All posts by alt

Uncategorized

Chiarelli and MOE- A Failure to Communicate

Leave a comment

Letter from Bob Chiarelli to MAWT Shellie Correia

Letter from Shellie Correia to Bob Chiarelli

Dear Minister Chiarelli,
 
I am in receipt of your response to my letter to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).  I copied you for information purposes only and was not expecting a response from you.  To be frank, I am not sure why you bothered to write since none of the issues I raised with the CCLA were addressed in your letter.  In fact, I did not even bother to read through to the bottom line.  Like all previous responses from your ministry, your colleagues and government staff continually do, you avoided each of the three issues and instead provided me with the same old ideological green rhetoric.  It may work on people who are uneducated about the Green Energy Act but it does not work on me, people in the Mothers Against Wind Turbines organization, other wind action groups and an ever-increasing number of Ontarians who are waking up to the fiasco of your green energy policies.  
 
I am a mother that has already lost a child and it is my intention to pursue every available avenue to protect the health of my son. You claim to share in my concerns yet your actions and those of the government as a whole do not support that claim.  Your claims of stringent review of applications prior to approval are simply not true.  Residents of this community have presented clear contrary evidence from other wind developments utilizing this same wind turbine and it is dismissed by the Ministry of the Environment. Instead, the Ministry tells us that acoustic audits are usually conducted after the wind turbines have been erected.   Residents of rural Ontario all know what happens as a result of your acoustic audits.  Nothing!!! Residents have pointed out that the application does not comply with your own regulations requiring that the sound power level be rounded to closest number and MOE staff simply avoid addressing that.  They have also avoided addressing the issue of the variances that are required by the standard that you claim to follow.  You have been copied on all of the correspondence regarding these issues.  I am appalled at how the government’s quest for wind power takes precedence over human life and that is evidenced by your approvals for wind farms that are excessively close to schools, airports, public play grounds and even a skydiving facility.  This government has no experience with wind turbines of this size and one would think that you would rely on the experience of wind developments in other locations. One would also think that the specifications from the turbine’s own manufacturer would be key but that is not the case. Instead, the government’s main concern is help ensure approval of applications – at any cost.   
 
You also claim that your policies are protective of the environment but I see no evidence of that.  When the Environmental Review Tribunal ruled in favour of the Ostrander Point wind application, your government lined up with the developer and CANWEA to dispute it.  It is very clear where this government’s priorities lie. 
 
I have read your policies and the documents you refer to and I dispute most of your claims.  Wind energy is not reliable, not affordable and people who have educated themselves are well aware that coal plants will close even if all the wind turbines stop operating tomorrow.  I view your documents as simply more government propaganda that was developed in an attempt to appease the public that are concerned about the ever-increasing cost of electricity.  
 
I note that you have forwarded my letter to Minister Bradley.  Frankly, I would suggest that you tell him not to bother if his intent is to provide me with more of the same old platitudes.  The proof of this government’s approach to wind power, Minister Bradley, is in the number of citizens who can’t sleep at night or that have had to leave their homes.  I will not allow that to happen to my family and it is my intention to continue this fight and expose this fiasco.  
 
Sincerely,
 
Shellie Correia
Ms. Shellie Correia, Co-Chair of Mothers Against Wind Turbines has provided me with a copy of a response she received from Minister Chiarelli yesterday.  It is attached.  Further to that, please review the email chain below.  Is this representative of the stringent processes that you claim are in place and that are supposedly designed to afford the public opportunity for comment?  This is just the most recent example of the dismissive approach that your government has adopted towards residents impacted by wind energy proposals. I can provide you with many more examples and in fact, have done so on several occasions.  Our questions are either evaded, addressed by meaningless platitudes or requests like this are simply ignored.  
 
The response to Ms. Correia is nearly identical to all of the other responses that have been received by members of this community. The assurances are there but the actions do not support those assurances.  We are told that the process provides for meaningful consultation and that public comments are important but we are denied key pieces of information and documentation.  Ms. Shields, as evidenced below, has done everything that she has been told to do but then encountered a roadblock when she identified a key gap in the reports provided by the proponent.  There are other similar gaps in this application.  It is deplorable that an application can be deemed complete based on the proponent’s promises to provide studies at a later date.  How does that meet with your claims of stringent review PRIOR to approval?  
 
