“If you live in North Stormont near wind turbines, check your mailbox this week.” Wind Concerns Ontario
A Temporary Moratorium on Development of Wind Energy Systems in the Town of Lincoln has been adopted and is in effect as of May 10, 2021.
An ordinance summary can viewed under the Postings tab.
The full ordinance can be viewed under the Ordinances tab.
Shortsighted planning has often resulted in the creation of problem industries that adversely affect public health and quality of life, compromise aesthetics, and degrado community character. Industrial WEFs are not exempt from those problems, and careful siting and protections are of paramount importance, This local Law will contribute to this effortTown of Lincoln Wind Energy Facility Licensing Ordinance, section 2-2
A WEF may be a significant source of noise and vibration for the community. These can have negative health impacts on nearby residents, particularly in quiet rural areas. These can also negatively affect the quiet enjoyment of the area, properties, and quality of life of residents. According to various medical experts and the World Health Organization, the infrasound component of such noise can be the most problematic
Town of Lincoln Wind Energy Facility Licensing Ordinance, section 2-17
ERO number 019-3471 Notice type Regulation Act Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 Posted by Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines Notice stage Proposal Proposal posted April 15, 2021 Comment period April 15, 2021 – May 25, 2021 (40 days) Open Last updated April 15, 2021
We are proposing to repeal sections of the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 that were introduced under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 to promote and prioritize the development of renewable energy.
On this page
We are proposing to repeal three sets of legislative provisions in the Electricity Act, 1998 (EA) and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 (OEBA) that promote and prioritize renewable energy generation projects. Ontario has built a clean energy supply. Prioritizing renewable generation is no longer appropriate.Going forward, Ontario will ensure value for ratepayers by allowing all resources to compete to meet system needs.
First, we propose to repeal section 25.37 and clause 114 (1.4) (0.a.1) of the EA. Together with O. Reg. 326/09 (Mandatory Information Re Connections), these sections prescribe timelines for completing complex grid connection assessments for renewable energy projects and other requirements that apply to Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). These provisions also prescribe requirements that LDCs and the IESO must report quarterly on the number of assessments they complete and the ability of the system to accommodate more projects.
A related proposal to revoke O. Reg. 326/09 was posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario on December 15, 2020 for a 50-day public comment period.
These actions would remove priority timelines for LDCs and the IESO to complete complex grid connection assessments for renewable energy projects and bring consistency for all generation types seeking similar assessments. Removing these provisions would help make Ontario more competitive by cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burden and aligns with the following ongoing initiatives led by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and the IESO, as set out below.
Through the Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Connections Review initiative, the OEB is reviewing the requirements for the connection of DERs by licensed electricity distributors. The OEB is consulting with customers, DER providers, industry associations and distributors to identify barriers to the connection of DERs, and where appropriate, standardize and improve the connection process.
As part of the Framework for Energy Innovation: Distributed Resources and Utility Incentives consultation, the OEB is working with stakeholders to identify and consider regulatory reforms that would facilitate investment in DERs on the basis of the value to consumers, which may include exploring new and innovative ways to make system information available.
This would also align with the IESO’s efforts to plan for future electricity supply in a manner that offers value to ratepayers by allowing any resource that can meet system needs to compete.
Second, we propose to repeal sections 26 (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3) of the EA, and paragraph 1 of subsection 70(2.1) of the OEBA, which create the authority to make a regulation that would provide priority grid access for renewable energy generation facilities. No regulation was made under this authority, so this prioritization was never implemented.
Third, we propose to repeal paragraph 2 of section 96(2) of the OEBA, which requires the OEB to consider the promotion of energy from renewable sources when determining if a Leave to Construct application for an electricity transmission project is in the public interest. Repealing this paragraph will focus the scope of the OEB’s Leave to Construct hearings on the topics of price, reliability, and quality of service.
This repeal aligns with amendments made to the OEBA in 2020 to remove an OEB objective to promote renewable energy generation, including through the expansion or reinforcement of transmission and distribution systems to accommodate the connection of renewable energy generation facilities.
- Electricity Act, 1998
- Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998
- Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020
- O. Reg. 326/09: Mandatory Information Re Connections
- Ontario Energy Board’s Distributed Energy Resources Connection Review
- Framework for Energy Innovation: Distributed Resources and Utility Incentives C…
- Proposed Revocation of O. Reg. 326/09: Mandatory Information Re Connections under the Electricity Act, 1998
- Proposed Supporting Recovery and Competitiveness Act
View materials in person
Important notice: Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, viewing supporting materials in person is not available at this time.
Please reach out to the Contact listed in this notice to see if alternate arrangements can be made.
Let us know what you think of our proposal. Have questions? Get in touch with the contact person below. Please include the ERO number for this notice in your email or letter to the contact.
Submit by mail
Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Conservation and Renewable Energy Division
77 Grenville St.
Connect with us
Sign up for notifications
We will send you email notifications with any updates related to this consultation. You can change your notification preferences anytime by visiting settings in your profile page.Follow this notice
Carmen Krogh gave a recent presentation on new research exploring why people living within 10 km of an industrial wind turbine facility contemplate/vacate their homes.
Hosted by WECC (Wildlife Energy Community Coalition) on April 29, 2021 via a virtual portal. A recording of the meeting is to be posted on their website.
(Slide 18 is revised to clarify the 5 Elements and their relationship to the analysed data and slide 26 provides a reference for slide 25.)
Carmen Krogh is a published independent researcher. She will be speaking on new research which explores why some people contemplate or vacate homes that are near industrial wind turbine facilities.
Presentation: “Wind Turbines can Harm Humans: Exploring why some contemplate to vacate/abandon their homes.“
Presenter: Carmen Krogh (email@example.com)
Date & Time: April 29, 2021 @ 1:00 pm
Location: Virtual (details below)
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 835 6265 6374
One tap mobile
+16465588656,,83562656374#,,,,*151296# US (New York)
+13017158592,,83562656374#,,,,*151296# US (Washington DC)
Dial by your location
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
Meeting ID: 835 6265 6374
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keGBNyty9P
Complaint process for wind turbine noise inherited by the Ford government not effective
April 12, 2021
Wind Concerns Ontario has just released its latest report on how the Ontario government has responded to citizen complaints about excessive wind turbine noise from grid-scale wind power projects.
Warning: the contents of this report can make for difficult reading.
The excerpts of comments from people calling into the 24/7 Spills Action Centre telephone line, or sending emails to their local District Office of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks are an alarming demonstration of the desperation felt by families forced with the wind turbine noise—some of them, for many years.
“We ache all over and can hardly function we are so tired. Please tell us what to do. Please respond.”
“Noise described as a ‘whooing’ sound, both heard and felt.”
“This continues to be horrendous.”
“Caller reports a pulsing roar.”
“This is the 65th time they have called.”
“We can’t go on like this.”
Polluted acoustic environment
One complaint documented was from a technician hired to do monitoring of bat populations near Bow Lake, who questioned whether he/she could continue the work due to the “acoustic pollution” from the wind turbines. The wind turbines were “generating unacceptably intrusive and potentially dangerous noise emissions into the natural environment,” the person reported. This is a “polluted acoustic environment.”
This report is based on Incident Reports created in 2018, received as the result of a request under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. The request was filed in January 2019; we received almost 4,000 pages of documents this past March. The report is fourth in a series, examining ministry response back to 2006.
It’s not working
The overarching conclusion from examining the complaint records as a whole is that Ontario’s complaint monitoring process, which the current government inherited from previous administrations, is not working. Key findings:
- Complaints about wind power projects are part of the process government promised would ensure protection of health and safety. Robust enforcement of the regulations in response to these complaints will fulfill that responsibility.
- In total, almost 6,000 files of complaints about wind turbine noise, vibration and sound pressure have been released to Wind Concerns by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
- 39 percent of complaints in 2018 noted adverse health effects.
- The records show that complaints do not result in real action by the project operators, despite requirements of approvals for the project.
- The process to accept and record citizen complaints is inconsistent, and information gathered is incomplete.
- There appears to be no ministry-wide evaluation and review process for citizen complaints about environmental noise produced by wind turbines.
- The report concludes with recommendations on how the complaint handling process could be improved as an enforcement tool, and could provide opportunities to act on other issues such as electricity costs.
Read the report here: Report on Noise Complaint Response 2018-FINAL.
New research about housing decisions and relationship to industrial wind turbines.
Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines Carmen M. Krogh1*, Robert Y. McMurtry2, W. B. Johnson3, Anne Dumbrille4, Mariana Alves-Pereira5, Jerry L. Punch6, Debra Hughes7, Linda Rogers8, Robert W. Rand9, Richard James10, Stephen E. Ambrose11, Lorrie Gillis121Magentica Research Group, Member of the Board of Directors, Killaloe, Canada.
2Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
3Independent, Winterset, USA.
4Independent, Picton, Canada.
5School of Sciences for Economics and Organizations, Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal.
6Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
7Independent, West Lincoln, Canada.
8Mothers against Wind Turbines, Member of the Board of Directors, Haldimand County, Canada.
9Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Member Emeritus, Brunswick, USA.
10Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) through 2017, Okemos, USA.
11Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Emeritus, Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Emeritus, Windham, USA.
12Independent, Grey Highlands, Canada.
Abstract Background: Some people living near wind turbines have reported adverse health effects and taken the step to vacate/abandon their homes, while others contemplate doing so or have decided to remain in their homes. Research on the extent and outcomes of these events is lacking. To date, our preliminary findings and an overview of results have been published in the scientific literature. Methods: This study utilized a qualitative methodology, specifically Grounded Theory, to interview 67 residents of Ontario living within 10 km of an industrial wind turbine project. Objectives: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research each has strengths and weaknesses in addressing particular research questions. The purpose of this article is to compare the qualitative and quantitative methodologies and to describe the benefits of having used a qualitative methodology, specifically Grounded Theory, to explore the events that influenced families living within 10 km of wind energy facilities to contemplate vacating their homes and to formulate a substantive theory regarding these housing decisions. Results: It was found that research into the impacts of siting industrial wind turbines in a rural residential population can be challenging for a quantitative methodological approach due to factors such as low population density, obtaining a sufficient sample, and achieving statistical power and statistical significance. We conclude that the Grounded Theory methodology was applicable to this study as it assisted with the development of a coherent theory which explained participants’ housing decisions. Discussion: This paper assesses the appropriateness of a qualitative methodology for conducting the vacated/abandoned home study. Through the utilization of the qualitative Grounded Theory methodology, government authorities, researchers, medical and health practitioners, social scientists and policy makers with an interest in health policy and disease prevention have the opportunity to gain an awareness of the potential risk of placing wind energy projects near family homes.
Share and Cite: Krogh, C.M., McMurtry, R.Y., Johnson, W.B., Dumbrille, A., Alves-Pereira, M., Punch, J.L., Hughes, D., Rogers, L., Rand, R.W., James, R., Am- brose, S.E. and Gillis, L. (2021) Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines. Open Access Library Journal, 8, 1-22. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1107233.