Adverse Health Effects, Cost Benefit, Green Energy, legal challenges

proposed wind energy facilities ordinance

1 Comment

   Notice for Town of Lincoln Residents (Wisconsin, USA)

A Temporary Moratorium on Development of Wind Energy Systems in the Town of Lincoln has been adopted and is in effect as of May 10, 2021. 

An ordinance summary can viewed under the Postings tab. 

The full ordinance can be viewed under the Ordinances tab.

Download PDF

Shortsighted planning has often resulted in the creation of problem industries that adversely affect public health and quality of life, compromise aesthetics, and degrado community character. Industrial WEFs are not exempt from those problems, and careful siting and protections are of paramount importance, This local Law will contribute to this effort

Town of Lincoln Wind Energy Facility Licensing Ordinance, section 2-2

A WEF may be a significant source of noise and vibration for the community. These can have negative health impacts on nearby residents, particularly in quiet rural areas. These can also negatively affect the quiet enjoyment of the area, properties, and quality of life of residents. According to various medical experts and the World Health Organization, the infrasound component of such noise can be the most problematic

Town of Lincoln Wind Energy Facility Licensing Ordinance, section 2-17

Green Energy, Ontario Wind

Eliminating Renewable Energy Requirements

Leave a comment

Eliminating Renewable Energy Requirements

ERO number 019-3471 Notice type Regulation Act Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 Posted by Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines Notice stage Proposal Proposal posted April 15, 2021 Comment period April 15, 2021 – May 25, 2021 (40 days) Open Last updated April 15, 2021

This consultation closes at 11:59 p.m. on:
May 25, 2021 Submit a comment Follow this notice

Proposal summary

We are proposing to repeal sections of the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 that were introduced under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 to promote and prioritize the development of renewable energy.

On this page

  1. Proposal details
  2. Supporting materials
  3. Comment
  4. Connect with us

Proposal details

We are proposing to repeal three sets of legislative provisions in the Electricity Act, 1998 (EA) and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 (OEBA) that promote and prioritize renewable energy generation projects. Ontario has built a clean energy supply. Prioritizing renewable generation is no longer appropriate.Going forward, Ontario will ensure value for ratepayers by allowing all resources to compete to meet system needs.

First, we propose to repeal section 25.37 and clause 114 (1.4) (0.a.1) of the EA.  Together with O. Reg. 326/09 (Mandatory Information Re Connections), these sections prescribe timelines for completing complex grid connection assessments for renewable energy projects and other requirements that apply to Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).  These provisions also prescribe requirements that LDCs and the IESO must report quarterly on the number of assessments they complete and the ability of the system to accommodate more projects.

A related proposal to revoke O. Reg. 326/09 was posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario on December 15, 2020 for a 50-day public comment period.

These actions would remove priority timelines for LDCs and the IESO to complete complex grid connection assessments for renewable energy projects and bring consistency for all generation types seeking similar assessments. Removing these provisions would help make Ontario more competitive by cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burden and aligns with the following ongoing initiatives led by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and the IESO, as set out below.

Through the Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Connections Review initiative, the OEB is reviewing the requirements for the connection of DERs by licensed electricity distributors. The OEB is consulting with customers, DER providers, industry associations and distributors to identify barriers to the connection of DERs, and where appropriate, standardize and improve the connection process.

As part of the Framework for Energy Innovation: Distributed Resources and Utility Incentives consultation, the OEB is working with stakeholders to identify and consider regulatory reforms that would facilitate investment in DERs on the basis of the value to consumers, which may include exploring new and innovative ways to make system information available.

This would also align with the IESO’s efforts to plan for future electricity supply in a manner that offers value to ratepayers by allowing any resource that can meet system needs to compete.

Second, we propose to repeal sections 26 (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3) of the EA, and paragraph 1 of subsection 70(2.1) of the OEBA, which create the authority to make a regulation that would provide priority grid access for renewable energy generation facilities. No regulation was made under this authority, so this prioritization was never implemented.

