Category Archives: ERT Appeal

ERT Appeal, Ontario Wind

Skydive Burnaby turbines appeal dismissed | St. Catharines Standard

Leave a comment

Take the Poll at the Original Article:

 

Skydive Burnaby’s appeal of Wainfleet Wind Energy Inc.’s plans to erect two wind turbines on Station Rd. has been dismissed by Ontario’s environmental review tribunal.

Mike and Tara Pitt filed their appeal in October 2013 over concerns their business established in 1948 and its skydiving clients would be at risk by the towers to be built 1.5 kilometres west of Skydive Burnaby on land owned by the Loeffen family, a partner in the wind energy company with Rankin Construction.

On Wednesday, tribunal vice-chair Dirk VanderBent handed down his decision.

He said the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to suggest its skydivers will be seriously harmed by collision with the two wind turbines or interaction with their turbulence wakes.

Tara Pitt said Thursday morning that Skydive Burnaby had no comment to make at this time.

Tom Rankin said he and his stakeholders are “very happy” with the tribunal decision.

“I think it’s a pretty comprehensive document,” he said of the 87-page decision [see attachment at left column of page] that now clears the way for Wainfleet Wind Energy to complete its five-turbine project for which three towers have been erected off Concession 1.

Those three will be brought online when the other two are finished, likely within six weeks, he said.

Rankin said he stands behind his wind-energy project as a necessity to counter climate change.

“We’ve won three lawsuits now and two hearings,” he said.

“I’m proud of what I’m doing and I won’t back off.

“I think it’s the right thing to do.”

Greg Furminger – May 15, 2014 – St. Catharine’s Standard

Skydive Burnaby turbines appeal dismissed | St. Catharines Standard

Wainfleet Wind Energy’s five turbines working in tandem are estimated to generate 26 million kWh of power annually, enough electricity to for 2,500 homes and representing a greenhouse gas reduction of about 14,000 tonnes a year. Each Vestas V100-1.8MW turbine owned by Wainfleet Wind Energy stands 95 metres tall, with a blade diameter slightly larger at 100 metres.

Among controversy surrounding the Wainfleet project was township council’s decision last December to apply $40,000 in taxpayer money toward Skydive Burnaby’s legal bills for its appeal.

That decision was ultimately rescinded in January following public backlash and on the advice of the municipality’s legal counsel.

The tribunal decision handed down Wednesday followed three weeks of hearings over January and February and subsequent conference calls with involved parties in March and April.

Skydive Burnaby turbines appeal dismissed | St. Catharines Standard.

ERT Appeal, Ontario Wind, Protecting our children

Jericho wind project opponents taking case to environmental tribunal

Leave a comment

By Paul Morden, Sarnia Observer

Friday, May 2, 2014

 

Wind turbines near Kettle Point.

 

Opponents of NextEra Energy’s 92-turbine Jericho wind energy project have appealed its provincial environmental approval.

Marcelle Brooks, with the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group, said an appeal filed by member Bob Lewis has been accepted by Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal, and a hearing is expected to be held June 24.

Construction on the wind project that will see turbines built in Lambton Shores and Warwick Township, as well as transmission lines in neighbouring North Middlesex, began days after it was approved April 14 by Ontario’s Ministry of Environment.

Ontario allows construction of renewable energy projects to continue while an appeal is underway, unless the tribunal issues a stay order.

Brooks said they know odds of an appeal succeeding are slim but still decided to go ahead.

“We need our voice to be heard at every opportunity,” she said.

Brooks said they don’t have money for a lawyer and Lewis will represent himself at the tribunal hearing.

“It’s quite complex, when you’re not a lawyer,” she said.

The group members plan to make use of experience gained when members of the wind action group appealed other wind projects.

As well as arguing that wind turbines harm the environment and human health, Brooks said the appeal will challenge the provincial approval under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“We really did not have any say in what is going on here,” she said.

“There has been no freedom to choose, to decide location, to do what’s best for the community. The whole wind energy fiasco has been imposed on us.”

Brooks said the wind action group didn’t file the appeal itself because of past experiences with the tribunal, an independent body established by provincial legislation.