I am writing to you to seek release of the documentation that Ministry of Environment staff have still not provided.  Additionally, given that the comment period closes tomorrow, I believe it is incumbent upon you to allow for an extension so that the documents can be reviewed by residents of this community.  
 
Thank you 
 
Bonnie Tuson
To:  Sarah Raetsen, Senior Program Support Co ordinator, Approval Services Unit, Ministry of the Environment
To:  Agatha Garcia Wright, Director, Environmental Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment
 

Dear Sarah, Dear Agatha,

 
First, let me say how extremely disappointed I am that you have ignored my requests for the 2013 field notes which include Stantec field surveys for turtle habitats, snake habitats and bat maternity colonies. I have requested this data on December 18, 2013, January 3, 2014, January 23, 2014 and January 28, 2014.  Today is our last day to submit comments to the Environmental Registry.  We have requested extensions to this deadline, but all requests have been denied.
 
If your intention is not to provide the complete set of field notes that are related to this REA project for public review, please explain why these are not provided.  While I realize that these specific studies were “committed” to be completed during the pre-construction phase of the project, the current Natural Heritage Assessment report does disclose that these would be completed in 2013. What is the reason for withholding this information from the public when the public specifically requests it? 
 
Please do not ignore this fourth request.  
 
Loretta Shields
Niagara Peninsula Field Naturalists
 Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: NRWC project – 2013 Field notes not posted online for several natural feature habitatsDear Sarah,

 
I sent the email below to your attention last Friday. I have not heard back from you and our time regarding commenting to the Environmental Registry is running out.  Can you please tell me whether we can expect the 2013 field notes to be posted on the web?   If the intention is not to provide the complete set of field notes that are related to this REA application to the public, please explain why these are not provided to the public for review.
 
Thank-you,
 
Loretta Shields, Niagara Peninsula Field Naturalists member

Smithville, Ontario

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Dear Sarah, Dear Agatha,
Regarding the NRWC wind project that is posted on the Environmental Registry, I am still waiting for the 2013 field notes to be posted online by NRWC, as requested in my email of January 3rd (below).  Can you please tell me when we can expect to have these notes posted on the web?  We only have 8 days left to submit comments to the Environmental Registry.  We are seeking an extension for the comment period because these notes have not been made available to the public.  If your intention is not to provide the complete set of field notes that are related to this REA application, please explain why these are not provided to the public for review.
Thank-you,
Loretta Shields, Niagara Peninsula Field Naturalists member
 Date: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: NRWC project – Field notes not posted online for several natural feature habitats
To: sarah.raetsen@ontario.ca, agatha.garciawright@ontario.ca

Dear Sarah, Dear Agatha,
 
I sent you the email below on December 18th.  I haven’t seen a reply back yet, so I thought I would resend the email to you.  I have been reviewing the NRWC Natural Heritage Assessment report, and there are several field notes that are missing from the NRWC REA documents that are posted on their website.  These include the migratory bird field notes, bat maternity habitat assessment forms, stick nest search survey forms, winter raptor roost surveys, amphibian habitat surveys, and surveys conducted for turtle/snake habitats.  Also, it is our understanding from reading the NHA report that supplemental surveys were conducted in 2013.  These field notes are also missing from the website.
 
For a proper consultation with the public, it is imperative that we have these documents for review.  Only 28 days remain until the comment period under the Environmental Registry remain.  Please provide us with these documents as soon as possible, and please consider an extension of 180 days to this review period to allow for the proper consultation that is required for a project of this magnitude. 
 
Thank-you for your consideration and time,
 
Loretta Shields
 Date: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Subject: NRWC project – Field notes not posted online for several habitat surveys
To: sarah.raetsen@ontario.ca, agatha.garciawright@ontario.ca

Dear Agatha, Dear  Sarah, 

 
I have been reviewing the REA documents posted on the NRWC site.  I see three separate files for field notes, which consist of 2011, 2012 ELC and Woodland and Wildlife Habitat assessment forms and also ELC/ Woodland and Wildlife Habitat assessment forms associated with the proposed transmission line. 
 
What seems to be missing, however, are the migratory bird field notes, bat maternity habitat assessment forms, stick nest search survey forms, winter raptor roost surveys, amphibian habitat surveys, and surveys conducted for turtle/snake habitats.
 
Could you please forward the files or weblinks that are associated with these surveys?  
 
Thanks very much,
 
Loretta Shields
Smithville, Ontario
Uncategorized

Letter to MOE – NRWC application not in compliance with MOE regulations

1 Comment
Subject: EBR #012-0613 on-going discussion
I am responding in regards to a recent letter / email exchange between Ms Garcia-Wright of the MOE (Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch) and Ms. Tuson of West  Lincoln regarding EBR #012-0613 – Niagara Region Wind Corporation’s REA submission to erect 77 (or 80?) wind turbines in West Lincoln, Haldimand and Wainfleet Townships.
The Provincial Government of Ontario has published a number of documents which articulate the REGULATIONS concerning the development of Industrial Wind Turbines. Until some agency of the Government provides new guidelines these are the regulations that apply to ALL CITIZENS of Ontario and to ALL DOCUMENTS submitted to Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment.
Below I enclose FIVE excerpts from documents each of which was written and published by Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment. Each excerpt explicitly states the REGULATIONS regarding a noise assessment calculation for REA model development.
NRWC’s application is NOT in compliance with the Ministry of the Environment’s own regulations. Each of these regulations involves a simple objective criterion. There is no room for discussion or nuance. Information provided by the REA application either passes or fails. On each of three criteria NRWC’s application FAILS. Applying the Province’s own regulations the Ministry of the Environment is legally bound to find the NRWC REA is NON-COMPLIANT. Ministry of the Environment MUST therefore deny this application.
 
1)      The applicant MUST ROUND the sound power level to the nearest whole number. There is NO choice. So using a number of 104.8 dBA in the noise assessment model is NOT permitted.
2)      The applicant MUST use “parameters …that reflect the worst-case noise impact by assuming the maximum acoustic immissions.” The Enercon data sheet clearly states their sound power level has an accuracy of +/- 1 dBA. Therefore NRWC’s application MUST use a sound power level of 106 dBA. There is NO choice.
3)      The applicant MUST use …. “The maximum acoustic immissions…. And the lowest sound level limit (i.e. high wind shear conditions)”.  MOE PIBS 4709e REQUIRES the application to use “data adjusted for the average summer night time wind speed profile, representative of the site.” HAF/IPC said the mid-summer wind shear in West Lincoln is 0.5. NRWC’s proposed installation which is also in West Lincoln calculates its noise assessment submission using a wind shear of 0.2. One of these values cannot be correct. SINCE, MOE RULES DEMAND use of the lowest sound level the 0.5 value is appropriate.
 
Noise assessment model reports for Seventeen Industrial Wind turbines installations using the Enercon e101 are available on the internet. Every one of the seventeen applications uses 106 dBA as the input into noise assessment model.
The Provincial Government and the Ministry of the Environment are the agencies that have produced the following documents: PIBS 8472e, PIBS 8540e, PIBS 4709e and NPC232.  These documents articulate the law relating to Industrial Wind Turbine development in this Province. You MUST apply your regulations. The minimum sound power level permitted for an e101 turbine is 106 dBA. NRWC’s application is NOT in compliance with YOUR regulations. It MUST be denied.


 
Letter from Agatha Garcia-Wright  to Ms. Bonnie Tuson
Dated January 23rd 2014
Ms.Garcia-Wright states:

Ms Tuson responds in an email dated January 29th
“Specifically, I ask for an explanation regarding your earlier correspondence in which you indicated that the MOE would not be considering the documents sent to you regarding other wind developments that show a higher sound power level than what has been reported by the Niagara Region Wind Corporation (NRWC).  You stated that there are differences and I asked for an explanation as to what those differences are.  Neither of those questions was answered.  I also asked whether the MOE would also be dismissing the additional documents showing evidence of the higher sound power level as well but that was not answered either. “
 
ONTARIO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
PIBS 8472e Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals, Page 72.
“Specifications for sound power level used for determining setbacks correspond to the sound emitted while operating at 95% of the nameplate capacity rounded to the nearest whole number.”
 
PIBS# 8540e Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise
Guideline for Acoustic Assessment and Measurement Page 8
“In this case, the noise assessment needs to be verified using the as-built layout affecting the complainant’s location and using the prediction model according to the Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (2008), Reference [5]. Specifically the parameters to be used must reflect the worst-case noise impact by assuming the maximum acoustic immissions from the turbines and lowest sound level limit (i.e. high wind shear conditions).”
PIBS 4709e page 9
“6.2.3 Adjustment to Wind Turbine Generator Acoustic Emissions for Wind Speed Profile
The wind speed profile on site of the Wind Farm may have an effect on the manufacturer’s wind turbine acoustic emission data and, consequently, on the sound levels predicted at a Point of Reception. Therefore, the wind turbine generator acoustic emission levels must be consistent with the wind speed profile of the project area.
To address this issue, the assessment must use manufacturer’s acoustic emission data adjusted for the average summer night time wind speed profile, representative of the site.
PIBS 4079e Page 11
The noise assessment must represent the maximum rated output of the Wind Farm, and reflect the principle of “predictable worst case” noise impact …..”
 
Publication NPC232 October 1995, Page A11, Section A4:
PREDICTABLE WORST CASE IMPACT
The assessment of noise impact requires the determination of the “predictable worst case” impact. The “predictable worst case” impact assessment should establish the largest noise excess produced by the source over the applicable limit. The assessment should reflect a planned and predictable mode of operation of the stationary source.
It is important to emphasize that the “predictable worst case” impact does not necessarily mean that the sound level of the source is highest; it means that the excess over the limit is largest. For example, the excess over the applicable limit at night may be larger even if the day-time sound level produced by the source is higher.
 
Windpark Neuhof III                                       06/09/2010         107
Ontwerp Windpark Delfzijl Noord                   27/10/2010         106
Gattendorf Nord                                             18/11/2010         106
                Jokela_Master                                27/07/2011         106
KKJ         Makikangas_Master                        28/07/2011         106
                Helmste                                          06/09/2011         106 / 108NOTE 1
                Aseri_algne                                    05/09/2011         106
                Ljustorp                                          18/11/2011         106
VE           Skaiciavimai Dienos Metu              12/12/2011         106
Schall_Schatten_Volkwardingen                    15/05/2012         106
                Ilhow                                               29/01/2013         106 / 108NOTE 2
                Brunsbuttel                                     04/02/2013         106
Standort Garrel / Wardenburg                       08/04/2013         106 / 108NOTE 3
GlaxoSmithKline (Cork) NG3                        09/04/2013         106
Grytas C_2013_113                                      23/05/2013         106NOTE 4
Krumbecker Hof Hauptergebnis                   24/06/2013         106
South Kyle                                                    …/08/2013         107
NOTE 1
Text from seite (page) 6 of Helmste report. Note that in development of noise model the application includes a 2 dBA penalty to ensure compliance with worse case scenario.
“Für den uneingeschränkten Betrieb (Nennleistung 3.000 kW) wird für die sechs
geplanten Windenergieanlagen vom Typ ENERCON E-101 ein Schallleistungspegel
von LwA = 108 dB(A) (Herstellerangabe + 2 dB Zuschlag) berücksichtigt.”
NOTE 2
Text copied from the Ilhow project proposal. This states that for daytime operation the appropriate value to use in the noise estimate calculation is 108 dBA. During the night the e101 is operated in a de-rated mode producing just 1.5 MW of energy and that for this mode the appropriate sound power level should be 104 dBA.
NOTE 3
This table copied from the Garrel / Wardenburg noise assessment report shows that sound power level for the e101 is actually rated at 108 dBA for day time operation. The calculation includes a 2 dBA “allowance” or conservative noise estimate. For the night time turbines are all de-rated to produce less noise because it is acknowledged that 106 dBA produced at night will result in excessive noise levels.
NOTE 4
The noise assessment for the proposed Grytas C installation was completed by ENERCON. Yes, the same manufacturer that is producing the turbines for Niagara Region Wind Corporation.
It should also be noted that this document is dated 23.05.2013. That is after the date that which NRWC submitted their final noise assessment model documentation. Yes, they did submit additional information at a later date but they did NOT change the model.

— Carol Barker and Bill Morris

Uncategorized

MOE urged to consider manufacturer documents

Leave a comment

 

Ms. Garcia-Wright:

 

This letter is in response to your reply to Ms. Bonnie Tuson on January 23, 2014.  The reply is attached.

 

You state that the sound power level is guaranteed by the manufacturer.  You have received 16 documents stating that an Enercon E-101 has a sound power level of 106 dBA.  A member of the public also received a document from Enercon (which has been forwarded to you)  stating that an E-101 has a sound power level  of 106 dBA.  Steve Klose from the MOE states that the sound power level of a turbine is an inherent property of its noise source. In other words, the sound power level is the same everywhere.

 

NRWC states that the sound power level of the E-101 is 104.8 dBA.  Based on their noise modeling, this is the highest sound power level they can use and still be compliant at 40 dBA.  If they use anything higher than 104.8, they will not be compliant.

 

What rationale would you expect was used when NRWC submitted a sound power level of 104.8 dBA in their noise assessment,  when other published documents (including Enercon documents) indicate that the sound power level of an E-101 is 106 dBA?  Can you please reply to this question?

 

You also state “approval of REA applications are usually conditional to an acoustical audit once the facility is constructed”.  This doesn’t make any sense.  It is pretty clear that the project will not be compliant when the rules of the MOE are applied, so why would construction be allowed to proceed?  I think the public deserves an answer to this question.  The citizens of Ontario don’t need to be burdened with further increased electricity rates because of the non-compliant project.  It needs to be rejected immediately.

 

If for whatever reason, the project does get approval it is essential that the public have access to the independent acoustical audit.  Can the public have your assurance that this will happen?

 

You state that you will forward the decision of the German court to the Standards Development Branch.  Can we have your assurance that this court decision will be considered for the NRWC project?  This is a court decision that ruled against Enercon and it is final and cannot be appealed.  It makes no sense to ignore this decision in Ontario.

 

You state “The ministry will assess the impacts of the proposal including the height of the wind turbines”.  Can you please expand on this comment?  I am uncertain what you are saying.

 

Looking forward to a quick response,

 

Lois Johnson

ERT Appeal, fighting big wind., Noise, Ontario Wind

Enercon E-101 Turbines – Higher Sound Power Levels – Proof to MOE

2 Comments
Incomplete Response – EBR #012-0613
By Bonnie Tuson
 (documents following the letter)
Ms. Garcia-Wright,
Regrettably, I find myself in the position of having to write back yet again.  That is because most of the questions I asked in my email of January 8, 2013 were not addressed in your response to me (attached).  I have my also attached my email to you for you to re-read and consider as I am still expecting a response to those questions.
Specifically, I ask for an explanation regarding your earlier correspondence in which you indicated that the MOE would not be considering the documents sent to you regarding other wind developments that show a higher sound power level than what has been reported by the Niagara Region Wind Corporation (NRWC).  You stated that there are differences and I asked for an explanation as to what those differences are.  Neither of those questions was answered.  I also asked whether the MOE would also be dismissing the additional documents showing evidence of the higher sound power level as well but that was not answered either.
In your most recent letter (also attached), you indicate that the MOE requires the sound power levels be guaranteed by the manufacturer and that they be included in the Noise Study Report.  There is no such guarantee in this application yet the MOE saw fit to deem it complete.  Why is that?   We have provided you with a variety of documentation from other wind developments using this particular wind turbine as well as a document from Enercon itself demonstrating the higher sound power level. That Enercon documentation is not included in the NRWC application so I question how you can state that the MOE requires that it be included.  Clearly you did not require that.  Please provide an explanation for this oversight.  It seems very odd that the Enercon documentation that you claim you require is provided to you by residents of this community rather than the company making the application.
The only documentation in the NRWC report is for a 99m wind turbine which as you know, is much smaller than the wind turbine that is actually proposed for use.  In countless instances throughout the reports, the NRWC references wind turbines of 124m and 135m reports so I fail to understand why the height is not confirmed until the technical review.  Clearly, this presents a significant gap and I require an explanation as to why the MOE would choose to accept the application as complete.
You are already in receipt of 16 documents indicating that the sound power level of the Enercon E-101 is 106 dBA.  Recently, a resident of our community obtained the attached 4 documents directly from Enercon.  These documents once again raise the question of why the NRWC reports only a sound power level of 104.8.  The test report completed by Kotter Engineering Consultants does not represent the worst case scenario that is required by your ministry.   Regulations require that the 104.8 rating be rounded to 105.0 which is the nearest whole number and then the variance of +/-1 must be applied. Enercon’s own documents support that conclusion.  As mentioned in previous correspondence, research by residents of this community showed that only the NRWC claims that the sound power level is lower.   We found absolutely no data to support that claim.  NRWC reports show that even at 104.8, there are at least 10 non-participating receptors that will be subjected to a noise level of 40 dBA.  At the true sound power level of 106.0, there will be many receptors in excess of the permissible limits.  I would also like to point out that in a letter to a resident of this community, Mr. Steve Klose advised that the sound power level is an inherent property of a wind turbine.  It does not change.
Suspiciously, the NRWC application did not include the conversion sheet for wind turbines of the height that they propose to use nor did they include the attached Enercon data sheet for the E101.  The conversion sheet provided by Enercon shows that the 104.8 sound power level is achieved at only 2,859kw which of course, begs the question of what the power level is at 3 MW.  Also missing was the data sheet provided by Enercon that shows the reduced rated power modes for the E-101.  It clearly shows that at reduced power levels, the company cannot meet the 230 MW contract.  These documents are readily available from Enercon and MOE must explore the reasons that the NRWC did not include them.
You also failed to address my questions regarding the 3dBA variance.  Please review my earlier questions and supply an explanation.
My question regarding the claim of a 104.8 sound power level and the regulations requiring that it be rounded to the closest number was also not addressed.  Please provide an answer to that as well.
I appreciate that you have forwarded the German court case to Mr. Klose.  I will be expecting a reply from him.  As you may or may not know, Enercon is in the process of determining how to adapt their turbines based on this decision.
I am appalled and frightened at your statement that REA applications are “usually” conditional to an acoustic audit after the facility is constructed.  You indicate that the sound power levels will be checked post-construction to determine if they were suitable.  Is that not akin to “closing the barn door after the horse has bolted?”  Your comments in this regard do not support the MOE’s claims that applications are diligently reviewed to ensure that the health of Ontarian citizens is protected.   The MOE’s rather lackadaisical approach to approving is evidenced by testimony at several recent Environmental Review Tribunal(ERT) hearings.  At the recent ERT hearing for Armow Wind, one of your own supervisors (Heather Pollard) confirmed that the MOE has no expertise with health effects, that hundreds of noise complaints for wind developments in the area have been received and that the MOE does not shut down wind turbines in excess of the permissible limits following the acoustic audits you speak of.  At the ERT hearing for Wainfleet Wind Energy yesterday, another of your supervisors (Vic Shroeter) confirmed that in the absence of expertise regarding parachuting, he chose to approve the application. I’m sure you can understand why the public has no faith in the MOE’s claims of diligence or in the acoustic audits that you may or may not conduct post-construction.  Once again, I will remind you that Ontario has no experience with 3MW wind turbines and it is incumbent upon you to take any and all precautions with this application prior to approval.  That includes careful consideration of the documents supplied to you in respect of the other wind developments that utilize this size and type of wind turbine.
Please get back to me on both the questions that have not been answered as well as on the new questions and concerns raised.
Thank you.
Bonnie Tuson

 

Letter Response_Ms. Bonnie Tuson_Dated January 23, 2014 (2)

E-101 OM I KCE 213121-02.01_english_Extract (6)

E-101 OM I KCE 213121-02-02_english 135m

SIAS-04-SPL E-101 OM I 3050 kW Rev1_3-eng-eng (2)

SIAS-04-SPL E-101 Red Rev1_2-eng-eng (4)

Jan8MOE

German Wind, Health, Health effects from wind turbines

Bavaria, Germany Will Set New Distance Rule For Wind Turbines 10xH

2 Comments

28.01.2014 11:59 Uhr 28/01/2014 11:59 clock

Distance control for wind turbines: Stage win for Seehofer

Von Moritz Kircher From Moritz Kircher

Munich. Prime Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) has reached an important stage victory in the battle for wind power in Bavaria. He had long been advocating that the distances between establishments and residential areas are enlarged. Until the 9th April,  the federal government wants to present a bill that makes this possible.  A further expansion in Bavaria is thus considerably more difficult.

Ministerprdent Bavaria Horst Seehofer (CSU) has prevailed with the distance control for wind turbines. Photo: AP + +

 Ministerprdent Bavaria Horst Seehofer (CSU) has prevailed with the distance control for wind turbines. Foto: dpa Photo: AP

With the so-called countries in the Building Code clause the provinces should be given the opportunity to decide their own distance control for wind turbines. If it goes to Seehofer, the distance between the wind turbine and residential building is to be set at ten times the height of the plant. That would be about two kilometres in modern wind turbines.

Critics of the height-related distance usually seen in the end for the expansion of wind power in Bavaria.  In the past three years, regional plans have been developed in which priority areas for wind turbines are reported.  After courier information from the 18 regional planning organizations Bavaria remain from these surfaces almost nothing left, should the distance rule actually happen as planned by the prime minister.

It is still unclear whether exceptions to the distance control will be possible. Seehofer had repeatedly indicated to make this possible if all citizens are agreed locally, plans to build wind turbines.

Article from Germany here.

Media stories...

Protesters must be right to right wrongs

Leave a comment

Brian MacLeod  January 23, 2014 Sudbury Star

PSSSTTTT Read the comments following the article.  Notice how the citizens are far more knowledgeable and enlightened in regards to a certain celebrity than the dumbed down media.

In the late 1980s, Lois Gibbs — who had played a leadership role in forcing a government cleanup of the Love Canal chemical mess in Niagara Falls, N.Y., a decade earlier — gave some advice to a fledgling protest group in Acton that was fighting a move to use a local quarry as a dump for Toronto’s garbage.

Have your science in order, she told them, but don’t depend on it. Make political activism your most important tool. You must embarrass the government politically. You must make politicians uncomfortable in their seats, and you must be impossible to ignore. Once you have the ears of the people, you’ll have the ears of the lawmakers. Then, show them your science.

Gibbs used a photograph of a toilet overflowing with effluent as an indelible image. Then, protesters began showing up at events with toilet seats around their heads wherever politicians were present.

Her group’s efforts were so successful it led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund.

Gibbs was a young mother trying to protect her family. She had credibility, which is the currency of good protesters

Read the rest of the article here.

Uncategorized

Divisional Court January 23, 2014

Leave a comment

Cheryl Anderson

This report only deals with the first part of the day today.  The PECFN counter appeals and cross appeals and the intervener South Shore Conservancy was completed in the late morning and the afternoon was devoted to the APPEC appeal.  Your PECFN contingent wended their weary way home after lunch.

Chris Paliere, legal representative for the SSC spoke first.   Mr. Paliere gave a succinct and direct analysis of the legal issues SSC has with the ERT ruling.  Pointing out that in order for the endangered species permit to be granted expertise should be expected from the MNR.  Mr Paliere asserted that there was no evidence that the permit granting was anything more than a paper process.  The Tribunal had the expertise to interpret broad undefined terms in the Green Energy Act and the Renewable Energy Approval.  The Tribunal therefore was correct in only considering that the ESA permit was in effect.  Therefore the conclusions reached by the Tribunal must be accepted.

This argument was countered by Mr. Wayland (correct spelling this time) and Mr. Hamilton for Gilead.  The arguments centre on whether the ESA permit to kill harm and harass supersedes the Renewable Energy Approval of the project.  In other words, the ERT cannot deny the project because the ESA permit is in place – and since the MNR has given permission to kill harm and harass endangered species then the ERT cannot find serious and irreversible harm to a species.  Mr. Paliere was adamant that there are two separate issues and that the situation amounted to “poly-centric decision making”.

The PECFN cross appeal dealing with our contention that the ERT did not properly consider the evidence showing serious and irreversible harm to the Birds and Alvar was begun by Natalie Smith, who presented the facts in the case.  Eric Gillespie carried on with the legal arguments.  There was a discussion started by Justice Nordheimer regarding the damage done to Alvar by the Department of National Defence use of the areas of the South Shore in the early 1950’s for munitions testing.  Eric’s assertion that the DND damage was minimal was countered by both Sylvia Davis for the MOE and Mr. Wayland for Gilead.  They were trying to say that the damage by the munitions testing was in some way analogous to the damage that would be caused by wind turbines and roads.  Following from the argument was the assumption that when the IWT’s were removed after twenty years the Alvar would regenerate similar to the regeneration after the munitions testing.

According to Eric’s submission, “in dealing with the issue of birds the Tribunal failed to provide and interpretation of scale”.  In other words if there are many birds of a species that is abundant on the site then chances are that there will not be serious and irreversible harm to that species.  However, if there is a bird or a few birds of an endangered species on the site then the chances of severe and irreversible harm to that species become greater.  The Tribunal ruled, in spite of excellent witness testimony to the contrary, that PECFN did not prove serious and irreversible harm to birds as a result of the IWT project.  Eric’s submission was that if the Tribunal had taken “scale” into consideration their decision would have been to deny the project on that basis.

As you can see these legal arguments can become complicated and sometimes are really best left to legal minds to interpret.  Suffice it to say that Eric and Natalie were pleased at the end of the day with the way their arguments were received by the Court.

We will have to wait to see if the Divisional Court will let the ERT ruling re: Blanding’s Turtles stand and if they will reverse the ERT ruling on the Birds and Alvar as requested by PECFN.

Thank you as always for your continuing support as we fight to save Ostrander Point.
Cheryl Anderson

Uncategorized

Germany’s energy revolution on verge of collapse

1 Comment

Fred Pearce January 2014 New Scientist

Germany’s energy revolution has gone sour, as have its efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020, mostly by closing coal-fired power plants and boosting renewable energy. Yet in 2013, coal burning soared to its highest level for more than 20 years.

Then, last week, economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel said he will slash wind and solar subsidies by a third, to cut rising energy bills. Subsidies for renewables currently cost German consumers €23 billion a year.

Merkel is also shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants, its largest source of low-carbon energy. This means emissions, which had fallen by 27 per cent by 2011, are now on the rise.

Germany’s energy revolution has gone sour, as have its efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020, mostly by closing coal-fired power plants and boosting renewable energy. Yet in 2013, coal burning soared to its highest level for more than 20 years.

Then, last week, economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel said he will slash wind and solar subsidies by a third, to cut rising energy bills. Subsidies for renewables currently cost German consumers €23 billion a year.

Merkel is also shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants, its largest source of low-carbon energy. This means emissions, which had fallen by 27 per cent by 2011, are now on the rise.

Germany’s energy revolution has gone sour, as have its efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020, mostly by closing coal-fired power plants and boosting renewable energy. Yet in 2013, coal burning soared to its highest level for more than 20 years.

Then, last week, economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel said he will slash wind and solar subsidies by a third, to cut rising energy bills. Subsidies for renewables currently cost German consumers €23 billion a year.

Merkel is also shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants, its largest source of low-carbon energy. This means emissions, which had fallen by 27 per cent by 2011, are now on the rise.

Read the rest of the article here.