in general criteria category

Third in general criteria category

The overall outcome from the base case comparison indicates that the natural gas alternatives are the
most favourable alternatives with the new distributed generation combined cycle alternative having the
top score followed by the conversion of the existing coal plants to natural gas. Relatively close behind
the natural gas alternatives is the photovoltaic alternative with on-shore wind next and finally the off-
shore wind alternative being the least favourable. As given in Table 7 off-shore wind does rank second
under the environmental, social and political general criteria.

36
8.0 Sensitivity Analysis

The goal of the sensitivity analysis is test the off-shore wind alternative within the decision process built
for this exercise. A best possible and a worst case scenario for off-shore wind are place in the decision
model and compare these to the base case scenario. If either of the sensitivity scenarios provided a
different result from the base case then it would indicate that the base case model does not provide a
strong conclusion. For the sensitivity scenarios, the global and sub criteria relative comparisons and the
resulting weightings are held constant while altering the relative comparisons of sub criteria between
alternatives (on shore wind, off shore wind, large scale solar photovoltaic, natural gas generation and
coal conversion to natural gas). Rather varying the sensitivity on all of the global criteria areas for each
alternative, the 3 areas with the highest global criteria weighting are used. These are the financial global
criteria at a weighting to 0.30, the environmental global criteria at a weighting of 0.29 and the technical
global criteria at a weighting of 0.20. In each of these areas a maximum and minimum approach is
taken for the off-shore wind alternative. For example, for the maximum favourable scenario in the
area of capital cost, the capital cost of offshore wind is adjusted to a minimum reasonable level relative
to the other alternatives. This includes increasing the capital cost assumption for all of the other
alternatives to their maximum reasonable level. Conversely, for the minimum favourable scenario, the
relative assumed capital cost for off-shore wind is increased the maximum reasonable level relative to
the other alternatives while the other alternatives are adjusted to their relative minimum level. This
same process is repeated concurrently in each on the 3 global criteria areas. The results of each
maximum favourable scenario and minimum favourable scenario are given in Appendices 8 and 9
respectively.

8.1 Most Favourable Scenario for Off Shore Wind

First the model is adjusted to the most favourable assumptions for off shore wind relative to the base
case scenario. This is done by changing the relative assumptions for the financial, environmental and
technical criteria for each relative comparison of the alternatives. Again, it is important to keep in mind
that the ranking process is somewhat subjective and that there are multiple outcomes possible.

37
 8.1.1 Financial

As given above, the assumed capital cost for off shore wind relative to the other alternatives is
adjusted down while the capital cost for the other alternatives in adjusted up. Relative to on-shore wind
the base scenario had off-shore wind at twice the capital cost based on cost data given in Appendix 14.
For the most favourable scenario for off-shore wind the capital cost difference between on-shore and
off-shore is change to have off-shore wind less capital intensive than on-shore. This is a reasonable
possibility with the potential costs for the permit process, for land purchases and for land rights all
escalating dramatically with the more recent public and impacted stakeholder groups objections to large
scale developments. The same rational can be used for the adjustments to the remaining financial
criteria. The operating and maintenance costs for on-shore wind increase because of increased noise
reduction measures, the economic sustainability for on-shore wind decreases because of higher land
owner costs and the cost of externalities increase with noise impacts from on-shore wind.

8.1.2 Environmental

Atmospheric emissions and reversibility criteria are adjusted to be basically equal to on-shore wind and
are improved relative to the photovoltaic alternative. The challenge for off-shore wind in these areas is
the need to accesses the facilities either by boat or helicopter and decommission on and below the
water, but under the most favourable scenario it is reasonable to assume a reduced off-shore
maintenance requirement and simplified decommissioning process with improved design standards.
Spills for off-shore are projects are reduced to a relative to the other alternatives but not equal to on-
shore with the obvious challenges of dealing with unintended spills on water compared to on shore.
Compared to photovoltaic spills are improved under the assumption that a large scale photovoltaic
system will require large scale rectifiers and transformers with the potential for spills. Under the most
favourable assumptions for off-shore wind habitat could be improved with a below water design with
that intent.

8.1.3 Technical

The criticism for off-shore wind in the Great Lakes largely targets the unknown elements of the design,
construction and operation of wind turbines in fresh water. The first sub criteria of proven and reliable

38
technology is adjusted to improve the off-shore relative to the all other alternatives but not yet equal to
on-shore. With increased experience on off-shore wind turbine projects around the world, including the
fresh water lake project in Sweden on Lake Vanern, it is reasonable to assume that any gap in reliability
given the environmental impacts will be closed, although not eliminated. The infrastructure sub criteria
is adjusted positively for the off-shore alternative but not significantly compared to on-shore. The need
to construct off-shore gathering and transmission circuits will always be a challenge for off shore
systems. With the right political motivation, the permit process for off-shore wind could be levelled
relative to the other generating alternatives however the need to address a more complex
environmental impact and the share international jurisdictional issues will remain. Similarly, it is
reasonable to see that constructability issues can be mitigated but not eliminated relative to on-shore
alternatives.

8.2 Least Favourable Scenario for Off Shore Wind

Next the model is adjusted to the least favourable assumptions for off shore wind relative to the base
case scenario using the same processes as the most favourable scenario.

8.2.1 Financial

As given above, the assumed capital cost for off shore wind relative to the other alternatives is adjusted
up while the capital cost for the other alternatives in adjusted down. For the least favourable scenario,
the capital cost difference between on-shore and off-shore is change to have off-shore wind even more
capital intensive than on-shore base scenario. This conceivable given the potential need for increased
design and construction standards in a fresh water environment that has ice loading implications. The
same rational can be used for the adjustments to the remaining financial criteria. The operating and
maintenance costs for off-shore wind increases given higher environmental monitoring standards, the
economic sustainability for off-shore wind decreases because of the higher operating and maintenance
costs and the cost of externalities increases with potential compensation needed to mitigate
environmental, recreation and shipping impacts.

39
 8.2.2 Environmental

Atmospheric emissions and reversibility criteria are adjusted to be basically half of the on-shore wind
ranking and are further deteriorated relative to the photovoltaic alternative for the least favourable
scenario. The challenge for off-shore wind in these areas is the need to accesses the facilities either by
boat or helicopter and decommissioning on and below the water. For the least favourable scenario it is
reasonable to assume that an increased off-shore maintenance requirement and a more involved
decommissioning process will have greater negative impacts. It is not difficult to see an increased spills
impact from off-shore wind developments with the potential for greater maintenance frequencies or
unexpected extreme weather impacts such as wind and ice loads. Under the least favourable
assumptions for off-shore wind, habitat could be negatively impacted with issues such as above and
below water noise propagation or unintended migration route impacts for birds, bats and insects.

8.2.3 Technical

The criticism for off-shore wind in the Great Lakes largely targets the unknown elements of the design,
construction and operation of wind turbines in fresh water. The first sub criteria of proven and reliable
technology is adjusted to further reduce the off-shore alternative relative to the all other alternatives.
Even with increased experience on off-shore wind turbine projects around the world, including the fresh
water lake project in Sweden on Lake Vanern, it is reasonable to assume that local conditions could be
underestimated with negative outcomes to overall reliability. The infrastructure sub criteria is adjusted
negatively for the off-shore alternative relative to the on-shore wind alternative. The need to construct
and maintain off-shore gathering and transmission circuits could be more significant than anticipated.
With the increased negative public sentiment for wind developments of any nature the permit and
approval process for off-shore wind could be made more challenging and it is not difficult to see a
scenario where the Canadian and United States view differ on off shore wind in the Great Lakes making
a joint approval process a challenge. Similarly, it is reasonable to see that constructability issues could
be made more challenging if potential off shore sites are limited through the accommodation of other
factors. These could include relocations to accommodate bird migration routes, increased distances
from shore to address atheistic impacts and increased distances from boating and shipping channels. All
of these could lead to deeper waters and more complex construction.

40
 8.3 Results of the Sensitivity Analysis

By altering the rankings of the off-shore wind alternative relative to the other electrical generating
alternative first in a most favourable scenario and then in a least favourable scenario new scores are
arrived at and compared to the base decision analysis. The results of these scenarios is given in Table
13. The results show that even with the off-shore scores adjusted to the least and most favourable
levels the overall ranking of this alternative did not change. Off-shore wind remains the least favourable
alternative for all 3 scenarios. The most favourable scenario did not change the order but did bring the
on shore alternative to an equal ranking with the conversion of the existing coal plants to natural gas. In
the least favourable scenario the top 3 alternative did not change but the order did change with the
large scale photovoltaic alternative moving to the top position, distributed combined cycle natural gas
moved to the second spot followed by the conversion of the existing coal plant to natural gas.