“The tribunal doesn’t care for us, all that well, because we always represent ourselves,” she said.

Brooks said they will request the hearing be held in Lambton so members of the community can attend.

NextEra has said construction of the Jericho wind project is expected to take six to nine months.

See original article here: http://www.lfpress.com/2014/05/02/jericho-wind-project-opponents-taking-case-to-environmental-tribunal

ERT Appeal, Government Misrepresentation, Health, Ontario Wind

Moving out: Anti-wind activist leaves Ontario worried for family’s health

4 Comments

April 25, 2014 – The Independent – Serving Petrolia & Central Lambton

Esther Wrightman feels like she is being evicted from her own home.

The woman who has been at the forefront of the anti-industrial wind turbine movement in Middlesex and Lambton County is moving to New Brunswick.

Wrightman, who heads up the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Concerns group and runs the Ontario Wind Resistance website, put up the for sale sign on her home Tuesday as workers from NextEra continue to put up wind turbines around her home just outside of Warwick. She says it was one of the toughest things she’s ever done. “You feel like you’ve been evicted,” says Wrightman who fears for the health of her family.

“I don’t think we had much of a choice here,” she says. “When you have people in your family with (pre-existing) health problems…you can’t risk it to stay…you have to leave.”

Wrightman has be in the forefront of the fight against a number of projects, including the Bornish and Adelaide projects by NextEra Energy which are right in her backyard. She went to the Ontario Energy Board to try to stop the company from building its transmission wires down the roads in her community, but lost. Now, crews are busy in the neighbourhood putting up one turbine after another.

“It really does make you want to throw up,” she says as she watches the turbines go up in the places which used to be dots on maps in NextEra’s plans. “I know these dots on these maps in my head now, after so many years now – where they are and who they effect …And then you see the dots ripped in the ground…yeah this is exactly what I had imagined. Somewhere in my mind there was a chance it wouldn’t happen…but now it’s holes and concrete… “This is what I thought would happen, but now its worse because it has happened.

“These companies have come in, they won’t be staying as people they’ll be staying as machines but you have to stay and suffer or you have to leave…That does make me angry.”

Wrightman says some of that anger has worn off as she plans to move her family to New Brunswick with her parents. New Brunswick isn’t pursuing wind energy so the family will take its nursery business to the province this summer and start again. The activist may have to return to Ontario. NextEra is suing Wrightman for libel after labeling the company as Next-Terror on line and on placards during some of the dozens of demonstrations she’s been part of. She’s not ready to walk away from that fight.

“They’ve taken my place, taken my home that I was so attached to, and five years of my life fighting,” she says. “I’m determined that they won’t take my right to speak out as a person. I’m determined they won’t take my happiness and they won’t take my health and the health of my family.”

But she admits they have taken away some very precious things – her sense of being rooted in a community and her faith in the political system. “I cannot put any faith in politicians at all…It’s a game and your pawns in their game,” says Wrightman who won’t stay in Ontario to see if an anticipated provincial election will change the situation.

Wrightman says she is concerned for the neighbours she leaves behind and the impression she may leave with others who are still fight projects in their neighbourhoods. “It does look somewhat that I’m pulling up stakes, leaving retreating. I don’t like how it looks. I’m sure the wind companies like it, “ she says. “Some people may say ‘you need to stay you have to stay and help,’ As much as I would like to stay and fight I can’t do that to my family.”

In the end, she says it is a personal choice to leave the province to protect the health of her family. “I’m a voice I’m a single person…this is what happens. We fought, we pushed them back,” she says adding she doesn’t know what to say to others continuing the fight. “When they ask, what could I do, I don’t even know what to tell them – fight government? Fight wind companies? I don’t know. Now, when the wind turbines are up its even harder – it’s almost impossible. They’re not coming down. “It’s a hard pill to swallow.”

See original article here: http://petrolialambtonindependent.ca/2014/04/25/moving-out-anti-wind-activist-leaves-ontario-worried-for-familys-health/

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ERT Appeal, Ontario Wind

Julian Falconer to speak at wind energy town hall

Leave a comment

Paul Morden – Sarnia Observer – April 22, 2014

Noted Canadian lawyer Julian Falconer is set to speak at a May 5 town hall meeting a Plympton-Wyoming citizens group is organizing to rally support for its fight against Suncor Energy’s proposed 46-turbine Cedar Point Wind Power Project.

Falconer, known for his human rights advocacy and involvement in high profile cases like the Ipperwash Inquiry, along with lawyer Asha James from Falconer’s firm, are set to speak at the meeting about Charter of Rights and Freedom challenges of wind energy projects.

“He knows how to make things happen and has quite a reputation,” said Ingrid Willemsen, with the group We’re Against Industrial Turbines – Plympton-Wyoming.

“We’re quite excited he’ll be there.”

The meeting is set for 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Camlachie Community Centre. Willemsen said group members hope to fill the hall and attract more residents to their cause.

“I think it’s about the only thing the community has left to hope for,” she said.

Suncor has a contract to sell power from its Cedar Point project to Ontario’s electricity grid, and has submitted an application for provincial environmental approval for turbines it plans to build in Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township.

Also scheduled to address the town hall meeting are Ben Lansink, a real estate appraiser and consultant, who will speak about the impact of turbines on property values, and Carmen Krogh, one of the authors of an article published in the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine on the health impacts of wind farms.

Willemsen said the view of turbines going up along Highway 402, just east of Lambton County, is showing local residents what’s on the way to their communities, and may spur more opposition to wind projects.

“A lot of people have not involved themselves because they don’t know how it’s going to affect them,” she said. “They haven’t seen them, right close.”

As well as awaiting provincial environmental approval for its Cedar Point project, Suncor has taken the Town of Plympton-Wyoming to court over several of its bylaws aimed at wind turbines.

Earlier this month, Suncor officials met with town council after the judge hearing the case asked the two sides to explore the possibility of a settlement.

Mayor Lonny Napper said Tuesday councillors were still waiting to hear back from the town’s lawyer before responding to Suncor.

Willemsen said she remains hopeful Suncor’s wind project can be stopped.

“They need to jump through the hoops, just like any other project, and the longer it’s delayed, the better our chances,” she said.

See original article here: http://www.theobserver.ca/2014/04/22/julian-falconer-to-speak-at-wind-energy-town-hall

ERT Appeal, Government Misrepresentation, Ontario Wind

Wind Concerns asks Ombudsman to investigate wind power approvals

1 Comment

NEWS RELEASE

April 14, 2014

Wind Concerns asks Ombudsman to investigate wind power approvals

Wind Concerns Ontario, the coalition of individuals and community groups concerned about the impact of large-scale wind power projects, sent a letter to Ombudsman of Ontario, requesting an investigation of aspects of the approval process for wind power projects.

“Our members, and Ontario municipalities, are very concerned about the lack of transparency that appears to be the hallmark of the approval of these power projects,” says Jane Wilson, president, Wind Concerns Ontario.

“For example, the Ministry of the Environment has ‘deemed complete’ documentation for some projects when in fact environmental studies and assessments for emergency response and aviation safety are not complete and in some cases absent entirely,” Wilson says. “This is not acceptable, and not the ‘fair’ and ‘transparent’ process the government claims it fosters.”

At least one Ontario community has already taken legal action based on the fact it believes documentation to be incomplete: the citizens’ group in Amherst Island filed for a judicial review in March, citing numerous flaws and deficiencies in the wind power developer’s application.

Wind Concerns Ontario also asked about the appropriateness of large wind power developers offering money to municipalities in return for an expression of municipal support, referring to Samsung’s recent offer to the community of Southgate, which was eventually refused by the local government.

“This looks  like Ontario’s small towns are literally up for sale to huge power developers,” Wilson explains.

Ontario municipalities are being allowed to have more input into decisions about large-scale wind power generation facilities, but still do not have a “veto” according to the Minister of Energy, despite community concerns.

View the letter to the Ombudsman here:

April 2014 Ombudsman Letter

windconcerns@gmail.com

Original Article Here: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/wind-concerns-ontario-asks-ombudsman-to-investigate/

Animals and turbines, Corruption, Destruction from turbines, Environment, ERT Appeal, harm to wildlife, legal challenges, Ontario Wind

Sad news Ostrander Point ERT Appeal Decision revoked by divisional court

Leave a comment

Court favours wind turbines over Blanding’s turtle

An Ontario court has ruled that an environmental tribunal erred when it rejected a proposed wind farm that threatens the habitat of Blanding’s turtles.

By John Spears Toronto Star

Blanding’s turtle is in trouble again: An Ontario court has cleared the way for a wind farm that an environmental tribunal says will threaten the turtle’s habitat.

The modest reptile had stood in the way of a wind farm at Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County.

But a divisional court panel ruled Thursday that the environmental tribunal made six errors of law in reaching its conclusion that the wind farm would cause “serious and irreversible harm” to the turtle.

The court restored the decision by provincial officials, allowing Gilead Power to proceed with the project, which would erect nine big wind turbines on the site.

It was a bitter blow to local nature and conservation groups. They had argued the wind farm – and the increased traffic associated with it – would harm not just the turtles, but also birds, bats and the rare “alvar” ecosystem at Ostrander Point.

The court sided with Gilead.  Read rest of article.

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

Animals and turbines, Destruction from turbines, ERT Appeal, fighting big wind., Government corruption, harm to wildlife, How to Fight Big Wind..., legal challenges, Ontario Wind

Divisional Court January 22, 2014- Going Down a Rabbit Hole

1 Comment
Cheryl Anderson

Interested observers continued to give up their personal time to attend the Divisional Court hearing today.  About 40 people attended.  It is wonderful how many people have been willing to come from the County in the middle of the week to support PECFN.

Sitting in the Court one begins to wonder about the whole process.  PECFN is here to defend the decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal is not in Court.  The Ministry of Natural Resources is not in Court and yet the decision of that ministry to allow species at risk to be killed, harmed or harassed at Ostrander Point is being discussed at length.  The Tribunal was a creature of the MOE and yet the MOE trying to prove that the Tribunal made the wrong decision.  Shouldn’t the MOE be supporting its own creation?  Myrna asks “Are we going down the rabbit hole here?”

The Gilead and Ministry of Environment lawyers spent the morning discussing whether the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision was in conflict with the Environmental Protection Act and why there was no evidence given about the numbers of Blanding’s turtles at Ostrander Point, the amount of vehicular traffic or the potential increase in vehicular traffic if the project is approved.  Throughout, the 9 turbine Industrial Wind Turbine project at Ostrander Point was described as a” Public Infrastructure Project”.  As you can imagine, this description made the majority of the observers gag!  The next topic was the suggestion that the Tribunal should have considered alternatives to the project – i.e. made a provision that the roads be closed to the public and offered to approve the project with that condition.   Again there was protracted discussion about the relationship between the ERT and the ESA permit issued by the MNR.

Eric Gillespie spent the afternoon responding to the arguments of the MOE and Gilead.  At this juncture we have to say a very special “Thank you” to Natalie Smith.  Natalie spent the fall analysing the ERT decision and preparing for the counter appeal by Gilead and the MOE.  She has been at Eric’s side throughout and provides the extra knowledge to make sure that we are successful in defending the appeal.

Justice Nordheim put a little wrinkle in the proceedings when he asked Eric to show him where in the ERT analysed the difference between “serious” and “irreversible”.  He wanted to be able to follow the ERT’s reasons for coming to the decision that the Gilead project would cause irreversible damage to the Blanding’s Turtles at Ostrander Point.  Of course, Eric and Natalie were able to find several instances in the decision that showed the analysis of the ERT and how they came to the decision to turn down the Gilead project.

The appeal continues tomorrow morning at 9:30.  The APPEC appeal is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.  I will report on the final few hours of the PECFN appeal tomorrow evening when I get back to the County.

Thank you to everyone for your continued support and for the encouraging messages.
Cheryl Anderson