Category Archives: Ontario Wind

Direct Effects, Environment, How to Fight Big Wind..., Ontario Wind

Naturalists to pay Gilead $40,000, reduced from $120,000 demand

Leave a comment

April 14, 2014 – http://www.countylive.ca

DSCN1679Prince Edward County’s Field Naturalists will pay $40,000 in legal costs instead of $120,000 demanded by Gilead Power.

The Divisional Court has found turbine project developer Gilead Power’s demand for $120,000 in legal costs from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists “was too high and lowered it to $40,000,” said Myrna Wood, PECFN president. “More importantly, the reason given is that “clearly the case is of important public interest. It is significant that two judges have based decisions on the importance of the case to the public interest. We see this as a positive indicator that permission to appeal will be given. We will also be able to use this argument for an appeal against paying any legal costs to Gilead or the Ministry.”

The naturalists group has filed its submission to the Court of Appeal asking for leave to appeal the Divisional Court reversal of the decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Last July, the Tribunal revoked the approval of a Gilead Power wind turbine project at Ostrander Point Crown Land Block in the centre of the Prince Edward County’s South Shore Important Bird Area. There have been more than 20 appeals of Renewable Energy Approvals since the Green Energy Act came into effect in 2009. All but the PECFN appeal resulted in dismissals.

“In allowing PECFN’s appeal, the Tribunal rendered a landmark and precedent-setting decision,” said Wood.

Soon after the Divisional Court decision, Gilead Power announced its intention to start construction in April.  PECFN brought an urgent motion for a Stay of construction and leave to appeal the Divisional Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

In his decision submitted on March 25, Judge Blair of the Appeal Court held that he had “no hesitation in granting the Stay” because the issues raised on the proposed appeal are of “broad public implication in the field of environmental law”.  Further, he found that the irreparable harm criterion had been satisfied on the basis that “once a habitat is destroyed, it is destroyed – for at least short-term purposes, in any event – and the species sought to be protected here is a vulnerable and endangered species.”

“The notice of intention to seek leave to appeal has attracted increasing expressions of support for PECFN’s opposition to industrialization of the South Shore IBA,” said Wood. “We believe that this important test of Ontario environmental law encourages other environmental and legal organizations to apply to intervene in the appeal.”

The struggle to save Ostrander Point has gained a broader dimension since two other wind turbine projects in the area have been submitted to the government Registry (EBR) for public comment, she said.

The White Pines proposal includes 29 turbines spread across private lands within the IBA surrounding Ostrander Point.  Windlectric Inc. proposes 36 turbines spread across the Amherst Island’s natural areas.  Residents of Amherst Island have applied to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto for a judicial review of the Ministry of Environment’s approval of the application.  They challenge the company’s claims that their plan has mitigated any harmful effects to wildlife and people prior to construction.

“The cumulative effect of proposed turbine projects surrounding eastern Lake Ontario creating a barrier across the eastern flyway of migrating birds and bats is a concern for all naturalists,” said Wood. “If approved, these projects will displace wildlife from shorelines, the most important staging and resting habitats for many species.  Renewable energy will not be ‘green’ if it destroys significant wildlife habitats.  Recognition of this fact is demonstrated by two recent project cancellations. British Petroleum has cancelled a project on Cape Vincent across from Wolfe Island.  On the Lake Erie Pelee flyway two proposed projects in Ohio have been cancelled due to the threat of a lawsuit by Black Swamp Bird Observatory and the American Bird Conservancy.”

The Appeal Court’s decision on the request to appeal may not be made until June.

“In May, everyone will be enjoying one more spring migration and searching for emerging Blanding’s turtles along the South Shore firmly resolved to continue in the struggle to Save Ostrander Point,” said Wood.

More at www.saveostranderpoint.org

Original Article Reference here: http://countylive.ca

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/

Environment, harm to wildlife, Ontario Wind

PECFN Files for leave to Appeal Divisional Court Ruling

Leave a comment

PECFN Files for leave to Appeal Divisional Court Ruling

For immediate Release

Picton: PECFN has filed their submission to the Court of Appeal asking for leave to appeal the Divisional Court reversal of the decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal.  Last July the Tribunal revoked the approval of a Gilead Power wind turbine project at Ostrander Point Crown Land Block in the centre of the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area. There have been more than 20 appeals of Renewable Energy Approvals since the Green Energy Act came into effect in 2009. All but the PECFN appeal resulted in dismissals. In allowing PECFN’s appeal, the Tribunal rendered a landmark and precedent-setting decision.

 

Soon after the Divisional Court decision Gilead Power announced its intention to start construction in April.  PECFN brought an urgent motion for a Stay of construction and leave to appeal the Divisional Court decision to the Court of Appeal.  In his decision submitted on March 25, Judge Blair of the Appeal Court held that he had “no hesitation in granting the Stay” because the issues raised on the proposed appeal are of “broad public implication in the field of environmental law”.  Further he found that the irreparable harm criterion had been satisfied on the basis that “once a habitat is destroyed, it is destroyed – for at least short-term purposes, in any event – and the species sought to be protected here is a vulnerable and endangered species.”

 

On April 4, the Divisional Court found that Gilead’s demand for $120,000 legal costs from PECFN was too high and lowered it to $40,000.  More importantly, the reason given is that “clearly the case is of important public interest”.  It is significant that two judges have based decisions on the importance of the case to the public interest.  “We see this as a positive indicator that permission to appeal will be given” commented, Myrna Wood, PECFN president.  “We will also be able to use this argument for an appeal against paying any legal costs to Gilead or the Ministry”.  “The notice of intention to seek leave to appeal has attracted increasing expressions of support for PECFN’s opposition to industrialization of the South Shore IBA. We believe that this important test of Ontario environmental law encourages other environmental and legal organizations to apply to intervene in the appeal.” Wood continued.

 

The struggle to save Ostrander Point has gained a broader dimension since two other wind turbine projects in the area have been submitted to the government Registry (EBR) for public comment.  The White Pines proposal includes 29 turbines spread across private lands within the IBA surrounding Ostrander Point.  Windlectric Inc. proposes 36 turbines spread across the Amherst Island’s natural areas.  Residents of Amherst Island have applied to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto for a judicial review of the Ministry of Environment’s announcement that the project is deemed complete.  They challenge the company’s claims that their plan has mitigated any harmful effects to wildlife and people prior to construction.

The cumulative effect of proposed turbine projects surrounding eastern Lake Ontario creating a barrier across the eastern flyway of migrating birds and bats is a concern for all naturalists.  If approved, these projects will displace wildlife from shorelines, the most important staging and resting habitats for many species.  Renewable energy will not be ‘green’ if it destroys significant wildlife habitats.  Recognition of this fact is demonstrated by two recent project cancelations. British Petroleum has cancelled a project on Cape Vincent across from Wolfe Island.  On the Lake Erie Pelee flyway two proposed projects in Ohio have been cancelled due to the threat of a lawsuit by Black Swamp Bird Observatory and the American Bird Conservancy.

 

The Appeal Court’s decision on our request to appeal may not be made until June.  In May, everyone will be enjoying one more spring migration and searching for emerging Blanding’s turtles along the South Shore firmly resolved to continue in the struggle to Save Ostrander Point.

-30-

For more information: Cheryl Anderson 613-471-1096, cherylanderson23@sympatico.ca
Cheryl Anderson

28 Low St., Picton ON K0K 2T0

613-471-1096

613-849-7743 (cell)

@saveostranderpt

www.saveostranderpoint.org

fighting big wind., Ontario Wind, Protecting our children

Spring Fling A Great Success

Leave a comment

Spring Fling 2Spring Fling 1

As residents filled into the Wellandport Community Center, it was clear to all that the West Lincoln, Wainfleet and Haldimand communities are not ready to give up the fight against the NRWC Turbine project anytime soon.  The event was hosted by the Mothers Against Wind Turbines and all funds raised will help in the fight against Industrial Wind Power. Drinks, Food and good times were had by all as everyone got to catch up after a tireless comment period earlier in the year.

Spring Fling 3

Thank you to all who donated gifts for the Silent Auction and to all the volunteers who helped! We could not have done it without the support of so many hard-working friends from the community, who worked tirelessly to make sure everything was perfect! 

 

Spring Fling 4

Photos by Stefanos Karatopis

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Corruption, fighting big wind., Government corruption, Government Misrepresentation, legal challenges, Ontario Wind

Abuse of Power – Letter to Ministry of the Attorney General

1 Comment
Contracts Cancelled, Ontario Wind

NEWS RELEASE – ENERGY MINISTER CAN CANCEL WIND POWER CONTRACTS

1 Comment

From Wind Concerns Ontario

NEWS RELEASE

March 4, 2014 IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ENERGY MINISTER CAN CANCEL WIND POWER CONTRACTS

Despite statements made to the media by Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli that it would be “illegal” to cancel Feed In Tariff contracts with wind power developers, court documents show that the opposite is true, Wind Concerns Ontario states in a letter to the Minister today.

“The decision in Trillium vs. Ontario, 2013, clearly states that governments are free to alter policies in the public interest,” says Jane Wilson, WCO president. “As well, a legal opinion from Osler Hoskins Harcourt advises that companies in the renewable power business participate in government subsidy programs ‘at their own risk.’ That means, Mr. Chiarelli and his government could cancel these multi-million-dollar contracts if they want to.”

At present, Ontario has 55 wind power projects in various stages of approval; if all are approved the costs to Ontario could be more than $1 billion a year or $22 billion over the 20-year life of the contracts.

“Mr. Chiarelli said in the Legislature that Ontario has a surplus of power,” Wilson says. “The question for Ontario now is, why not cancel these contracts for power we don’t need and can’t afford? Does he answer to Ontarians, or the wind power lobby?”

CONTACT: Jane Wilson  1-855-517-0446 / 613-489-3591

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.

Canada Wind, Corruption, Government Misrepresentation, Ontario Wind

Wind power approvals pushing Ontario hydro bills up

1 Comment
February 11, 2014
Wind Power Project Approvals Driving Up Cost of Ontario’s Electricity
By Parker Gallant
The provincial government would have us believe it is taking steps to manage rapidly rising electricity costs. Meanwhile, in the background, they are pushing 55 wind turbine projects through the Renewable Energy Approval process, projects  that will add $1.1 billion per year to Ontario’s electricity costs.  The impact of these turbine projects is 20 times the cost of the gas plant relocations.
The 230-megawatt  (MW) Niagara Region Wind Project proposed for West Lincoln and Wainfleet in the Niagara Region alone will add $78 million annually to Ontario’s electricity costs when approved.  The cost over its 20-year contract is $1.6 Billion.  Rather than declining or delaying these 55 projects, the provincial government continues to issue approvals and increasing electricity costs to levels that Ontario household and business users cannot afford.
In fact, wind power projects continue to be approved almost weekly despite Ontario’s current surplus of electricity.  Some operators of existing wind power generation facilities are actually being paid not to produce electricity, and neighbouring jurisdictions like New York and Michigan are being paid to take Ontario’s surplus power, which they in turn use to attract jobs away from Ontario with cheap electricity.  To create capacity on the grid for the expensive power generated by wind turbines, Ontario is also idling the Niagara hydro plants which in the past have powered Ontario’s economy by supplying cheap clean electricity.
The truth is that wind is not a reliable source of electric power.  In Ontario, wind turbines generate most of their electricity at night, and in the fall and winter months—exactly when we don’t need it. To provide the electricity needed by the province during the day, and in the hot summers, Ontario has had to supplement wind turbines with gas plants to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing.  This means that the average Ontario electricity user will not only pay about $220 annually for the cost of the wind turbine contracts but also another $200 annually to pay for the base costs of the gas plants needed to back them up.  Ontario electricity ratepayers could do a lot with that $420.
While the government argues that it has no option but to proceed with these projects, Ontario court have confirmed that the Feed-in-Tariff contracts issued for these projects only allow the proponent to enter a “complex regulatory process that might have led to approvals” and that the Environmental Project Act gives the Ministry of the Environment Director “broad powers to issue, reject, or amend Renewable Energy Approvals.”  The known impacts of existing wind power projects on communities in rural Ontario give the Ministry of the Environment Director a basis for rejecting or delaying these projects.  The Ontario government is pursuing wind power without a proper cost-benefit analysis, as was pointed out by the Auditor-General in 2011; no analysis was done before launching into the wind power program, or since. Citing benefits to the environment, is not an appropriate rationale:  with the coal plants closed, there is no need for concern about pollution from them, and there are also valid concerns about environmental damage and harm to wildlife from wind power plants.
For example, the government’s own Environmental Review Tribunal revoked approval to construct the Ostrander Point project last July because the project would cause “serious and irreversible harm” to the endangered Blanding’s turtles native to the area.  Rather than accepting that decision, however, the Ministry of the Environment partnered with the wind industry in January to appeal this ruling in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto; the Ministry is trying to overturn the decision to protect the turtles.  Similarly, the Ministry continues to support the Wainfleet Wind Energy project, despite the obvious dangers presented to users of the nearby Skydive Burnaby facility.
Electricity costs in Ontario are now among the highest in North America. Ontario households and businesses have reached the limit of their capacity to pay for this Green Energy experiment. It is time for the Ontario government to stop approving more wind turbine projects, like the Niagara Region Wind Project, that will drive up the cost of electricity in the province for the next 20 years while generating electricity we do not need.
Parker Gallant is a former vice-president with the TD Bank, a former director with Energy Probe, and currently an energy analyst and commentator. He is vice-president of Wind Concerns Ontario.
Corruption, fighting big wind., Ontario Wind, Property Rights

In Ontario – Wind Energy Meeting Silences Public

1 Comment

Posted at No Frakking Consensus by Canadian author and journalist Donna Laframboise

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/02/07/wind-energy-meeting-silences-the-public/

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