Table 12: Results of the Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity Comparison for Off Shore Wind Alternative

Global Alternatives
Range Priority LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG
Off Shore Most Favourable 1.0000 0.199 0.191 0.196 0.215 0.199
Off Shore Base 1.0000 0.179 0.140 0.220 0.234 0.227
Off Shore Least Favouable 1.0000 0.188 0.103 0.232 0.244 0.234
First in general criteria category

Second in general criteria category

Third in general criteria category

An interesting result of the all 3 scenarios is the ranking of the large scale solar or photovoltaic
alternative reactive to both on-shore and off-shore wind. Even though the solar alternative had the
lowest ranking within the financial criteria, this alternative scored well in all of the other general criteria.
This result would indicated a potential area of focus for the further deployment of renewable electrical
generation and even more so if an when the cost of photovoltaic system are lower.

9.0 Conclusions

Given the economic and environmental challenges of off shore wind, the energy policy and related
political uncertainty for renewable energy as a whole and the growing social rejection of wind power,

41
off-shore wind power generation in the province of Ontario is not a practical source of electricity for the
foreseeable future. The results of the decision analysis provided in this paper indicate that there are
several other preferable generation alternatives before off-shore wind. The decision analysis base case
and the off shore wind sensitivity scenarios returned the distributed generation natural gas combined
cycle alternative as preferred. In addition, the decision analysis indicated that the off shore wind
alternative is the least preferred alternative for all scenarios. The policy makers for electrical
generation in the province Ontario should not pursue off-shore wind power in the Great Lakes.

A somewhat unexpected result from the decision analysis process was the third place preference for the
large scale solar photovoltaic alternative. Ranking first in the environmental and political general
criteria rankings, this alternative is the most preferred alternative of the renewables assessed despite
the significant negative pull from the financial criteria.

10.0 Recommendations

Given the magnitude of this potential renewable energy source, efforts to find practical and sustainable
designs and locations for off-shore wind in the Great Lakes should be studied for future use. An
independent pilot project too accurately and objectively asses the environmental (habitat impact, spills)
and technical (water depth, turbine size, ice loading, extreme weather, gathering and transmission
system) implications is needed before any large scale development proceeds. This work would provide
value when developing construction and operation regulations as wells as monitoring requirements to
ensure the desired outcomes are achieved. The relative costs of off shore wind may take longer to
resolve. Despite some conclusions to the contrary and certainly within the next 5 years, the cost of
natural gas in North America will continue to challenge any policy maker when trying to justify to the
energy consuming public that the financial premium needed for off-shore wind or any renewable
energy source is rational. 52 Wind power in the Great Lakes should be studied further in an effort to
better understand the long term implication of large scale wind turbines in the Great Lakes. During this
time frame the direction of the North American natural gas supply and pricing will be better understood
as well as the progress to replace Ontario’s nuclear powered generators.

42
Appendix 1: Smog Days for Ontario for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Table 1: Ontario Smog Advisories and Days

Year Advisories Days

1996 3 5
1997 3 6
1998 3 8
1999 5 9
Total 14 28
2000 3 4
2001 7 23
2002 10 27

2003 7 19

Total 27 73

2004 8 20

2005 15 53

2006 6 17

2007 13 39

Total 42 129

2008 8 17

2009 3 5

2010 3 12

2011* 0 0

Total 14 34

Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment,

http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/smog_advisories.cfm

43
Appendix 2: Ontario’s Energy Use by Source 1990 to 2009

Table 1: End Use Energy by Source for Ontario (PJ’s)

End Use Energy by Source for Ontario (PJ's)
1990 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Electricity 483 513 521 490 485 546 536
Natural Gas 744 893 871 840 887 856 824
Oils,Gasoline,Diesel,Ke
rosine, Aviation Fuel 769 979 1021 985 1002 979 959
Propane,NGL,Still Gas 91 114 97 112 146 120 38.5
Coal+Coke 143 133 130 140 139 114 97.4
Wood, Wood Waste 76 128 103 89 93 94 95
Other 33 35 32 34 35 35 34
Totals 2337 2796 2776 2689 2785 2744 2583

Source: Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada

Figure 1: 2004 Energy Use in the Province of Ontario

2004 Energy Use by Source for Ontario

1%
5% 5% 18%
Electricity
4% Natural Gas
Oils,Gasoline,Diesel,Kerosine, Aviation Fuel
Propane,NGL,Still Gas
Coal+Coke

35% Wood, Wood Waste

32%
Other

Figure 2: 2009 Energy Use in the Province of Ontario

44
 2009 Energy Use by Source for Ontario

4% 3% 1% Electricity
4% 20%
Natural Gas
Oils,Gasoline,Diesel,Kerosine, Aviation Fuel
Propane,NGL,Still Gas
Coal+Coke
36% Wood, Wood Waste
31% Other

Source: Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada

Appendix 3: Electrical Generation Capacity by Fuel Source 2003 t0 2011

Ontario s Generating Capacity by Fuel Type and Import Capacity

14000

12000
11446
Gererating Capacity (MW)

10000
9549
8864 Nuclear
8557
8000 7947 Hydro
Coal
Natural Gas
6000 6591
Wind
5614 5100
5044
4800 4800 Solar
4315 4484
4000 Import
3550 3550 3504
Other

2000
1311 1412
931
622 698
0 226

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

45
Appendix 4: Map of Trans-boarder Smog from the US to Ontario

Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2004 Report, Ontario’s Clean Air Action Plan: Protecting
2
Environmental and Human Health in Ontario

46
Appendix 5: Great Lakes Statistics
3
Great Lakes Statistics
Lakes Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Michigan Lake Ontario Lake Superior Total
2
Surface Area km 25700 59600 58000 19000 82000 244,300
Shoreline Length km 1402 6164 2639 1146 4393 15,744
Water volume km3 480 3540 4900 1640 12000 22,560
Elebvation, m 174 m 176 m 176 m 75 m 180 m -
Average Depth, m 19 m 59 m 85 m 86 m 147 m -
Maximum depth, m 64 m 230 m 281 m 246 m 406 m -
Buffalo, NY Detroit, MI Chicago, IL Hamilton, ON Duluth, MN -
Cleveland, OH Alpena, MI Gary, IN Kingston, ON Marquette, MI -
Erie, PA Bay City, MI Green Bay, WI Mississauga, ON Sault Ste. Marie, MI -
Major Population Centres Toledo, OH Owen Sound, ON Michigan City, IN Oshawa, ON Sault Ste. Marie, ON -
Port Huron, MI Milwaukee, WI Rochester, NY Superior, WI -
Sarnia, ON Muskegon, MI Toronto, ON Thunder Bay, ON -
Traverse City, MI Pickering, ON -
Populations In Water Shed 11,400,000 3,000,000 12,100,000 5,600,000 673,000 32,773,000
Water Detention Time, years 3 22 99 6 191 222

47
Appendix 6 U.S. Electrical Generation by Input Fuel
Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 1997 through August 2011
(Thousand Megawatthours)
Hydroe le ctri Other
c Hydroe le ctri
Petroleum Pe trole um Other Conve ntiona Renewable c Pumpe d
Pe riod Coal[1] Liquids[2] Coke Natural Gas Gases[3] Nucle ar l s[4] Storage Other[5] Total % Coal

19 9 7 1,8 4 5 ,0 16 8 2 ,7 7 3 9 ,7 8 2 4 7 9 ,3 9 9 13 ,3 5 1 6 2 8 ,6 4 4 3 5 6 ,4 5 3 7 7 ,18 3 - 4 ,0 4 0 3 ,6 12 3 ,4 9 2 ,17 2

19 9 8 1,8 7 3 ,5 16 116 ,8 5 9 11,9 4 1 5 3 1,2 5 7 13 ,4 9 2 6 7 3 ,7 0 2 3 2 3 ,3 3 6 7 7 ,0 8 8 - 4 ,4 6 7 3 ,5 7 1 3 ,6 2 0 ,2 9 5

19 9 9 1,8 8 1,0 8 7 10 7 ,2 7 6 10 ,7 8 5 5 5 6 ,3 9 6 14 ,12 6 7 2 8 ,2 5 4 3 19 ,5 3 6 7 9 ,4 2 3 - 6 ,0 9 7 4 ,0 2 4 3 ,6 9 4 ,8 10

2000 1,9 6 6 ,2 6 5 10 2 ,16 0 9 ,0 6 1 6 0 1,0 3 8 13 ,9 5 5 7 5 3 ,8 9 3 2 7 5 ,5 7 3 8 0 ,9 0 6 - 5 ,5 3 9 4 ,7 9 4 3 ,8 0 2 ,10 5

2001 1,9 0 3 ,9 5 6 114 ,6 4 7 10 ,2 3 3 6 3 9 ,12 9 9 ,0 3 9 7 6 8 ,8 2 6 2 16 ,9 6 1 7 0 ,7 6 9 - 8 ,8 2 3 11,9 0 6 3 ,7 3 6 ,6 4 4

2002 1,9 3 3 ,13 0 7 8 ,7 0 1 15 ,8 6 7 6 9 1,0 0 6 11,4 6 3 7 8 0 ,0 6 4 2 6 4 ,3 2 9 7 9 ,10 9 - 8 ,7 4 3 13 ,5 2 7 3 ,8 5 8 ,4 5 2

2003 1,9 7 3 ,7 3 7 10 2 ,7 3 4 16 ,6 7 2 6 4 9 ,9 0 8 15 ,6 0 0 7 6 3 ,7 3 3 2 7 5 ,8 0 6 7 9 ,4 8 7 - 8 ,5 3 5 14 ,0 4 5 3 ,8 8 3 ,18 5 51%

2004 1,9 7 8 ,3 0 1 10 0 ,3 9 1 2 0 ,7 5 4 7 10 ,10 0 15 ,2 5 2 7 8 8 ,5 2 8 2 6 8 ,4 17 8 3 ,0 6 7 - 8 ,4 8 8 14 ,2 3 2 3 ,9 7 0 ,5 5 5

2005 2 ,0 12 ,8 7 3 9 9 ,8 4 0 2 2 ,3 8 5 7 6 0 ,9 6 0 13 ,4 6 4 7 8 1,9 8 6 2 7 0 ,3 2 1 8 7 ,3 2 9 - 6 ,5 5 8 12 ,8 2 1 4 ,0 5 5 ,4 2 3

2006 1,9 9 0 ,5 11 4 4 ,4 6 0 19 ,7 0 6 8 16 ,4 4 1 14 ,17 7 7 8 7 ,2 19 2 8 9 ,2 4 6 9 6 ,5 2 5 - 6 ,5 5 8 12 ,9 7 4 4 ,0 6 4 ,7 0 2

2007 2 ,0 16 ,4 5 6 4 9 ,5 0 5 16 ,2 3 4 8 9 6 ,5 9 0 13 ,4 5 3 8 0 6 ,4 2 5 2 4 7 ,5 10 10 5 ,2 3 8 - 6 ,8 9 6 12 ,2 3 1 4 ,15 6 ,7 4 5

2008 1,9 8 5 ,8 0 1 3 1,9 17 14 ,3 2 5 8 8 2 ,9 8 1 11,7 0 7 8 0 6 ,2 0 8 2 5 4 ,8 3 1 12 6 ,10 1 - 6 ,2 8 8 11,8 0 4 4 ,119 ,3 8 8

2009

J a nua ry 171,925 4,968 1,136 66,390 807 74,102 23,490 11,739 -501 936 354,993

F e brua ry 140,916 2,267 1,051 62,139 784 64,227 17,812 11,231 -413 875 300,887

M a rc h 135,530 2,089 1,260 68,203 834 67,241 21,827 12,950 -315 984 310,603

April 125,935 1,658 1,148 61,159 758 59,408 25,770 12,986 -272 987 289,537

May 131,673 2,053 1,156 68,146 773 65,395 29,560 11,864 -349 1,035 311,306

J une 148,087 2,090 1,153 84,205 876 69,735 29,233 11,467 -226 1,038 347,658

J uly 158,234 2,124 1,234 101,894 966 72,949 23,385 11,187 -491 1,061 372,542

Augus t 163,260 2,449 1,193 109,240 1,012 72,245 19,580 11,791 -613 1,064 381,221

S e pte m be r 137,145 1,677 1,176 92,127 1,022 65,752 17,359 10,524 -348 967 327,401

Oc to be r 139,956 1,815 746 72,603 960 58,021 19,691 12,668 -385 967 307,040

No ve m be r 136,810 1,315 757 63,285 910 59,069 21,008 12,810 -330 1,000 296,635

De c e m be r 166,434 1,468 954 71,590 930 70,710 24,730 13,061 -383 1,014 350,507

To ta l 1,7 5 5 ,9 0 4 2 5 ,9 7 2 12 ,9 6 4 9 2 0 ,9 7 9 10 ,6 3 2 7 9 8 ,8 5 5 2 7 3 ,4 4 5 14 4 ,2 7 9 - 4 ,6 2 7 11,9 2 8 3 ,9 5 0 ,3 3 1

2 0 10

J a nua ry 173,505 3,171 1,130 73,558 909 72,569 22,156 13,077 -537 863 360,401

F e brua ry 153,073 1,199 1,114 65,345 829 65,245 20,513 11,018 -96 764 319,004

M a rc h 144,703 1,233 1,203 62,548 997 64,635 20,626 14,823 -49 883 311,601

April 127,164 1,180 1,066 64,240 947 57,611 18,630 15,817 -303 927 287,279

May 143,686 1,851 1,140 73,427 992 66,658 24,920 14,762 -197 968 328,208

J une 165,918 2,710 1,316 92,398 939 68,301 29,489 14,257 -227 999 376,100

J uly 179,933 3,002 1,452 114,883 950 71,913 24,136 13,145 -466 1,024 409,972

Augus t 178,101 2,445 1,107 121,127 1,041 71,574 19,748 13,114 -533 1,036 408,761

S e pte m be r 148,667 1,746 1,071 92,503 973 69,371 16,915 13,190 -349 978 345,064

Oc to be r 132,955 1,234 973 76,631 782 62,751 17,382 13,734 -374 987 307,054

No ve m be r 135,496 1,208 842 68,332 897 62,655 19,425 15,987 -429 926 305,340

De c e m be r 167,548 2,418 1,114 76,822 938 73,683 23,111 15,221 -530 918 361,244

To ta l 1,8 5 0 ,7 5 0 2 3 ,3 9 7 13 ,5 2 8 9 8 1,8 15 11,19 3 8 0 6 ,9 6 8 2 5 7 ,0 5 2 16 8 ,14 4 - 4 ,0 9 1 11,2 7 3 4 ,12 0 ,0 2 8 45%

2 0 11

J a nua ry 171,246 1,840 1,448 74,070 923 72,743 25,746 14,966 -426 824 363,378

F e brua ry 138,590 1,173 1,028 65,375 795 64,789 24,346 15,729 -247 756 312,334

M a rc h 134,715 1,238 1,198 65,679 958 65,662 31,385 16,434 -350 915 317,835

April 124,389 1,331 822 70,218 908 54,547 31,293 18,202 -467 912 302,156

May 137,684 1,338 850 75,459 839 57,017 32,791 17,427 -419 950 323,935

J une 158,221 1,514 1,026 91,035 988 65,270 32,114 17,180 -568 950 367,731

J uly 176,984 1,713 1,306 120,067 1,111 72,345 31,292 13,912 -709 999 419,021

Augus t 171,662 1,321 1,106 119,691 967 71,339 25,846 13,918 -663 936 406,122

To ta l 1,2 13 ,4 9 0 11,4 7 0 8 ,7 8 3 6 8 1,5 9 4 7 ,4 8 8 5 2 3 ,7 11 2 3 4 ,8 12 12 7 ,7 6 8 - 3 ,8 4 9 7 ,2 4 3 2 ,8 12 ,5 10

Ye a r- t o - D a t e

2009 1,175,560 19,697 9,332 621,375 6,809 545,302 190,658 95,215 -3,181 7,980 2,668,748

2010 1,266,083 16,790 9,529 667,527 7,604 538,508 180,218 110,012 -2,409 7,464 2,801,326

2011 1,213,490 11,470 8,783 681,594 7,488 523,711 234,812 127,768 -3,849 7,243 2,812,510
R o llin g 12 M o n t h s E n d in g
in A u g u s t

2010 1,846,427 23,066 13,161 967,072 11,423 792,060 263,005 158,936 -3,855 11,413 4,082,708

2011 1,798,157 18,076 12,783 995,882 11,078 792,172 311,646 185,900 -5,531 11,051 4,131,212

[1] Anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, waste coal, and coal synfuel.
[2] Distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, jet fuel, kerosene, and waste oil.
[3] Blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.
[4] Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.
[5] Non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and miscellaneous technologies.
Notes: • Beginning with 2001 data, non-biogenic municipal solid waste and tire-derived fuels are reclassified as non-renewable energy sources and included in "Other". Biogenic municipal solid waste is incl

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report;" U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-920 "Combined
Heat and Power Plant Report;" and predecessor forms. Beginning with 2008 data, the Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report," replaced the
following: Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report;" Form EIA-920, "Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;" Form EIA-423, "Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels
for Electric Plants Report;" and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Form 423, "Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants."

48
Appendix 7: 2009 FIT Program Prices Compared with 2011 FIT Program Prices

49
Source: Ontario Power Authority

50
Appendix 8: Potential Wind Energy in the Great Lakes

Wind speeds are generally higher in offshore environments for the obvious reasons of long
fetches with no obstructions in addition to the local wind effects from temperature variation
between land and water boundaries. This is true for the Great Lakes as seen by the wind atlas
information provided by both the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and from the US’s
Great Lakes Commission. (Figures 1 and 2). Given that the power available from the wind
energy can be estimated by:

P(watts)=0.5ρAV3

P = power in watts

ρ = the density of the air, kg/m3

A = area that the wind is passing

V= velocity of the wind. m/s

Source: Boyle, Renewable Energy, Power for a Sustainable Future, 2 nd edition

The importance of the velocity of the wind becomes clear given the cubed relationship between
power and velocity. From figure 1 and 2 below ”very good” to “exceptional” wind velocities
can be seen throughout the Ontario sections of the Great Lakes. Winter velocities are in excess of
9 m/s in many location and average annual velocities between 7 – 8 m/s are available.

51
Figure 1: Wind Speed Map for Canadian Side of the Great Lakes

Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

52
Figure 2: Wind Speed Map for the Great Lakes

Source: Great Lake Commission, Great Lakes Wind Collaborative, Wind Atlas, http://erie.glin.net/wind/

Table 1 and 2: U.S. Offshore Wind Resource Potential (does not include Canadian potential)

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Large Scale Offshore Wind
in the Untied States, Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, September 2010

53
 Table 3: Proposed Offshore Wind Projects in Ontario

Distance Hub Turbine

Ontario Juristiction Offshore Project Capacity Depth
Lake From Shore Height Cpacity
Projects No. MW m
km m MW
Kingsville Pilot 1 Erie 10 8 1
Union Pilot 2 Erie 10 8 1.6
Lemaington Pilot 3 Erie 10 9 1
Erie Wind Energy 4 Erie 4000 22 8 5
Trillium Power Wind 2 5 Ontario 740 17
The Great lakes Array 6 Erie 1600 10
The Superior Array 7 Superior 650 30
Toronto Hydro Research Plantform 8 Ontario 0
Trillium Power Wind 1 9 Ontario 414 38 28 90 3
Kingsville Extention 10 Erie 100 10 3.3
Union extension 11 Erie 100 10 2.6
Leamington Extention 12 Erie 100 10
Lakeshore 13 Lake St. Clair 110 5 4.1
Deerbrook 14 Lake St. Clair 110 5 4.1
Lighthouse Cove 15 Lake St. Clair 110 6 3.7 80 2
lakewood Beach 16 Erie 110 7 4.8
Colchester 17 Erie 110 10 5.2
Wheatly 18 Erie 110 13 3.6
Port Alma 19 Erie 110 17 4.4
PortCrewe 20 Erie 110 19 5.7
Sandison 21 Erie 110 19 4.7
Cedar Spring 22 Erie 110 15 5.7
Wolfe Island 23 Ontario 300
Total/Average 9134 14 5
Source: Offshore Data Base, http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/trillium-power-wind-2-canada-ca07.html

54
 Hierarchy of Goals and Criteria for Electrical Generation in Ontario

Electrical Energy Generation Alternatives for Ontario

Including Wind Turbines Constructed in the Great Lakes

0.30 0.29 0.09 0.11 0.20

Environmental Social Technical
Financial Political Feasibility
Capital Requirement
Impact Implications
Capital Requirement
Support 0.14
Capital Cost Atmospheric Proven or
Electoral
Requirement 0.18 Emissions 0.29 0.15 Job Impacts 0.47 Existing
Base
Appendix 9: Decision Analysis Hierarchy of Goal and Criteria

Operating Cost Opposition US /CDN Available

0.32 Reversibility 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10
Requirement from NOG's Relations Infrastructure

Economic 0.35 0.42 Election Local Permitting and 0.56

Sustainability Spills
Timing 0.47 Community 0.44 Approvals

Cost of 0.15 Habitat 0.19 Tactical 0.28

Externalities Impact Application Constructability 0.21
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

55
Appendix 10: Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Base Case

Financial Criteria

Alternatives : Capital
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.00 5.00 0.13 0.11 8.24 0.12
LSWOFFSH 0.5 1.00 1.11 0.13 0.11 2.85 0.04
LSSOLPV 0.20 0.90 1.00 0.13 0.11 2.34 0.03
DISNGASCC 8.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 1.25 26.25 0.38
EXCOALNG 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.80 1.00 28.80 0.42
Total 68.47 1.00
Alternatives : OM
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 3.33 0.67 0.33 0.50 5.83 0.14
LSWOFFSH 0.3 1.00 0.20 0.14 0.17 1.81 0.04
LSSOLPV 1.50 5.00 1.00 0.33 0.50 8.33 0.19
DISNGASCC 3.00 7.00 3.00 1.00 1.33 15.33 0.36
EXCOALNG 2.00 6.00 2.00 0.75 1.00 11.75 0.27
Total 43.06 1.00
Alternatives : Econ Sustainability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 5.00 0.13 0.11 6.57 0.13
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 3.33 0.11 0.13 4.57 0.09
LSSOLPV 0.20 0.30 1.00 0.11 0.11 1.52 0.03
DISNGASCC 8.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.11 20.11 0.39
EXCOALNG 9.00 8.00 9.00 0.90 1.00 18.90 0.37
Total 51.67 1.00
Alternatives : Cost of Externalities
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.25 1.00 3.33 6.67 12.25 0.33
LSWOFFSH 0.8 1.00 0.91 3.33 6.67 11.91 0.32
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.10 1.00 2.00 4.00 8.10 0.22
DISNGASCC 0.30 0.30 0.50 1.00 1.25 3.05 0.08
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.80 1.00 2.20 0.06
Total 37.51 1.00

56
Environmental Criteria

Alternatives : Atmos Emissions

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.11 0.20 1.00 1.00 4.31 0.1098
LSWOFFSH 0.9 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 4.07 0.1035
LSSOLPV 5.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 22.00 0.5601
DISNGASCC 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 2.00 5.20 0.1324
EXCOALNG 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.50 1.00 3.70 0.0942
Total 39.28 1.00
Alternatives : Reversability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.11 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.78 0.3011
LSWOFFSH 0.9 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.57 0.2968
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.67 0.2989
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.71 0.0552
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.90 1.00 2.35 0.0479
Total 49.07 1.00
Alternatives : Spills
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 1.05 5.00 5.00 12.39 0.2970
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 0.50 5.00 5.00 11.50 0.2758
LSSOLPV 0.95 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 13.00 0.3118
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.51 0.0602
EXCOALNG 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.90 1.00 2.30 0.0552
Total 41.70 1.00
Alternatives : Habitat Impact
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.33 1.75 0.08
LSWOFFSH 1.5 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.50 2.67 0.12
LSSOLPV 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.33 0.33 3.17 0.15
DISNGASCC 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
EXCOALNG 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
Total 21.58 1.00

57
Political Criteria

Alternatives : Base Support

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.25 0.33 0.50 0.20 3.28 0.0654
LSWOFFSH 0.8 1.00 0.17 4.00 5.00 10.97 0.2185
LSSOLPV 3.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 9.09 24.09 0.4800
DISNGASCC 2.00 0.25 0.20 1.00 1.33 4.78 0.0953
EXCOALNG 5.00 0.20 0.11 0.75 1.00 7.06 0.1407
Total 50.18 1.00
Alternatives : Opposition from NGO's
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.11 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.78 0.3011
LSWOFFSH 0.9 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.57 0.2968
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.67 0.2989
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.71 0.0552
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.90 1.00 2.35 0.0479
Total 49.07 1.00
Alternatives : Election Timing
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 1.05 5.00 5.00 12.39 0.2970
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 0.50 5.00 5.00 11.50 0.2758
LSSOLPV 0.95 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 13.00 0.3118
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.51 0.0602
EXCOALNG 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.90 1.00 2.30 0.0552
Total 41.70 1.00
Alternatives : Tactical Application
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.33 1.75 0.08
LSWOFFSH 1.5 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.50 2.67 0.12
LSSOLPV 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.33 0.33 3.17 0.15
DISNGASCC 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
EXCOALNG 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
Total 21.58 1.00

58
Social Criteria

Al terna tives : Job Impa cts

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.33 0.50 7.33 0.20
LSWOFFSH 2 1.00 5.00 1.25 1.00 10.25 0.28
LSSOLPV 0.25 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 1.98 0.05
DISNGASCC 0.75 0.80 3.00 1.00 0.50 6.05 0.17
EXCOALNG 2.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 11.00 0.30
Total 36.62 1.00

Al terna tives : US/CDN Rel a tions

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 10.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 12.25 0.28
LSWOFFSH 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.33 0.20 1.88 0.04
LSSOLPV 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 8.50 0.19
DISNGASCC 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 7.50 0.17
EXCOALNG 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 0.32
Total 44.13 1.00

Al terna tives : Loca l Communi ty

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.33 2.58 0.07
LSWOFFSH 4 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 6.08 0.17
LSSOLPV 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.33 3.33 9.67 0.27
DISNGASCC 2.00 3.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 7.25 0.20
EXCOALNG 3.00 4.00 0.30 2.00 1.00 10.30 0.29
Total 35.88 1.00

59
Technical Criteria

Alternatives : Proven/Reliability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.00 1.25 0.11 0.11 4.47 0.06
LSWOFFSH 0.5 1.00 0.50 0.11 0.11 2.22 0.03
LSSOLPV 0.80 2.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 4.02 0.05
DISNGASCC 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 0.11 28.11 0.37
EXCOALNG 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 37.00 0.49
Total 75.83 1.00
Alternatives : Infrastrucure
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.11 0.14 4.75 0.07
LSWOFFSH 0.4 1.00 0.25 0.11 0.14 1.90 0.03
LSSOLPV 1.00 4.00 1.00 0.11 0.14 6.25 0.09
DISNGASCC 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 4.00 32.00 0.48
EXCOALNG 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.25 1.00 22.25 0.33
Total 67.16 1.00
Alternatives : Permit or Approval Process
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 10.00 0.20 0.25 0.33 10.78 0.27
LSWOFFSH 0.1 1.00 0.14 0.17 0.20 1.51 0.04
LSSOLPV 5.00 7.00 1.00 1.25 1.11 10.36 0.26
DISNGASCC 4.00 6.00 0.80 1.00 1.11 8.91 0.23
EXCOALNG 3.00 5.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 7.80 0.20
Total 39.37 1.00
Alternatives : Constructability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.11 1.00 0.13 0.17 2.40 0.06
LSWOFFSH 0.9 1.00 0.20 0.13 0.14 1.47 0.04
LSSOLPV 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.20 0.25 6.45 0.17
DISNGASCC 8.00 8.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 16.00 0.41
EXCOALNG 6.00 7.00 4.00 0.50 1.00 12.50 0.32
Total 38.82 1.00

60
Appendix 11: Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Sensitivity with Maximum

Favourable Scenario for Off Shore Wind

Maximum Favouable Off Shore Comparisons

Alternatives
Sub Criteria Global Priority
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG
Capital 0.055 0.010 0.010 0.001 0.018 0.016
Financial

OM 0.097 0.016 0.013 0.023 0.028 0.017

Econ Sus 0.105 0.021 0.003 0.021 0.032 0.028
Cost Ex 0.046 0.017 0.017 0.007 0.003 0.002
Sub Total 0.303 0.064 0.043 0.053 0.080 0.063
0.0623 0.0150 0.0149 0.0238 0.0053 0.0032
Environmental

Atmos Emissions
Reversibility 0.0761 0.0261 0.0261 0.0181 0.0031 0.0028
Spills 0.0415 0.0153 0.0144 0.0085 0.0017 0.0016
Habitat Impact 0.1107 0.0130 0.0226 0.0126 0.0313 0.0313
Sub Total 0.29 0.0695 0.0779 0.0630 0.0415 0.0388
Base Support 0.0140 0.0009 0.0031 0.0067 0.0013 0.0020
0.0097 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0005 0.0005
Political

Opp NGO's
Election Timing 0.0429 0.0127 0.0118 0.0134 0.0026 0.0024
Tactical Application 0.0253 0.0021 0.0031 0.0037 0.0082 0.0082
Sub Total 0.0920 0.0186 0.0209 0.0267 0.0127 0.0130
Job Impacts 0.0518 0.0104 0.0145 0.0028 0.0086 0.0156
Social

US/CDN Relations 0.0104 0.0029 0.0004 0.0020 0.0018 0.0033

Local Community 0.0481 0.0035 0.0082 0.0130 0.0097 0.0138
Sub Total 0.1104 0.0167 0.0231 0.0178 0.0201 0.0327
Proven or Existing 0.0286 0.0025 0.0020 0.0010 0.0095 0.0137
Technology

Infrastrucure 0.0198 0.0016 0.0010 0.0017 0.0095 0.0060

Permit and App. 0.1133 0.0192 0.0156 0.0316 0.0265 0.0205
Constructability 0.0421 0.0075 0.0068 0.0021 0.0147 0.0110
Sub Total 0.2038 0.0309 0.0254 0.0363 0.0601 0.0512
TOTALS 1.0000 0.199 0.191 0.196 0.215 0.199

61
Alternatives : Capital
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.80 9.09 0.22 0.29 11.40 0.18
LSWOFFSH 1.25 1.00 9.09 0.20 0.22 11.76 0.18
LSSOLPV 0.11 0.11 1.00 0.11 0.11 1.44 0.02
DISNGASCC 4.50 5.00 9.00 1.00 1.25 20.75 0.32
EXCOALNG 3.50 4.50 9.00 0.80 1.00 18.80 0.29
Total 64.15 1.00
Alternatives : OM
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.80 0.40 0.67 2.00 4.87 0.16
LSWOFFSH 1.25 1.00 0.33 0.50 1.00 4.08 0.13
LSSOLPV 2.50 3.00 1.00 1.33 4.00 11.83 0.38
DISNGASCC 1.50 2.00 0.75 1.00 2.00 7.25 0.23
EXCOALNG 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 3.25 0.10
Total 31.28 1.00
Alternatives : Econ Sustainability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.80 9.09 0.25 0.22 10.36 0.20
LSWOFFSH 1.25 1.00 0.11 0.22 0.25 1.58 0.03
LSSOLPV 0.11 9.00 1.00 0.11 0.13 10.24 0.20
DISNGASCC 4.00 4.50 9.00 1.00 1.11 15.61 0.30
EXCOALNG 4.50 4.00 8.00 0.90 1.00 13.90 0.27
Total 51.69 1.00
Alternatives : Cost of Externalities
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.91 2.00 6.67 9.09 18.67 0.38
LSWOFFSH 1.1 1.00 1.54 6.67 9.09 18.30 0.37
LSSOLPV 0.50 0.65 1.00 2.00 4.00 7.65 0.15
DISNGASCC 0.15 0.15 0.50 1.00 1.25 2.90 0.06
EXCOALNG 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.80 1.00 2.16 0.04
Total 49.67 1.00
Alternatives : Atmos Emissions
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.00 0.40 4.00 4.00 10.40 0.2411
LSWOFFSH 1 1.00 0.33 4.00 4.00 10.33 0.2396
LSSOLPV 2.50 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 16.50 0.3825
DISNGASCC 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.00 2.00 3.70 0.0858
EXCOALNG 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.50 1.00 2.20 0.0510
Total 43.13 1.00
Alternatives : Reversability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.09 9.09 21.18 0.3426
LSWOFFSH 1 1.00 1.00 9.09 9.09 21.18 0.3426
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.67 0.2372
DISNGASCC 0.11 0.11 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.53 0.0409
EXCOALNG 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.90 1.00 2.27 0.0367
Total 61.83 1.00
Alternatives : Spills
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.18 2.22 9.09 9.09 21.58 0.3696
LSWOFFSH 0.85 1.00 1.00 9.09 9.09 20.18 0.3456
LSSOLPV 0.45 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 12.00 0.2055
DISNGASCC 0.11 0.11 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.42 0.0415
EXCOALNG 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.90 1.00 2.21 0.0378
Total 58.39 1.00
Alternatives : Habitat Impact
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.67 2.50 0.12
LSWOFFSH 3 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 4.33 0.20
LSSOLPV 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.33 0.33 2.42 0.11
DISNGASCC 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 0.28
EXCOALNG 1.50 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 0.28
Total 21.25 1.00

62
Alternatives : Base Support
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.25 0.33 0.50 0.20 3.28 0.0654
LSWOFFSH 0.8 1.00 0.17 4.00 5.00 10.97 0.2185
LSSOLPV 3.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 9.09 24.09 0.4800
DISNGASCC 2.00 0.25 0.20 1.00 1.33 4.78 0.0953
EXCOALNG 5.00 0.20 0.11 0.75 1.00 7.06 0.1407
Total 50.18 1.00
Alternatives : Opposition from NGO's
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.11 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.78 0.3011
LSWOFFSH 0.9 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.57 0.2968
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.67 0.2989
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.71 0.0552
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.90 1.00 2.35 0.0479
Total 49.07 1.00
Alternatives : Election Timing
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 1.05 5.00 5.00 12.39 0.2970
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 0.50 5.00 5.00 11.50 0.2758
LSSOLPV 0.95 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 13.00 0.3118
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.51 0.0602
EXCOALNG 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.90 1.00 2.30 0.0552
Total 41.70 1.00
Alternatives : Tactical Application
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.33 1.75 0.08
LSWOFFSH 1.5 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.50 2.67 0.12
LSSOLPV 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.33 0.33 3.17 0.15
DISNGASCC 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
EXCOALNG 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
Total 21.58 1.00

63
Al terna ti ves : Job Impa cts
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.33 0.50 7.33 0.20
LSWOFFSH 2 1.00 5.00 1.25 1.00 10.25 0.28
LSSOLPV 0.25 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 1.98 0.05
DISNGASCC 0.75 0.80 3.00 1.00 0.50 6.05 0.17
EXCOALNG 2.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 11.00 0.30
Total 36.62 1.00

Al terna ti ves : US/CDN Rel a ti ons

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 10.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 12.25 0.28
LSWOFFSH 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.33 0.20 1.88 0.04
LSSOLPV 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 8.50 0.19
DISNGASCC 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 7.50 0.17
EXCOALNG 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 0.32
Total 44.13 1.00

Al terna ti ves : Loca l Communi ty

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.33 2.58 0.07
LSWOFFSH 4 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 6.08 0.17
LSSOLPV 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.33 3.33 9.67 0.27
DISNGASCC 2.00 3.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 7.25 0.20
EXCOALNG 3.00 4.00 0.30 2.00 1.00 10.30 0.29
Total 35.88 1.00

Alternatives : Proven/Reliability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 2.50 0.20 0.20 5.23 0.10
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 4.15 0.08
LSSOLPV 0.40 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.20 2.30 0.04
DISNGASCC 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 0.11 16.11 0.31
EXCOALNG 5.00 5.00 5.00 9.00 1.00 25.00 0.47
Total 52.79 1.00
Alternatives : Infrastrucure
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.67 1.00 0.20 0.29 4.15 0.10
LSWOFFSH 0.6 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.29 2.59 0.06
LSSOLPV 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.20 0.29 4.49 0.10
DISNGASCC 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 20.00 0.47
EXCOALNG 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.25 1.00 11.75 0.27
Total 42.97 1.00
Alternatives : Permit or Approval Process
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.00 0.40 0.50 0.67 3.57 0.17
LSWOFFSH 0.5 1.00 0.40 0.50 1.00 2.90 0.14
LSSOLPV 2.50 2.50 1.00 1.25 1.11 5.86 0.28
DISNGASCC 2.00 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.11 4.91 0.23
EXCOALNG 1.50 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 3.80 0.18
Total 21.04 1.00
Alternatives : Constructability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.50 0.67 6.17 0.18
LSWOFFSH 1 1.00 4.00 0.25 0.29 5.54 0.16
LSSOLPV 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.20 0.25 1.70 0.05
DISNGASCC 2.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 12.00 0.35
EXCOALNG 1.50 3.50 4.00 0.50 1.00 9.00 0.26
Total 34.40 1.00

64
Appendix 12: Comparison of Electrical Generation Alternatives, Sensitivity with Minimum

Favourable Scenario for Off Shore Wind

Minimum Favouable Off Shore Comparisons

Alternatives
Sub Criteria Global Priority
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG
Capital 0.055 0.010 0.005 0.001 0.020 0.019
Financial

OM 0.097 0.011 0.004 0.032 0.031 0.019

Econ Sus 0.105 0.016 0.005 0.004 0.040 0.039
Cost Ex 0.046 0.020 0.008 0.011 0.004 0.003
Sub Total 0.303 0.057 0.022 0.048 0.095 0.080
0.0623 0.0110 0.0039 0.0327 0.0085 0.0062
Environmental

Atmos Emissions
Reversibility 0.0761 0.0270 0.0132 0.0267 0.0050 0.0043
Spills 0.0415 0.0145 0.0064 0.0153 0.0028 0.0026
Habitat Impact 0.1107 0.0099 0.0075 0.0192 0.0370 0.0370
Sub Total 0.29 0.0625 0.0311 0.0939 0.0532 0.0501
Base Support 0.0140 0.0009 0.0031 0.0067 0.0013 0.0020
0.0097 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0006 0.0005
Political

Opp NGO's
Election Timing 0.0429 0.0131 0.0122 0.0137 0.0027 0.0024
Tactical Application 0.0253 0.0021 0.0031 0.0037 0.0082 0.0082
Sub Total 0.09 0.0193 0.0215 0.0274 0.0128 0.0131
Job Impacts 0.0518 0.0104 0.0145 0.0028 0.0086 0.0156
Social

US/CDN Relations 0.0104 0.0029 0.0004 0.0020 0.0018 0.0033

Local Community 0.0481 0.0035 0.0082 0.0130 0.0097 0.0138
Sub Total 0.11 0.0167 0.0231 0.0178 0.0201 0.0327
Proven or Existing 0.0286 0.0023 0.0006 0.0022 0.0101 0.0133
Technology

Infrastrucure 0.0198 0.0020 0.0004 0.0025 0.0087 0.0063

Permit and App. 0.1133 0.0252 0.0035 0.0316 0.0279 0.0251
Constructability 0.0421 0.0034 0.0013 0.0081 0.0163 0.0130
Sub Total 0.20 0.0329 0.0059 0.0444 0.0630 0.0576
TOTALS 1.0000 0.189 0.103 0.232 0.244 0.234

65
Alternatives : Capital
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 4.00 9.09 0.11 0.14 14.34 0.18
LSWOFFSH 0.25 1.00 5.00 0.11 0.11 6.47 0.08
LSSOLPV 0.11 0.20 1.00 0.11 0.11 1.53 0.02
DISNGASCC 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.25 29.25 0.37
EXCOALNG 7.00 9.00 9.00 0.80 1.00 26.80 0.34
Total 78.40 1.00
Alternatives : OM
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.35 0.20 0.33 1.00 4.89 0.11
LSWOFFSH 0.425 1.00 0.13 0.17 0.25 1.97 0.04
LSSOLPV 5.00 8.00 1.00 1.33 4.00 19.33 0.42
DISNGASCC 3.00 6.00 0.75 1.00 2.00 12.75 0.28
EXCOALNG 1.00 4.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 6.75 0.15
Total 45.69 1.00
Alternatives : Econ Sustainability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 3.08 5.00 0.13 0.11 8.31 0.16
LSWOFFSH 0.325 1.00 1.23 0.11 0.11 2.46 0.05
LSSOLPV 0.20 0.81 1.00 0.11 0.11 2.03 0.04
DISNGASCC 8.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.11 20.11 0.38
EXCOALNG 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.90 1.00 19.90 0.38
Total 52.81 1.00
Alternatives : Cost of Externalities
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 5.00 1.00 3.33 6.67 16.00 0.43
LSWOFFSH 0.2 1.00 0.56 1.67 3.33 6.56 0.18
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.80 1.00 2.00 4.00 8.80 0.24
DISNGASCC 0.30 0.60 0.50 1.00 1.25 3.35 0.09
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.30 0.25 0.80 1.00 2.35 0.06
Total 37.06 1.00
Alternatives : Atmos Emissions
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.22 0.20 2.00 2.00 7.42 0.1691
LSWOFFSH 0.45 1.00 0.13 0.50 0.50 2.58 0.0587
LSSOLPV 5.00 8.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 24.00 0.5467
DISNGASCC 0.50 2.00 0.20 1.00 2.00 5.70 0.1298
EXCOALNG 0.50 2.00 0.20 0.50 1.00 4.20 0.0957
Total 43.90 1.00
Alternatives : Reversability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 6.67 15.89 0.3551
LSWOFFSH 0.45 1.00 0.50 2.50 3.33 7.78 0.1739
LSSOLPV 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 15.67 0.3501
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.40 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.91 0.0651
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.90 1.00 2.50 0.0559
Total 44.75 1.00
Alternatives : Spills
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 3.08 1.05 5.00 5.00 14.13 0.3481
LSWOFFSH 0.325 1.00 0.25 2.50 2.50 6.25 0.1540
LSSOLPV 0.95 4.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 0.3695
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.40 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.71 0.0668
EXCOALNG 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.90 1.00 2.50 0.0616
Total 40.59 1.00
Alternatives : Habitat Impact
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 0.50 0.25 0.33 2.42 0.09
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 0.33 0.25 0.25 1.83 0.07
LSSOLPV 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 4.67 0.17
DISNGASCC 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 0.33
EXCOALNG 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 0.33
Total 26.92 1.00

66
Alternatives : Base Support
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.25 0.33 0.50 0.20 3.28 0.0654
LSWOFFSH 0.8 1.00 0.17 4.00 5.00 10.97 0.2185
LSSOLPV 3.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 9.09 24.09 0.4800
DISNGASCC 2.00 0.25 0.20 1.00 1.33 4.78 0.0953
EXCOALNG 5.00 0.20 0.11 0.75 1.00 7.06 0.1407
Total 50.18 1.00
Alternatives : Opposition from NGO's
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.11 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.78 0.3302
LSWOFFSH 0.9 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.57 0.3255
LSSOLPV 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.67 14.67 0.3277
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.71 0.0606
EXCOALNG 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.90 1.00 2.35 0.0525
Total 49.07 1.10
Alternatives : Election Timing
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 1.33 1.05 5.00 5.00 12.39 0.3051
LSWOFFSH 0.75 1.00 0.50 5.00 5.00 11.50 0.2833
LSSOLPV 0.95 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 13.00 0.3203
DISNGASCC 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.11 2.51 0.0619
EXCOALNG 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.90 1.00 2.30 0.0567
Total 41.70 1.03
Alternatives : Tactical Application
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Total s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.33 1.75 0.08
LSWOFFSH 1.5 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.50 2.67 0.12
LSSOLPV 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.33 0.33 3.17 0.15
DISNGASCC 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
EXCOALNG 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.32
Total 21.58 1.00

67
Al terna ti ves : Job Impa cts
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.33 0.50 7.33 0.20
LSWOFFSH 2 1.00 5.00 1.25 1.00 10.25 0.28
LSSOLPV 0.25 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 1.98 0.05
DISNGASCC 0.75 0.80 3.00 1.00 0.50 6.05 0.17
EXCOALNG 2.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 11.00 0.30
Total 36.62 1.00

Al terna ti ves : US/CDN Rel a ti ons

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 10.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 12.25 0.28
LSWOFFSH 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.33 0.20 1.88 0.04
LSSOLPV 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 8.50 0.19
DISNGASCC 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 7.50 0.17
EXCOALNG 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 0.32
Total 44.13 1.00

Al terna ti ves : Loca l Communi ty

LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.33 2.58 0.07
LSWOFFSH 4 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 6.08 0.17
LSSOLPV 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.33 3.33 9.67 0.27
DISNGASCC 2.00 3.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 7.25 0.20
EXCOALNG 3.00 4.00 0.30 2.00 1.00 10.30 0.29
Total 35.88 1.00

Alternatives : Proven/Reliability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 4.00 1.25 0.11 0.11 6.47 0.08
LSWOFFSH 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.11 0.11 1.72 0.02
LSSOLPV 0.80 4.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 6.02 0.08
DISNGASCC 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 0.11 28.11 0.35
EXCOALNG 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 37.00 0.47
Total 79.33 1.00
Alternatives : Infrastrucure
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.11 0.14 7.25 0.10
LSWOFFSH 0.2 1.00 0.14 0.11 0.13 1.58 0.02
LSSOLPV 1.00 7.00 1.00 0.11 0.14 9.25 0.13
DISNGASCC 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 4.00 32.00 0.44
EXCOALNG 7.00 8.00 7.00 0.25 1.00 23.25 0.32
Total 73.34 1.00
Alternatives : Permit or Approval Process
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 9.09 0.20 0.25 0.33 9.87 0.22
LSWOFFSH 0.11 1.00 0.11 0.13 0.14 1.38 0.03
LSSOLPV 5.00 9.00 1.00 1.25 1.11 12.36 0.28
DISNGASCC 4.00 8.00 0.80 1.00 1.11 10.91 0.25
EXCOALNG 3.00 7.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 9.80 0.22
Total 44.33 1.00
Alternatives : Constructability
LSWONSH LSWOFFSH LSSOLPV DISNGASCC EXCOALNG Tota l s Global Priority
LSWONSH 1.00 2.22 1.00 0.13 0.17 3.51 0.08
LSWOFFSH 0.45 1.00 0.14 0.11 0.13 1.38 0.03
LSSOLPV 1.00 7.00 1.00 0.20 0.25 8.45 0.19
DISNGASCC 8.00 9.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 17.00 0.39
EXCOALNG 6.00 8.00 4.00 0.50 1.00 13.50 0.31
Total 43.84 1.00

68
Appendix 13: Ontario Electricity Price History

Source: IESO http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/monthly_prices.asp?sid=md

Ontario Provincial Benefit Price

Source : http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/electricity_bill.asp?sid=ic

69
Appendix 14 : Capital and Operating Costs by Generation Source Fuel

Capital Cost by Source Type

($/kWh)
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000
US EIA AEO 2010
2000 US Industrial Information Resource 2010
US EIA AEO 2011
1000

Operating and Maintenance Cost

US EIA AEO 2010
$/kWh
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Fixed OM
30
Variable OM
20
Total
10
0

70
Appendix 15 : North American Natural Gas Prices (Henry Hub Basis)

Note: 1 x 106 British Thermal Units = 1.0550559 Gigajoules = 293 Kilowatt Hours

71
Appendix 16 : World Natural Gas Consumption and Reserves for US EIA 2009.

72
Appendix 17: Existing and Proposed Wind Generators in Ontario

Source: IESO, 2011; http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/images/wind_generation_in_Ontario.pdf

73
References:

1. Ontario Liberal Party, Government That Works for You, The Ontario Liberal Plan for a More Democratic
Ontario, The 2003 Ontario Liberal Party Election Platform Document
http://www.leonarddomino.com/news/platform-ontarioliberal2003.pdf
2. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, June 2004, Ontario`s Clean Air Action Plan: Protecting Environmental
and Human Health in Ontario, PIBS 4708e,
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079
434.pdf
3. The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator, Supply Overview, New and Retire generation Since the
IESO Market Opened in 2002, Import and Export History,
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_supply.asp
4. Dye. T.R, 2005, Understanding Public Policy (11 th Ed.), Copyright 2005 Prentice Hall Inc., Models of Politics:
Some Help in Thinking About Public Policy.
5. Ontario Ministry of Energy, Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan, November, 2010,
http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/
6. Musial and Ram, 2010, Large Scale Wind Power in the Untied States, Assessment of Opportunities and
Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-500-40745.
7. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electrical Power Annual, November 2011;
http://38.96.246.204/electricity/annual/
8. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report, 2003, DOE-EIA 0584
(2003);
http://books.google.ca/books?id=s7LYLCNZTpYC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=EIA+coal+generation+2003&source
=bl&ots=5KDu41A5yV&sig=RkzpTQG9iPQgXmt5XbT1RNpi1po&hl=en&ei=b0rJTqLYCKP30gHC1YX8Dw&sa=X
&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=EIA%20coal%20generati
on%202003&f=false
9. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Replacing Ontario’s Coal Fired Generation, April 2005, DSS
Management Consultant Inc., RWDI Air Inc, ;
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/en/coal_cost_benefit_analysis_april2005.pdf
10. The Ontario Power Authority,
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/cfund/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=7119&SiteNodeID=564&BL_Exp
andID=
11. March and Miers, 2011, The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Polciy In Scotalnd and the UK;
http://www.versoeconomics.com/verso-0311B.pdf
12. The Ontario Power Authority, Feed In Tariff Price Schedule for Renewable Projects Over 10 kW,
http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=10543&SiteNodeID=1103&BL_ExpandID=
260
13. The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator, Average Weighted Price Information,
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/demand_price.asp?sid=md
14. Bill 150, An Act to Enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to Build a Green Economy,
http://www.greenenergyact.ca/Page.asp?PageID=1224&SiteNodeID=202
15. Renewable Energy Approvals, Draft document posted for public comment on the Environmental Registry
March 1, 2010, Queen’s Printer for Ontario PIBS 7441e, Technical Bulletin Six, Required Setbacks for Wind
Turbines as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09
16. US Energy Information Administration, EIA
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/fig13.html
17. Ontario Power Authority. 2005. Supply Mix Advice Report.
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/18/1339_Part_1-
2_Supply_Mix_Advice_and_Recommendations.pdf (accessed 5 April 2007).
18. Independent Electricity System Operator, Demand Overview;
http://ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_demand.asp

74
 19. Independent Electricity System Operator, Supply Overview;
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_supply.asp
20. Independent Electricity System Operator, Monthly Market Update, September, 2011;
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/monthly_update.asp?sid=ic
21. Draft Project Description Report for Trillium Wind Power 1, prepared by Golder and Associates Ltd, prepared
for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, May 28, 2010
22. Biegler, March 2009, “The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Externalities of Power Generation in Australia”, The
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE)
23. Government of Canada, Environment Canada, INFORMATION ON GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCES AND SINKS,
Canada’s 2007 Greenhouse Gas Inventory – A Summary of Trends
24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
About Our Great Lakes, http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/lakes.html
25. B.S. Dhillon, 2009, “Life Cycle Costing for Engineers”, Published by: CRC Press, October, 26, 2009
26. Schmalensee Richard, 2009, “Renewable Electricity Generation in the United States”, MIT Centre for Energy
and Environmental Research, November 2009, This essay is a draft of a chapter in a forthcoming book,
Harnessing Renewable Energy, http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-017.pdf
27. Feed-in Tariff Prices for Renewable Energy Projects in Ontario, Base Date: September 30, 2009, Ontario
Power Authority, http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=1226&SiteNodeID=1058
28. Bernard Chabot and Bernard Saulneir, “ Fair and Efficient Rates for Large Scale Development of Wind
Power: The New French Solution”, proceedings from CANWEA 2001 Seminar and Conference, Ottawa,
October 29, 2001.
29. Jonathan M. Harris, Anne-Marie Codur, “Environmental Economics, Microeconomics and the Environment”,
Updated November 7, 2008, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Microeconomics_and_the_environment
30. Ontario Provincial Government, Newsroom, 2010, Oakville Power Plant Not Moving Forward, McGuinty
Government to Invest in Transmission to Meet Local Power Demand;
http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2010/10/oakville-power-plant-not-moving-forward.html
31. Ontario Provincial Government, Newsroom, 2011, Statement from Ontario Minister of Energy Chris Bentley,
We made a specific commitment to residents in Mississauga and Etobicoke to relocate the gas generating
plant.; http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2011/11/statement-from-ontario-minister-of-energy-chris-
bentley.html
32. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Technical Bulletin Six, Ontario Regulation 359/09, Required Setbacks
for Wind Turbines;
http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2010/Bulletin6.pdf
33. Hydro Quebec, Construction Projects; http://www.hydroforthefuture.com/projets/9/developing-quebec-s-
hydropower-potential
34. Manitoba Hydro, Projects; new hydro electric projects
http://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/conawapa.shtml?WT.mc_id=2608
35. Ontario Provincial Government, Newsroom, 2011, Ontario Rules Out Off-Shore Wind Projects, McGuinty
Government Committed to Renewable Energy While Protecting the Environment;
http://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2011/02/ontario-rules-out-offshore-wind-projects.html
36. Swedish Environmental Technical Council, Wind Farm in Lake Vanern;
http://swentec.se/en/Start/find_cleantech/Plants/Wind-farm-in-lake-Vanern-/
37. Helimax Energy Incorporated, 2008, Analysis of Future Offshore Wind Farm Development in Ontario,
Prepared for the Ontario Power Authority.
38. 4c Offshore, Global Offshore Wind Portal, Canada;
http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/windfarms.aspx?windfarmid=CA01
39. Windstream Energy, 2010, News Release, TORONTO, Ontario, April 9, 2010 - Windstream Wolfe Island
Shoals Inc., a subsidiary of Windstream Energy LLC, is pleased to announce that it has been awarded a Feed-
in Tariff contract by the Ontario Power Authority to develop Canada’s first offshore wind site. The 300 MW
site is located west of Wolfe Island, Ontario on approximately 48,000 acres of shallow water shoals;
http://www.windstreamenergy.ca/upload/WolfeIsland_April8_2010.pdf
40. Taylor, 2010, Underlying Factors to Opposition to an Offshore Wind Farm in Lake Ontario, York University;
http://www.yorku.ca/fes/research/students/outstanding/docs/jennifer-taylor.pdf

75
41. Blackwell, The Globe and Mail, September 28, 2010, Wind-energy firm Trillium Power sues Ontario;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/wind-energy-
firm-trillium-power-sues-ontario/article2183816/
42. Rueters, September 27, 2011, NYPA pulls plug on Great Lakes offshore wind project;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-utilities-nypa-greatlakeswind-idUSTRE78Q5SC20110927
43. Stewart, Kenora Daily News, 2010, Thunder Bay coal plant to convert to gas;
http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2860212&archive=true
44. Wind Concerns Ontario; http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
45. Saaty, 2000, Fundamentals of Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, paperback, RWS
Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2807, original edition 1994, revised 2000.

46. United States Energy Information Administration, November 2010, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for
Electricity Generation Plants; http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html#1Edited
47. Burt and Mullins, 2010, The Rush to Renewables, Power Magazine;
http://www.powermag.com/renewables/geothermal/
48. Hydro One, 2011, Bruce to Milton Transmission Reinforcement Project;
http://www.hydroone.com/projects/brucetomilton/Pages/Default.aspx
49. United States Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, November 2011,
Energy Source Electric Utilities; http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm
50. Boyle, 2004, Renewable Energy, Power for a Sustainable Future, 2 nd Edition, Oxford University
Press
51. Golder and Associates, 2010, Trillium Power Wind 1, Draft Project Description Report, Submittal to
Director, Environmental Assessments and Approvals Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment;
http://www.trilliumpower.com/downloads/trillium-power-draft-project-description.pdf
52. Weis and Partington, July 2011, Behind the Switch, Pricing Ontario Electricity Options, The
Pembina Institute; http://www.pembina.org/pub/2238
53. The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator, Wind Power Generation in Ontario;
,http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/windtracker.asp
54. Environmental Defence, Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, 2011, Blowing Smoke, Correcting
Anti Wind Myths inOntario
55. Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario, 2010, The Potential Health Impacts of Wind Turbines;
www.health.gov.on.ca/.../public/publications/.../wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf
56. Hingtgen, 2003, Offshore Wind Farms in the Western Great Lakes, An Interdisciplinary Analysis of
Their Potential, University of Wisconsin-Madison

76