udicial review team challenging ‘oppressive’Green Energy Act

When government and the interests of big business align, it is often individual rights and freedoms that get trampled upon, according to the Osgoode Law School students working with a group of County residents and lawyers seeking a judicial review of the Green Energy Act (GEA).

“When that happens, we rely on the law to restore the balance,” said Sabrina Molinari. “No one is above the law—not even government.”

Molinari is one of five Osgoode Law School students working with Alan Whiteley and other County residents who believe that the GEA is badly conceived and flawed legislation that overrides citizens’ rights and diminishes environmental protections and safeguards for the benefit of developers and big business. Three of the five joined supporters of the cause at the Grange of Prince Edward winery on Saturday.

A judicial review is a legal process to examine legislation or a government order and has the power to invalidate laws if they are found to contravene higher authorities such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is a big job. Specifically, the group wants the court to examine how provincial authorities arrived at the decision to grant a developer with a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for the White Pines wind project, which comprises industrial wind turbines stretching from Milford south toward the edge of the Prince Edward Point national wildlife area.

read more:  The Times, November 13, 2015

Report on the ERT Hearing on the White Pines Wind Project – Nov. 12, 2015
By Henri Garand and Paula Peel, APPEC

The Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) of the White Pines wind project devoted Day Five to hearing six members of the public previously awarded status as Presenters rather than expert witnesses.

Christopher Currie also sought to be qualified as an expert witness because he would be commenting, as a professional land use planner, on WPD’s application reports. But the Tribunal denied the request because Currie’s focus was on water bodies and he has no credentials in hydrology or related subjects.

As a Presenter, nonetheless, Currie gave a detailed review of the deficiencies in WPD’s assessment of water bodies on the project site. He pointed out that two fisheries biologists, not hydrologists, had carried out all the field work from June to mid-October, never during the wet season of November through April, and had used assessment standards inappropriate for alvar.  Due to these and other numerous flaws in methodology, the final report was incomplete and unreliable. Excavation, drilling, and hydrofracking for wind turbine bases would cause serious environmental harm to animals and plants by permanently altering the South Shore watershed.

Cheryl Anderson, president of Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory (PEPtBO), described how White Pines would jeopardize the millions of birds which migrate each year through the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area (PECSSIBA). Soaring birds like eagles, hawks and vultures are especially vulnerable, and a dozen species at risk breed in the project area.  Moreover, PECSSIBA, which is globally significant for waterfowl and nationally significant for endangered bird species, meets all Environment Canada criteria for a location unsuitable for wind development. In light of high mortality at the nearby Wolfe Island wind project, Anderson called on the ERT to apply the Precautionary Principle.

read more: Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County

November 10, 2015

by

Henri Garand and Paula Peel, APPEC
The Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) of the White Pines wind project focused, on Day Four, on Joe Crowley, a species-at-risk expert in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (MNRF).  Due to numerous procedural disputes, however, the hearing lasted from 10 a.m. till 8:30 p.m.
Crowley was summoned to testify on the basis of his evidence at the Ostrander Point ERT, and he was similarly qualified as an expert witness, specifically as a “herpetologist with expertise in Blanding’s turtles.”  At MNRF he is employed in the Species Conservation Branch, where his work includes assessment and review annually of some 70 projects affecting reptiles and turtles.  He confirmed he is the only MNRF employee with special expertise in the Blanding’s turtle, though other biologists may have general knowledge.
However, Crowley was never consulted about White Pines despite its adjacency to Ostrander Point.  Nor did he know just who was consulted in MNRF.
APPEC counsel Eric Gillespie asked Crowley whether the White Pines project could have similar impacts on the turtle population.  Crowley made clear he knew nothing about White Pines, but after reviewing a project map he admitted that Turbines 12 – 24 and 26 – 29 might be in suitable Blanding’s turtle habitat.
At several points Crowley recanted testimony made a month earlier at the Ostrander Point ERT and repudiated his own previously-held opinions:

• Crowley said he overestimated turtle numbers at Ostrander Point and is no longer confident there is a “healthy and viable” population.
• Crowley supposed it is “conceivable” that Blanding’s turtles could be moving along the shoreline.   Gillespie reminded Crowley of his Ostrander ERT testimony that Blanding’s turtles were known to range both along the south shore and inland 2 to 6 kilometres.
• Despite his own references in MNRF documentation to a

​n interconnected

wetland complex

​ on the south shore​

, Crowley now considers that it’s only possible turtles move off the Ostrander property because their home range is typically 2 kilometres.

• Crowley identified two critical habitats for Blanding’s turtles at Ostrander Point.  When reminded of the ERT’s finding that the entire site is critical habitat Crowley responded that it would depend on the definition of critical.

Due to nest predation and other threats, Crowley explained that a female turtle may have only one surviving offspring over 20-30 years of reproduction.  Given this low survival, he had considered at one time that Blanding’s turtle populations could only withstand mortality rates of up to 2%.  However, he now believes that as much as

​5

% mortality is sustainable.
Due to the number of reversals from his testimony at the Ostrander Point ERT, Crowley was required to leave on two occasions while lawyers and the ERT panel discussed how to proceed.   Gillespie asked the Tribunal to declare Crowley an adverse witness because his testimony was couched with imprecise words such as “could,” “possibly,” and “may.”  This request would allow Gillespie to ask leading questions and speed up the process.   But the Tribunal denied the request even though counsels for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and wind developer WPD had been pressing Gillespie to reduce the time of his examination.

During cross-examination by Sylvia Davis, counsel for the MOECC Crowley discussed the need for mark-capture surveys in order to assess population size.  After further questioning by Gillespie he agreed that such studies were not done for either the Ostrander Point or White Pines projects. Crowley also informed the Tribunal of a study demonstrating that driver training could have good results in decreasing road mortality.  When asked about this study by Gillespie, Crowley clarified that it concerned the Eastern Foxsnake and not Blanding’s turtles.

​

There were some positive points that came out of the testimony.   Blanding’s turtles will move from Ostrander Point into the White Pines project area.  Crowley’s 2011 statement from the Ostrander project, where he refers to interconnected wetland complexes throughout southern Prince Edward County is now on record.  The number of turtles and the quality of their habitat cannot be in dispute given the conditions set out within the Renewable Energy Approval.
The ERT resumes on Thursday, Nov. 12, 10 a.m. at the Essroc Centre, Wellington.

2015_Presentation_Elec_Dilem

Click to access 2015_presentation_elec_dilem.pdf

Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates 2 Outline of Presenta>on ² Data Sources ² Original Goals for Electricity System Transforma,on ² Technology Limita,ons ² Unexpected Surprises ² Ontario’s Electricity Demand ² The Cost Impact of Curtailing Genera,on Output ² Why Are Electricity Prices Rising So Fast in Ontario ? ² Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants ? ² What Can We Do to Mi,gate Increases in Rates and Emissions ? ² What Are the Enabling Policies and Technologies That We Need ? ² Summary ² Q&A period.

SARGEANT — For nearly 40 years, when Kathy Blanchard looked out her kitchen window of her home she would see a beautiful view. But now, she shares land with what she sees as a new and noisy neighbor: Pleasant Valley Wind Farm project.

Blanchard lives with her husband, Dan, just outside Sargeant Township in Mower County. Years ago, the two bought the 10-acre property for its scenic landscape. However, they say that the wind turbines and ongoing construction on the wind farm project has disrupted their lives.

read more:  Posted: Sunday, November 8, 2015

HENRY COUNTY, Ill (KWQC)- We’ve all seen aerial applicators dance through the sky fertilizing our fields.

These small planes move fast and the pilots in them make quick decisions.

Obstacles in the way make it even harder to fly, and some are virtually invisible.

Garrett Lindell has been flying for 26 years. He and the six spray planes he owns cover a lot of ground.

“It’s about 150 miles north to south and 100 miles east to west,” Lindell said.

Over the years the landscape of that area has changed, especially with the increase of wind energy in the midwest.

The FAA requires the maps and GPS systems he uses get updated every six months.

One thing that isn’t on those maps, meteorological towers. They’re used by wind companies to measure wind speed and other factors before putting up a wind turbine.

read more; kwqc.com/2015/11/10/sharing-the-sky-the-discussion-between-wind-companies-and-pilots-about-meteorological-towers/

VT study sheds light on how often wind farm noise reaches bothersome levels

A sneakily fascinating legal response was recently released, in which the State of Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) responds to request by wind farm neighbor Paul Brouha for relief from noise coming from the Sheffield Wind Farm.  Most of the technical back-and-forth amounts to quibbling between sound experts about 1-3dB differences, caused by slightly different monitoring techniques.  This minutia matters, in that it may determine whether the Sheffield  by project is just barely in compliance or just barely too loud at times; after all, limits are limits.  However, as usual in such situations, even if slight adjustments in operations were made to bring the sound levels down 1-3dB, such small changes are unlikely to be change how loud the sounds seems at the home in question (the human ear generally can’t perceive a difference of less than 3dB).

Still, buried in the data at the end of the submission is some interesting data about how often sound levels reach various thresholds in each season.  The wind farm company, Vermont Wind, had done some on-the-ground sound monitoring at a location slightly closer than Brouha’s home, and the results shed some light on why some wind farm neighbors may be bothered by the noise.

read more:  http://aeinews.org/archives/2919

I’ve heard from many people from my riding and throughout Ontario regarding industrial wind turbine developments in their communities, and how municipal governments are being coerced into supporting these developments against the peoples’ wishes.

On Thursday Nov 5th, I questioned the government on their apparent tolerance of this dubious and problematic policy. I have included a link to the video of my questions to the Minister, and included the press release I subsequently issued outlining the problems.

If you share my concerns with these practices, I encourage you to write the Premier, the Minister of Energy, the Attorney General and the Independent Electrical System Operator (IESO) to give voice to your concerns. Their contact information is included near the bottom of this email.

If you’d like to keep up with my continuing efforts on this, please follow

Continue reading Corruption Acceptable? Liberals Won’t Answer →

Ontario Legislative Assembly Question Period – November 5th, 2015

Municipalities

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Attorney General. With four OPP investigations regarding Liberal misconduct; plus a multi-million dollar lawsuit by T. Boone Pickens against the IESO; and the US justice department investigation under the corrupt business practices act regarding NextEra, it appears your seatmate, the energy minister, is complicit in many of these cases. The minister knows that the US justice department is investigating US companies that are promising Ontario municipalities money in exchange for municipal support which financially benefits these very same companies. It appears that the Attorney General’s seatmate is facilitating and encouraging this financial impropriety under the Green Energy Act between foreign businesses and our municipal partners.

Speaker, does the Attorney General condone foreign businesses offering bribes on condition that the municipal government passes a resolution to support and promote those businesses?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Minister of Energy. Continue reading Money in Exchange for Community Support of Wind Projects was Subject to Questions at Queens Park , November 5, 2015. →