My Clean Break column this week takes a look at Ontario’s decision back in February to put a moratorium — once again — on the development of offshore wind in the Great Lakes, and argues the province should reconsider development of this resource even if this time around it takes a more measured approached.

My own beef with the February moratorium is that the government cited environmental concerns that were supposedly addressed in a previous round of studies done prior to the lifting of the last ban in January 2008. At that time, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that environmental studies had been done and, in his mind, “you can do it in a way that does not compromise ecosystems.” At that point, he fired a starting gun for industry and, to stimulate interest even further, the government included offshore wind in its feed-in-tariff program. Three years later — i.e. this past February — the plug was pulled once again. Turns out Ontario was jerking the industry’s chain.

Now, I can understand the desire to pull back a bit. One could easily argue that the government moved too fast by including offshore wind in the feed-in-tariff program. But why completely halt all development, indefinitely, especially when jurisdictions such as Ohio are pushing ahead? Why go so far as to tell all developers that if and when offshore wind is put back into play, they have to start from scratch (effectively rendering all past site-specific research and studies useless)? It made no sense.

Anyway, as you’ll read in the column, I think the government needs to reconsider its decision. Perhaps a way back into it is to start by focusing on a pilot project, maybe 50 to 100 MW in size, developed far enough offshore that it wouldn’t get the NIMBYs all worked up. This could be the basis of real-world study, during which new rules can be set making a distinction between near-shore and truly offshore resources, and bringing clarity to a new market craving guidance.

To simply sit back and let U.S. jurisdictions take the lead — and future manufacturing and job creation — isn’t fitting of a province with the most to gain from offshore wind development in the Great Lakes, and the most to offer.

I had a short article over the weekend about low water levels in Ontario and the impact on hydroelectric generation. Obviously, this is an issue that goes beyond Ontario’s borders. Record low snowfall over the winter and a dry spring has erased more than 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity in Ontario, and it’s likely to get worse. I just got off a conference call with the International Joint Commission, which regulates water flows and use on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Clearly, it’s not just the rivers that are suffering. “The levels of all of the Great Lakes are below average, and indeed are lower than they were at this time last year,” according to commission staff. “Lake Ontario is 30 centimetres, or one foot, below the average for mid-May and 36 centimetres below a year ago.” (Picture to left was taken by Gord Miller, Ontario Environmental Commissioner. It’s a shot of a small lake in northern Ontario. Thanks for the pic, Gord).

Lake Ontario levels are determined by inflows from Lake Erie, inflows from rivers, and precipitation, minus evaporation and consumption. Precipitation from January to end of April has been at a record low. “It’s the lowest amount for that four-month period since records began in the 1900s.” Now, I won’t make a direct connection to climate change here, since a single season of record-low precipitation is not evidence of global warming. However, this situation does illustrate how sensitive we are to climate change and how much the impact could truly be if low precipitation and dry winters become more common as a result — and I’m guessing they will. The following comments from Andrew McCammon, executive director of the Ontario Headwaters Institute, puts it this way:

Lower lake levels will result in less power available from hydro-electric generating stations, as well as in stranded docks and exposed rocks in cottage country. But they may also result in increased dredging costs for marinas, reduced loads on Great Lakes ships, the loss of coastal wetlands, changes in fish species, and potential impacts on municipal infrastructure such as the re-location of drinking water in-take pipes. More importantly from an ecological perspective, lake levels tend to be an early indicator of what is transpiring upstream. If a lake is down 1.5 meters, what has already taken place upstream? Is a drier climate reducing our wetland complexes? Have small streams withered? Are whole forests drier, with greater potential for fire, pest infestation, and other impacts?

Everything is interconnected. We forget about this too often.