Third, we propose to repeal paragraph 2 of section 96(2) of the OEBA, which requires the OEB to consider the promotion of energy from renewable sources when determining if a Leave to Construct application for an electricity transmission project is in the public interest. Repealing this paragraph will focus the scope of the OEB’s Leave to Construct hearings on the topics of price, reliability, and quality of service.

This repeal aligns with amendments made to the OEBA in 2020 to remove an OEB objective to promote renewable energy generation, including through the expansion or reinforcement of transmission and distribution systems to accommodate the connection of renewable energy generation facilities.

Supporting materials

Related linksClick to Expand Accordion

Related ERO noticesClick to Expand Accordion

View materials in person

Important notice: Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, viewing supporting materials in person is not available at this time.

Please reach out to the Contact listed in this notice to see if alternate arrangements can be made.

Comment

Let us know what you think of our proposal. Have questions? Get in touch with the contact person below. Please include the ERO number for this notice in your email or letter to the contact.

Read our commenting and privacy policies.

Submit online

Submit a comment

Submit by mail

William Coutts

Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Conservation and Renewable Energy Division

77 Grenville St.
5th Floor
Toronto, ON
M7A 2C1
Canada

Connect with us

Contact

William Coutts

Phone number (647) 406-2987 Email address William.Coutts@ontario.ca

Share

Email

Facebook

Twitter

Sign up for notifications

We will send you email notifications with any updates related to this consultation. You can change your notification preferences anytime by visiting settings in your profile page.Follow this notice

Adverse Health Effects, Health, Noise, The problem with Wind Turbines

Wind Turbines Can Harm HumANs

1 Comment

Carmen Krogh gave a recent presentation on new research exploring why people living within 10 km of an industrial wind turbine facility contemplate/vacate their homes.

Hosted by WECC (Wildlife Energy Community Coalition) on April 29, 2021 via a virtual portal. A recording of the meeting is to be posted on their website.

(Slide 18 is revised to clarify the 5 Elements and their relationship to the analysed data and slide 26 provides a reference for slide 25.)

Adverse Health Effects, Health, Property Rights

How Wind Turbines Can Harm Human Health

6 Comments
Industrial wind turbine being erected in Haldimand County , 2014 Summerhaven Wind

Carmen Krogh is a published independent researcher. She will be speaking on new research which explores why some people contemplate or vacate homes that are near industrial wind turbine facilities.

Presentation: “Wind Turbines can Harm Humans: Exploring why some contemplate to vacate/abandon their homes.“

Carmen Krogh

Presenter: Carmen Krogh (carmen.krogh@gmail.com)

Date & Time: April 29, 2021 @ 1:00 pm

Location: Virtual (details below)

Recent publication: Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines; March 2021

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83562656374?pwd=dFE0VzFDT01hVFk4bFplQVJUeXB1QT09

Meeting ID: 835 6265 6374
Passcode: 151296
One tap mobile
+16465588656,,83562656374#,,,,*151296# US (New York)
+13017158592,,83562656374#,,,,*151296# US (Washington DC)

Dial by your location
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
Meeting ID: 835 6265 6374
Passcode: 151296
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keGBNyty9P


Adverse Health Effects, Government Misrepresentation, Health

Wind Turbine Noise Complaints

1 Comment

Complaint process for wind turbine noise inherited by the Ford government not effective

April 12, 2021

Wind Concerns Ontario has just released its latest report on how the Ontario government has responded to citizen complaints about excessive wind turbine noise from grid-scale wind power projects.

Warning: the contents of this report can make for difficult reading.

The excerpts of comments from people calling into the 24/7 Spills Action Centre telephone line, or sending emails to their local District Office of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks are an alarming demonstration of the desperation felt by families forced with the wind turbine noise—some of them, for many years.

“We ache all over and can hardly function we are so tired. Please tell us what to do. Please respond.”

“Noise described as a ‘whooing’ sound, both heard and felt.”

“This continues to be horrendous.”

“Caller reports a pulsing roar.”

“This is the 65th time they have called.”

“We can’t go on like this.”

Polluted acoustic environment

One complaint documented was from a technician hired to do monitoring of bat populations near Bow Lake, who questioned whether he/she could continue the work due to the “acoustic pollution” from the wind turbines. The wind turbines were “generating unacceptably intrusive and potentially dangerous noise emissions into the natural environment,” the person reported. This is a “polluted acoustic environment.”

This report is based on Incident Reports created in 2018, received as the result of a request under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. The request was filed in January 2019; we received almost 4,000 pages of documents this past March. The report is fourth in a series, examining ministry response back to 2006.

It’s not working

The overarching conclusion from examining the complaint records as a whole is that Ontario’s complaint monitoring process, which the current government inherited from previous administrations, is not working. Key findings:

  • Complaints about wind power projects are part of the process government promised would ensure protection of health and safety. Robust enforcement of the regulations in response to these complaints will fulfill that responsibility.
  • In total, almost 6,000 files of complaints about wind turbine noise, vibration and sound pressure have been released to Wind Concerns by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
  • 39 percent of complaints in 2018 noted adverse health effects.
  • The records show that complaints do not result in real action by the project operators, despite requirements of approvals for the project.
  • The process to accept and record citizen complaints is inconsistent, and information gathered is incomplete.
  • There appears to be no ministry-wide evaluation and review process for citizen complaints about environmental noise produced by wind turbines.
  • The report concludes with recommendations on how the complaint handling process could be improved as an enforcement tool, and could provide opportunities to act on other issues such as electricity costs.

Read the report here: Report on Noise Complaint Response 2018-FINAL.

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

Adverse Health Effects, Health, Property Rights

Vacated Homes & Industrial Wind Turbines

1 Comment

New research about housing decisions and relationship to industrial wind turbines.

Wind turbine installation in Haldimand County. Ontario allows 500 metre set- backs from centre of a home that is not the hosting property.

Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines Carmen M. Krogh1*, Robert Y. McMurtry2, W. B. Johnson3, Anne Dumbrille4, Mariana Alves-Pereira5, Jerry L. Punch6, Debra Hughes7, Linda Rogers8, Robert W. Rand9, Richard James10, Stephen E. Ambrose11, Lorrie Gillis121Magentica Research Group, Member of the Board of Directors, Killaloe, Canada.
2Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
3Independent, Winterset, USA.
4Independent, Picton, Canada.
5School of Sciences for Economics and Organizations, Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal.
6Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
7Independent, West Lincoln, Canada.
8Mothers against Wind Turbines, Member of the Board of Directors, Haldimand County, Canada.
9Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Member Emeritus, Brunswick, USA.
10Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) through 2017, Okemos, USA.
11Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Emeritus, Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Emeritus, Windham, USA.
12Independent, Grey Highlands, Canada.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1107233 PDF HTML

Abstract Background: Some people living near wind turbines have reported adverse health effects and taken the step to vacate/abandon their homes, while others contemplate doing so or have decided to remain in their homes. Research on the extent and outcomes of these events is lacking. To date, our preliminary findings and an overview of results have been published in the scientific literature. Methods: This study utilized a qualitative methodology, specifically Grounded Theory, to interview 67 residents of Ontario living within 10 km of an industrial wind turbine project. Objectives: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research each has strengths and weaknesses in addressing particular research questions. The purpose of this article is to compare the qualitative and quantitative methodologies and to describe the benefits of having used a qualitative methodology, specifically Grounded Theory, to explore the events that influenced families living within 10 km of wind energy facilities to contemplate vacating their homes and to formulate a substantive theory regarding these housing decisions. Results: It was found that research into the impacts of siting industrial wind turbines in a rural residential population can be challenging for a quantitative methodological approach due to factors such as low population density, obtaining a sufficient sample, and achieving statistical power and statistical significance. We conclude that the Grounded Theory methodology was applicable to this study as it assisted with the development of a coherent theory which explained participants’ housing decisions. Discussion: This paper assesses the appropriateness of a qualitative methodology for conducting the vacated/abandoned home study. Through the utilization of the qualitative Grounded Theory methodology, government authorities, researchers, medical and health practitioners, social scientists and policy makers with an interest in health policy and disease prevention have the opportunity to gain an awareness of the potential risk of placing wind energy projects near family homes.

Keywords Wind Turbines, Vacated/Abandoned Homes, Qualitative

Share and Cite: Krogh, C.M., McMurtry, R.Y., Johnson, W.B., Dumbrille, A., Alves-Pereira, M., Punch, J.L., Hughes, D., Rogers, L., Rand, R.W., James, R., Am- brose, S.E. and Gillis, L. (2021) Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines. Open Access Library Journal, 8, 1-22. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1107233.


DOWNLOAD PAPER: Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines

Gas Wells, Green Energy, Health, US Wind

Damage Control in Texas

1 Comment

We are in damage control here in Texas – “the oil and gas capital of the world” according to the Texans. It is a major blow to the proud people of this state that they could not keep the power grid working in the epic winter storm of Feb 2021. Having rolling blackouts and loss of power is something that happens in a California heat wave, not something that happens in Texas.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers — representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 680+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

The supply in Texas – installed capacity as listed on ERCOT:

This is the list of power providers for McAllen and a large part of the Rio Grande Valley – https://shop.comparepower.com/enrollments/#/compare/78501/10/500/0/0/00///0/0

Hopefully, you can get this link open because the providers state the portion of their power that is from “green”. As you scroll through you notice that some providers are .12% green, some 6% green, some near 20% green and some 100% green. Would you like to tell me what happened to the households that are 100% dependent on “green” energy in the last ice storm? We are in McAllen, Texas and some of our neighbours 3 kilometers to the north have been without power for five days now and they expect that they might have power as early as Friday!

The people in these communities are struggling – struggling to stay warm, struggling to keep the taps from freezing, struggling to cook food and struggling to prevent the food in the freezers from going bad, struggling to communicate because the internet is down. Some are using their vehicles to provide warmth and recharge batteries and cell phones.

Because we have all been running our taps to prevent them from freezing, the water pressure is down and the city of Edinburg (482,000 people) is under a “boil water” advisory. Fire trucks are having difficulty because without water pressure they are restricted in putting out fires. The city of Donna (16,500 people) has lost water pressure and they will be under a “boil water” advisory as soon as the water supply returns.

Because we operate on a “just in time” delivery system some of the major food stores can not get food delivered. Their delivery tucks can not get fuel because the gas stations can not pump fuel when they have no power. And most people saw the 130 car pile up south of Houston on Feb. 11 – one week ago, so the roads are treacherous. With the delivery system affected stores are running out of milk, bread, eggs and meat. But we do have toilet paper this time!

The distributors are in damage control and everyone is blaming someone or something else. Rule #1 The chain breaks at the weakest link!

Power suppliers that counted on .12% ‘green’ energy kept the lights on, the water running and heat in the households. Power suppliers that counted on 100% ‘green’ failed as soon as the wind turbines iced over and were taken offline. These providers were left scrambling – looking for additional power supply as were most others.

Because they have independent power providers here in Texas, each little company runs their own system. They do not pay for spinning standby like we do in Ontario where we pay power generators to not produce. Here if you need more power for your company you have to find it. For the power producers that could actually increase their supply it was a bonanza! Charge what ever the market will pay and the cost per MW went form $25/MW in normal times to as high as $7,000 per MW. (A 28,000 % increase in cost – I saw one report of $9,000 per MW) 

The demand exceeded the supply and simply put they could not keep the lights on. The providers could not find the power they required or could not pay the price – or chose not to pay $7-9,000 per MW for the power they required. This failure certainly has a component in the decision making that is economic. 

This is what happens when you install an intermittent power system, eventually you reach a tipping point where you are not able to provide reliable power and the system collapses like a deck of cards. This is what happens in California in a heat wave or Texas in freezing conditions. The lesson to be learned is that if you destabilize the power grid with intermittent, unreliable power generation that fails in a summer heat wave or a winter polar vortex you will eventually have a catastrophic failure.

A Concerned Citizen

Texas State Flag

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

%d bloggers like this: