Investigative Reporting by a Toronto Star Journalist is Disinformation

Recently invited to be a guest on Zoomer Radio, I agreed, and was informed I would be joined by Bryan Purcell, VP of Policy and Programs at The Atmospheric Fund. TAF is a “not-for-profit” company with almost $100 million of “restricted funds” that have been provided by the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada and appears to have 30 employees.  They use the revenue generated from the funds ($7.1 million in their 2020 and $1.2 million in 2021 financial reports) and other revenue (minimal) to provide grants described as: “has the potential to generate large-scale carbon reduction in the GTHA“ (Greater Toronto Hamilton Area).

The planned discussion/debate was to be in respect to a Toronto Star article posted November 30, 2022 titled “Ontario’s new gas plants will cause your hydro rates to rise, report says” and presumably for Zoomer’s audience to hear competing views on the content in the article from yours truly.

Shortly before the program was to start the Auditor General of Ontario released her annual report so I, and presumably Bryan Purcell, were informed the discussion was cancelled as the host wanted to cover the AG report due to it’s significance in detailing how the AG viewed Premier Ford’s led financial management over the prior year.

The TorStar article was written by Marco Chown Oved* who identified himself as a “Climate Change Reporter” in the article heading! On his LinkedIn profile, he identifies himself as an “Investigative Reporter at Toronto Star”! The TAF representative, Bryan Purcell, also scheduled to be on the radio program, is quoted in the article and on his LinkedIn profile states he is a: “Environmental Professional focused on Climate Change mitigation“ but his qualifications suggest he is stretching the truth.

Below we will examine some of the claims made in the article based on the report prepared by Power Advisory, which we assume TAF paid for with our tax dollars!  The report’s author from Power Advisory was Travis Lusney, whose LinkedIn profile discloses he was the Senior Business Analyst at the OPA (Ontario Power Authority). In that former position he states he; “Managed analysis and implementation of procurement policy. Focused on the Feed-In Tariff Program with emphasis on pricing, connections and stakeholder engagement.“  Hmm, one should wonder if Mr. Lusney, was at least partially responsible for the cost of electricity in Ontario jumping by over 100% due to the FIT contracts to wind and solar proponents which paid them as much as 82 cents/kWh for rooftop solar. Perhaps we should take his recent report to TAF with the proverbial “grain of salt”, or should we simply shrug it off based on the “investigative journalism” claims of Marco Chown Oved, the Toronto Star reporter?

Claims from the article:

Rather than relying on natural-gas-fired generation to meet growing electricity demand, Ontario’s cheapest and most reliable options require new wind and solar,

It is unbelievable the “investigative journalist” didn’t bother to do a little research work on the foregoing claim as he would quickly discover wind and solar are not the “cheapest and most reliable”. Had the author simply bothered to look at the February 2022 report of the FAO (Finance Accountability Office of Ontario) he would have discovered they have driven up the cost of electricity to the point where taxpayers are forced to absorb a cost of “$38.6 billion (32.7 per cent) to move most of the cost of 33,000 renewable energy contracts with wind, solar and bioenergy generators from all electricity ratepayers to the Province.“  Had he also bothered to just examine a few days of IESO data he may also have discerned wind and solar’s bad habits of generating power when it’s unneeded and failing to deliver power during “peak hours” on cold winter days and hot summer ones. Recent examples of unneeded power generation occurred December 2nd and 3rd when IWT (industrial wind turbines) operated at 76% of their rated capacity whereas on December 7th and 8th they operated at a miserly 8.5% of their rated capacity. In the first instance the IESO were forced to sell off that power for pennies of it’s cost and in the latter case natural gas and hydro ramped up to prevent blackouts such as those that occur in California and elsewhere around the world where wind and solar are a large part of electricity grids.

People, governments and businesses are switching en masse to electricity as a power source for cars, heating and heavy industry in an effort to lower carbon emissions and avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Once again, the Toronto Star’s “investigative reporter” obviously did not do any research, or he would have discovered the “en masse” switch is not happening to any great extent without government grants, and they obviously must be higher or people won’t switch.  In the case of EV penetration a very recent article from mid November pointed out EV sales in Canada were low during the first 6 months of 2022 stating:  “Based on average new vehicle registrations, the EV total would have to grow from 55,600 to about 480,000 over six months to hit that 60 per cent target.” The 60 per cent target is for 2030 and the 2035 target is 100 per cent. The Federal government also hand out grants for heat pump conversions as well as interest-free loans of $40K but once again reviewing government statistics the conversion rate is not happening. A StatCan report notes heat pumps as a primary heat source have only grown from 3% in 2013 to 5% in 2019 and forced air furnaces have only declined by 1% from 53% in 2013 to 52% in 2019. Funnily enough, electric baseboard heaters over the same time frame fell from 28% to 26%. The actual data easily demonstrates the “en masse” switch the author suggests is a fallacy!

The report says Ontario needs to start making significant investments in its grid, especially considering the lengthy timelines required to build the transmission, generation and storage required to simultaneously meet demand and reduce emissions.

Hydro One just received approval from the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) for a rate increase for planned capital spending on their transmission system.  The spending appears to represent about $7.5 billion over the next five years.  Spending of that amounts suggests the investment is “significant” and a little research by the article’s author would have disclosed that!  No investigative integrity is apparent!  

“It’s very clear that if we’re going to go to net-zero, renewables are going to be part of the mix,” said Travis Lusney, the report’s author and director of power systems at Power Advisory. “How far you go is dependent on a lot of factors, even outside of the electricity sector.”

Well, it is apparent Lusney has a love affair with renewables as his prior role at the OPA (Ontario Power Authority), created by the McGuinty Government handed him the power to construct the mess of the electricity sector in Ontario that (as noted above) the FAO stated in his February 2022 report will cost taxpayers $38.6 billion.

“The report finds that a 97 per cent non-emitting grid can be achieved by building new transmission lines, solar and wind generation as well as energy storage facilities. This would allow the grid to reduce its dependence on natural gas to a few peak demand days in mid summer.”

It is worth noting the report fails to mention Ontario’s electricity grid is already over 92% “non-emitting” and fails to include a cost/benefit analysis to achieve the additional 5% emissions reduction it seeks. The report in the three scenario’s recommends adding as much as 12,700 MW of wind capacity, 5,500 MW of solar capacity and 3,900 MW of storage capacity. The report goes on to suggest those wind turbines, solar panels and the storage capacity be spread throughout the province. The report then forecasts due to the spreading it would require as much as an $8.4 billion spend on the transmission system in order to get the power to where its needed. In summary the Power Advisory report recommends  spending billions of dollars to achieve a 5% reduction in emissions in Ontario’s electricity system.  As outlined above it is very unlikely those new facilities coupled with the additional wind, solar and storage capacity and their associated costs would reduce electricity prices! Instead those costs would drive up prices much as they did in the past with a much smaller capacity addition of renewables. Nevertheless, we should be pretty sure Power Advisory would love the foregoing to happen and Travis Lusney would surely rise in the ranks of his employer, Boston Advisory, who would stand to benefit from the money stream generated by assisting applicants seeking contracts from IESO. 

“In each scenario, hydro prices will be lower than they would be if the province goes through with its plan to build new gas plants, the report concludes, mostly because gas is expected to get more expensive, a rise that will be exacerbated by the increase in carbon tax. Meanwhile, prices for wind and solar, which are already cheaper than natural gas, are expected to fall.”

First off, one should wonder how each scenario will cause “hydro prices” to be lower but perhaps they were actually suggesting “electricity prices” will be lower? Past and current experience in Ontario due to wind and solar generation have actually caused “hydro spills” meaning OPG are paid to simply spill water over dams without running them through the turbines. Ratepayers, however pick up the costs of those spills and for the past several years their costs have been substantial. The spills by OPG are almost always caused by unneeded wind generation as their contracts give them “first-to-the-grid” rights . On the statement, “prices for wind and solar” are expected to fall” is also far from the truth.  As one example an article last month about Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, stated: “Vestas has raised prices more than 30% in the past year to help stem losses.“  It should also be recognized gas prices would fall if our abundant supplies in Saskatchewan and Alberta had more pipelines available but the Federal government has done everything in its power to prevent that from happening.

As the foregoing once again suggests; the Toronto Star, their reporters, and other MSM companies simply accept what they are told or read and fail to do any research to determine if they are providing facts or fiction. In this case it seems obvious it is the latter and reporter Marco Chown Oved should immediately rewrite his LinkedIn memes as it doesn’t suggest he is a “investigative reporter”!

* Marco Chown Oved’s LinkedIn biography brags about how the CAJ (Canadian Association of Journalists) were so enthralled with an article he wrote about “climate change” they blessed him for writing it. Perhaps they will do so again for this diatribe of BS as the MSM seems to have abandoned publishing the truth and the CAJ has endorsed their abandonment!  This is what Marco Chown Oved has on his LinkedIn site: ”Awarded the inaugural Environmental and Climate Change Award from the CAJ for my feature on heat waves in Montreal, a part of the Toronto Star’s Undeniable series on climate change.”

Author: parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog

Retired international banker.

9 thoughts on “Investigative Reporting by a Toronto Star Journalist is Disinformation”

  1. Thank you Parker!
    We need a thorough cost/benefit analysis of industrial scale, subsidized wind and solar now. The cost of wind must include the harm to residents from trespassing noise..both audible and inaudible.

    Turbines responsible for this need to be turned off, dismantled and recycled.

    We also need to expose the climate change deception thoroughly.

    We obviously need a new government too.

    Ford has failed.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Another great article Mr. Gallant. I sure hope Premier Ford reads it. Another good example of why newspapers need to be part of the propaganda machine to survive. Who would buy newspapers so full of lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Are there still people buying such newspapers or subscribing to them because they simply cannot or will not believe that these sources which used to be and should be trustworthy are no longer telling the truth? It’s understandable that the disillusionment of coming to this realization is just too much for them to bear.


  3. In this post I think you are being too serious. Here’s my take on the situation.

    Pity the poor Climate Change Reporter, who has an almost impossible job. They are required by their employers – mainstream media like the Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe and Mail, or the New York Times and Washington Post – to write stories regularly, even though the facts about climate change are not changing noticeably. They would rapidly become unemployed writers if they didn’t provide what is expected of them.

    The real job of the Climate Change Reporter is to provide scary entertainment. Their genre is the perpetual struggle between good and evil. This is neither information nor disinformation, it is simply entertainment. It is a lot like the Western movies I used to watch in my youth. The movie usually opens with the Bad Guy, dressed in black clothes and a black hat, doing evil things with his gang of outlaws to the poor folks in town. The Bad Guy today is the Oil Industry, dressed in black carbon, and its wicked apologists and greedy capitalist investors.
    The evil continues until the new Sheriff arrives. This new Sheriff wears a green hat instead of a white hat, but that is the only costume change. This Sheriff is either a Green Advocate (Greenpeace, WWF, Antonio Gutierrez, Al Gore, David Suzuki, etc.) or Green Tech (Renewables, Solar or Wind Generation). There is a shootout at High Noon, when the good guys win and the bad guys are driven out of town – at least until the High Noon 2, High Noon 3, and so on to High Noon ∞.

    This and similar scary stories with happy endings are what is expected of the Climate Change Reporter. Readers of the stories may not remember that good stories don’t require factual accuracy. Neither is it necessary to provide “information” when it is really all about telling an entertainingly scary or hopeful story. These stories will often contain some opinions of the writer (or of “experts” or “the science”) but entertainment doesn’t need to be balanced reporting. The stories should not be judged on their factual accuracy or balance, because that is not their purpose.

    The only problem I see with this climate segment of the media industry lies with many of their readers, who come to believe that these entertaining stories are really true. They then believe that what the world needs is more Green Sheriffs to drive away the Bad Guys. At the same time, as their electricity gradually becomes both hideously expensive and hideously unreliable, while heating their homes and driving to work and buying groceries becomes unaffordable, there is growing cognitive dissonance. They want the Green Sheriff to win, but why is everything getting so expensive? As this happens the Climate Change Reporter has to double down and explain that this is all caused by their still being too many Bad Guys around, who still have to be shot down by increasing the number of Green Sheriffs and their deputies, despite the rising prices of everything. In short, doing more of the same thing won’t produce the same results it’ll save us from worse results.

    One can only hope that as the costs rise and the benefits fall fewer people will find this entertaining.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Thank you Parker, for setting the record straight. I hope that many people read your commentary. Andrew Roman’s entertaining response that this is really all about a morality tale and the good (i.e. green) guys must always be favoured by climate reporters offers a good insight into why such fluff is even published. However, facts matter. They matter because good public policy with respect to electricity or anything else must be grounded in reality, not false perceptions. They also matter because when governments waste billions of dollars on unneeded electricity generation, storage and transmission systems, they are taking money out of people’s hands that could be better spent on any number of more important and beneficial private and public goods. Bad climate-inspired electricity policies are making us all much poorer.


  5. What is Oved’s association with TAX FUNDED ‘charity’ Canadian Climate Institute? (formerly known as the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices).

    The Canadian Climate Institute, which was registered July 29, 2021 reported

    Total revenue: $2,487,656.00 *
    Total expenses: $3,646,724.00
    Loss: $1,159,068.00

    * $2,433,119.00 (97.81%) was funded by TAXPAYERS, their FAT Salaries + Consulting Fees: $2,194,208.00

    More details here:

    Who We Are:
    Take a look through the bios of the staff, board of directors, expert panels, advisory council .. and you’ll recognize many of the usual ‘experts’ , activists, govt pension plans who have spent their entire careers feeding off tax $ …. and many also happen to be linked to the WEF.

    Canadian Climate Institute registration/addresses

    Federal Corporation: 192 Spadina Ave, Toronto

    Provincial BC

    According to CRA
    Address: PO BOX 1401, BOBCAYGEON, Ontario

    As an aside … 192 Spadina is only a 6 story tall building and yet houses 16 ‘charities’, of which the majority seem to be involved with: education, sustainability, energy conservation, greening, environmental, spiritual, human rights ’causes’ .

    And 12 of these ‘charities’ received Govt Funding.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: