Pack The Halls! SAVE the County!

pec-blockThe final oral submissions of the APPEC/Hirsch Environmental Review Tribunal ERT will be heard in the County. We encourage all to attend. Filling the hearing room to capacity for these final submissions will show the Tribunal that PEC cares.

The next major event of the White Pines ERT is Friday, January 27, 2017 when the ERT will convene in Prince Edward County to hear closing arguments. This will be our LAST opportunity to present our case to the Tribunal before it adjourns to make a final decision on the White Pines wind project.

This is also the last and ONLY day in over a year that the Tribunal has deemed to hold a public hearing, with the past ten months of this ERT taking place entirely behind closed doors. This is your opportunity to let the Tribunal know that County residents did not appreciate being left out of the appeal process. In order to make that point – and to make clear where you stand on the White Pines wind project – you will need to be there!

The hearing will be held as follows:

Date: January 27, 2017
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Wellington and District Community Centre, Highline Hall, 111 Belleville Street, Wellington.

More information please contact CCSAGE:

Constitutional Challenge Court: January 19, 2017


On January 19, 2017  Shaun and Trish Drennan  will continue to pursue the Constitutional Challenge against the Green Energy Act.  Self represented this time- they will be bringing before the Ontario Superior Court a revised statement of claim seeking remedy found in the protections guaranteed in Canada’s constitution.  Most importantly the action’s goal is to actively use the law to grant relief and prevention of harm from wind powered complexes.

WHAT: Constitutional Challenge  WHEN: January 19, 2017  10 am

WHERE: Goderich Court House (Ontario Superior Court-Divisional)

Unite The Fight

In 2014  four families (Dixon, Ryan, Drennan, Koplein) acted as the appellants leading the novel case. Falconers LLP acted on behalf of the families.  The Court’s decision failed to move the contested issues towards the desired resolution. Documents from the hearing can be reviewed at:

Ontario Superior Court

The renewable energy approvals for  K2 Wind, Amrow Wind and St.Columban Wind remain in the  sights and cross hairs of law and legal argument. If the action succeeds it will impact statutory authorities enabling wind power.

Mothers Against Wind Turbines joined forces with other community- based interest groups  that formed the Community Coalition (14 groups in total) which was accepted as interveners in the  original hearing in 2014.   (Lambton County was accepted as an independent intervener)

Please show your support to Shaun and Trish.  Your seats in the seats would be appreciated. dscn4290

Turbines Go Up Hydro Bills Soar


“I give wind turbines and solar panels a great deal of the blame for hydro costs,” said Lorrie Gillis, who drove from her country home near Flesherton, northwest of Toronto, to hold a picket sign reading “hydro bills $oar.”

Wynne gets cold shoulder from PM on hydro costs

Public makes noise on wind regulations; PSB hosts discussion of sound limits

Sally Collopy attends 1st PSB meeting on IWT noise limits

Credit:  By Tom Benton, Messenger Staff Writer | St. Albans Messenger | Jan. 12, 2017 |

MONTPELIER – The Public Service Board (PSB) held its second workshop to gather information regarding industrial wind sound limits in Montpelier on Jan. 9. This time, members of the public dominated the proceeding.

The Vermont legislature has tasked the PSB with creating sound regulations for industrial wind facilities by July 1. The PSB held an initial information-gathering workshop on Dec. 2, at which government agencies, specifically the Department of Public Service, dominated the proceedings. Members of the public in attendance criticized the PSB for not allowing the public due time, so the board established a follow-up workshop session.

The last workshop took several hours, from mid-morning until the early evening. The second workshop took only two-and-a-half. There were just two presentations, by Les Blomberg, director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, a Montpelier-based national non-profit devoted to combating “noise pollution,” and by Olivia Campbell Anderson, the executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont, another Montpelier-based nonprofit, in this case supporting industrial efforts to increase renewable energy.

It was an even split between those advocating for tighter restrictions on industrial wind, arguing higher wind sound levels damage human health, and those advocating for less-harsh regulation, arguing strict restrictions on wind projects damage the economic prospects for renewable energy in Vermont. But those tighter-regulation advocates dominated the floor, with almost a dozen members of the public present to support them and voice their own concerns, sitting around the small conference room adorned in their trademark lime-green reflective vests.

Blomberg listed frequently used international wind sound regulatory tools. He said 89 percent of wind sound ordinances are based on public nuisance reports, 82 percent specific to the time of day and 70 percent based on zoning regulations. Blomberg did not share specific citations during his presentation, and members of the PSB consistently pressed him for more specificity. Blomberg spoke in favor of constant, 24/7 monitoring of wind facilities’ sound output, prompting the board to ask how that could feasibly be accomplished, a question for which Blomberg did not have a specific response.

Blomberg’s presentation was most clear when it was most simple, never more so than when he presented a list of six problems with industrial wind noise and six ostensibly simple solutions. Blomberg’s list stated regulatory techniques for wind turbine sound are too complicated, and suggested using setbacks, a mandatory distance between any industrial wind project and a homeowner’s house or even property line, and metrics based on maximum sound outputs rather than average sound outputs. But as with the rest of his presentation, Blomberg struggled when pressed by members of the PSB for specifics.

Anderson’s presentation was a brief reiteration of statements made during the last workshop: a 45 decibel (dB) average-based monitoring model is sufficient to protect the public health. She referred to many of the reports cited by the public opposition as “outlier studies” too constraining for project feasibility, advocating for limits “beyond what’s necessary for public health.” She said long-term monitoring of industrial wind projects is “onerous,” and threatens the economics of the industry without any benefits to the public.

Annette Smith, the director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, the state’s foremost industrial wind opposition group, pressed Anderson. “Are you a noise expert?” Smith asked.

“No. Are you, Annette?” Anderson retorted.

Anderson presented a vast and specific list of international wind sound limits. But when Smith asked if Anderson had investigated the success of those limits, a question members of the PSB echoed, Anderson said no. “We’d have to reach out to those jurisdictions,” she said.

Members of the public in attendance frequently raised questions or concerns throughout both presentations. Fairfield resident Sally Collopy summarized public disdain after Anderson’s presentation, in which Anderson, like state and industry representatives during the last workshop, used the term “in reality” to contest assertions made by members of the public.

“We keep hearing ‘in reality,’” Collopy said. “The ‘reality’ is the people living with it.” She said the board faced “complete disagreement” from each side of the argument on sound monitoring. “You’ll never get the answers you want – and it is desperately needed – unless you can secure an independent party,” Collopy said.

Republican House Representative Marianna Gamache represents the town of Swanton, the proposed site for the controversial Swanton Wind project. Gamache was a member of the House Energy Committee, where the bill requiring the PSB to create a sound rule began. She said the House bill set a Jan. 2018 deadline for the rule’s creation. The Senate changed the deadline to Sept. 2017, and the bill finally passed with its current July 2017 deadline.

Gamache suggested the PSB request an extension “given the amount of material you have to sort through.”

“There was a general agreement in our committee that if you needed more time, all you have to do is request ii,” Gamache told the board.

The PSB’s workshops were not official hearings. Those will follow the creation of a preliminary sound rule. However, anyone can submit comments regarding any potential wind sound regulation to the PSB at psb.clerk@vermont. gov.


Lambton County Accepts Wind Money

Wind turbines in Cedar Point project

Lambton County, Ontario

On Dec. 7, Lambton County Coun. Bev MacDougall accepted a donation of $50,000/year for four years, on behalf of the county, for Lambton’s Creative County Fund, from the Cedar Point wind project, which is jointly owned by Suncor and Nextera.

To put the total donation of $200,000 into perspective, Suncor/Nextera will receive approximately $700 million from the Ontario government, through our electricity bills, over the life of the wind project contract.

The media announcement came as a surprise to some county councillors, including Lonny Napper, whose municipality was sued by Suncor over bylaws intended to protect its residents.

The historical actions of the county council give context to this issue. Council passed motions to support a moratorium on turbines and to declare itself an unwilling host to turbines. Most importantly, county council became an opposing party in Nextera’s Jericho Wind Project Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), and in the Suncor Cedar Point Wind Project ERT.

During the Jericho and Cedar Point ERT hearings, David Cribbs, Lambton County’s counsel, argued that the siting of the massive galvanized transmission pylons close to traveled roadways posed a health and safety risk to motorists. Those appeals were rejected by the tribunal.

The county’s media release contained a photo of MacDougall accepting the donation from Suncor representative Jody Hood, who was a witness for Suncor in the ERT hearing against the county. Would that not be considered hypocritical?

One of the stated aims of the Creative County Committee is to improve the quality of life in Lambton County. At every government-mandated public meeting held by Suncor since the Cedar Point project became operational, nearby residents have spoken out about their diminished quality of life because of nearby wind projects. We have also heard from affected individuals outside of the public meetings, including a family that has moved from their family farm because of the impacts of the turbines.

But the greatest detrimental impact this industrial project has had involves the irreparable damage to relationships between family members, and neighbours, in our community. This donation will cause even more divisiveness between the dedicated groups receiving the funds and those suffering because of the project.

We don’t oppose the county funding worthy causes locally. But we do take issue with the warden and the councillor accepting what had to be known as a controversial donation from the wind developers, on behalf of all county councillors and its citizens without their knowledge and without debate.

Warden Bill Weber states that the donation comes “with very few strings attached”. We disagree.

Lambton County now has the dubious distinction of voting itself as an unwilling host to turbines, while taking money from the wind developers through the back door. Accepting the cash could be viewed as tacit support for wind projects. It has damaged the credibility of the county’s “Not a Willing Host” resolution. It has undermined the work done by the county to protect its residents to date, and it will make it awkward for council to voice opposition to further wind projects already planned for Lambton by Suncor, Nextera and others.

These are more than a few strings with predictable outcomes that would not have been lost on Suncor or Nextera.

Audrey Broer, Bob Broer, Mary-Lynn Cooper, Elizabeth Bellavance, Ingrid Willemsen, Louyse Larochelle, Pam Ernst, Floyd Maidment, Lois McKay, Santo Giorno, Kristen Rodrigues, Doug Smith, Ed Vanderaa, Yvonne Vanderbeld, Bill Yates, Sue Wright, Joe Zanyk

Lambton County residents

Published January 10, 2017:

Remedy hearing proceeds for wind turbines

z-windmillsBy    January 6, 2017

Wpd will be given an opportunity to provide remedial action after a tribunal ruled wind turbines to be located near two aerodromes in Clearview Township threaten the health and safety of pilots, and little brown bats.

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard from parties during conference calls in December on procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remainder of the hearing. It was determined the remedy phase of the hearing to be held in Collingwood from Feb. 27 to March 1.

The decision is in response to a request by wpd Fairview Wind Incorporated to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies to address the Tribunal’s Oct. 7 finding that engaging in the project in question in accordance with the impugned renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to animal life, plant life or the natural environment. None of the parties has requested an opportunity to produce evidence or make submissions on the Tribunal’s finding of serious harm to human health.

As one of the appellants, the Township of Clearview will play a peripheral role in the upcoming remedy hearing, the extent of which has yet to be determined, said township solicitor Harold Elston.

Why wpd would want to address the former while accepting the latter, Elston said, “that’s The $64,000 Question”. He said there is some speculation that it could affect some other project where bats are a factor.


It’s Official- wind farms are a Damned Nuisance

lady-noiseThe link to the posting on The Law is My Oyster seems to be broken- so we have copied and pasted the posting.

The tort of Nuisance – basic principles

The law of (private) nuisance has been around for a long time but it has always been a poor neighbour to the more commonly litigated torts of negligence and trespass.

In a nutshell, a nuisance is “any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant’s] land or his use or enjoyment of that land”(Bamford v Turnley [1860] 3 B&S 62).  Private nuisance is a tort or civil wrong, unlike public nuisance, which is a crime.

Something that farmers leasing their land to wind farms might not know is that a landlord can be liable where the lease is granted for a purpose which constitutes a nuisance, as in Tetley v Chitty [1986] 1 All ER 663.

For there to be a claim in private nuisance, the claimant must show that the defendant’s actions caused damage. This can be physical damage, or discomfort and inconvenience. The test for remoteness of damage in nuisance is reasonable foreseeability. In other words, was it foreseeable that a wind turbine will cause discomfort and inconvenience to nearby dwellings?  The test is an objective one: was the nuisance reasonably foreseeable? If it was, the defendant is expected to avoid it.

It is impossible to specifically define what is or what is not unreasonable but factors that are taken into account include the nature of the locality where the nuisance took place, the time and duration of the interference and the conduct of the defendant.

The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions have caused an interference with their use or enjoyment of their land or home/property. These interferences are indirect, and almost always the result of continuing events rather than a one-off incident. The courts have allowed cases where the interference causes emotional distress, like continuous noise / infrasound for example.

The granting of planning permission does not constitute immunity from a claim in nuisance.

The families of Shivnen, Whelan/Walsh, Sexton, Sheehan, Duggan, McSweeney and O’Connor, versus Enercon Wind Farm Services  Ireland Limited and Carraigcannon Wind Farm Limited

It was with considerable interest then that we waited for the outcome of the action in nuisance brought by the seven families from Cork who were impacted by noise pollution from a nearby Enercon wind farm. A number of the families had to abandon their homes because of the severity of the noise and some lived up to a full kilometre from the wind farm.

A judgment against the wind farm would have constituted a powerful precedent to be used against the wind industry given the multitude of examples of Irish families living in misery due to unwelcome turbine neighbours. It was for that reason that the defendant settled the matter (probably at the instance of, and financial assistance from, IWEA). Although settlements are always better for the parties concerned as it avoids the huge emotional and financial cost of litigation, it does mean that we do not have that precedent in Irish law (although there are a number of foreign precedents – see

Although the defendant wind farm admitted liability (nuisance-order-dec-2016) the wind industry will seek to minimise this by arguing that this was a “one-off” situation for any fallacious reason that they can think of: “the unique terrain; the extraordinary sensitivity of the plaintiffs; etc etc.” Expect a carefully worded press release soon in your nearest rag.

There is still one more opportunity to achieve a damning precedent though. The case is listed for ten days in the High Court commencing 25th April 2017 to deal with damages and costs. If the High Court was to make a massive award of damages (i.e. in the millions of euros) that would send a very strong message to the wind industry that Ireland is simply not suitable to build wind farms, due to the scattered population leaving very little wide open spaces, and in they insist on building them next to people’s homes, they must be prepared to pay a lot of money, which is what the wind industry is all about anyway – money. Don’t believe all the “green” rhetoric – if you hit them hard in the pocket, they will leave, our subsidies notwithstanding.

It is for that reason that there will very likely be a financial settlement. Good news for the family involved – they can avoid the ten days of litigation and get on with their lives. Bad news for the Irish rural population, as again there will be no precedent and it is guaranteed that the settlement will come with a gag order that will prohibit any of the families disclosing the details of the financial settlement. One would almost pray for a wealthy benefactor to compensate the families up front so that the ten days’ litigation could continue (assuming that the notoriously conservative High Court would hand down a decent damages award in the millions). Any friendly millionaires out there willing to step up to the plate?

It’s official – wind farms are a damned Nuisance

The Law is my Oyster

The tort of Nuisance – basic principles

The law of (private) nuisance has been around for a long time but it has always been a poor neighbour to the more commonly litigated torts of negligence and trespass.

In a nutshell, a nuisance is “any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant’s] land or his use or enjoyment of that land”(Bamford v Turnley [1860] 3 B&S 62).  Private nuisance is a tort or civil wrong, unlike public nuisance, which is a crime.

Something that farmers leasing their land to wind farms might not know is that a landlord can be liable where the lease is granted for a purpose which constitutes a nuisance, as in Tetley v Chitty [1986] 1 All ER 663.

For there to be a claim in private nuisance, the claimant must show that the defendant’s actions caused damage…

View original post 731 more words

Cape Breton wind turbine snaps in half

cape-breton-turbine-collapse-2016Nova Scotia Power and wind turbine maker Vestas trying to determine cause

By Anjuli Patil, CBC News

Nova Scotia Power is investigating why one of its wind turbines snapped in half Tuesday night in Grand Étang, Cape Breton.

There was a severe wind warning Tuesday night, but it’s unclear if that had anything to do with the break. The power utility said it is still trying to determine the root cause.

CBC meteorologist Kalin Mitchell said peak wind gusts of 164 km/h were reported at the Grand Étang weather station between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. this morning.

Nova Scotia Power said no one was at the site at the time and no one was injured.

The 50-metre tall wind turbine was made by Denmark-based Vestas.

It was built in 2002 and was one of the first in Nova Scotia with a single 660-kilowatt Vestas turbine.

Nova Scotia Power said the model is the only one of its kind in the province.


Protecting our children from Industrial Wind Power Emissions is our first priority!

%d bloggers like this: