Prove Your Wind Turbines are Safe

Water droplet with the earth in it.Regarding the Courier Press story, Otter Creek says there’s no proof that wind turbines are responsible for dirty water.

The headline of that story captures the essence of what’s wrong with Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Rather than providing proof that their turbines won’t harm well water, the developers are quite content with casting doubt about harm because they know the government will approve their project if they can create the slightest hint of doubt… the precautionary principle be damned.

This is perhaps the biggest flaw in the Green Energy Act that wind developers are only too happy to exploit — the burden of proof for proving harm rests with the individual residents. 

This is an impossible barrier for individuals with limited resources. The onus rightfully belongs on the Otter Creek developers to prove their turbines will not cause harm to the wells, rather than engage a consultant to review another consultant’s report, which in turn was based on other reports from other consultants; none of whom have bothered to actually test the water in the Dover wells.

This statement by Otter Creek project manager Marc Weatherill is one example of wind developers attitude towards local residents when he stated: “A lot of the claims have been based on anecdotal evidence or experience.”

The “experience” of residents in Dover, after nearby turbines have been installed, has been turbid well water that reeks of hydrocarbons. Their experience has been that they must buy bottled water for drinking and cooking, and some make regular trips to laundromats to wash their clothing.

Their experience has been that their horses would rather drink water at roadside ditches instead of the well water.

Their experience has been that the filters provided to some have not been effective in providing them with clean water.

Perhaps Mr. Weatherill should visit some of the well owners in Dover and taste their water before he dismisses their claims as merely “anecdotal” and not worthy of further investigation.

Mr. Weatherill also claims that if the Water Wells First group provided scientific data that proves their claims, they would be grateful and happily review the information and details.

He also states that, “What we said to them is, look we want to understand your concern, we want to understand the issue but we need to see it laid out for us.”

Seriously, he wants the residents to do his work for him.

Otter Creek’s selected turbine model, the Enercon 141, with a nominal output of 4.2 MW, will be the largest deployed in Ontario with a nacelle height of 129 metres and a rotor diameter of 141 meters.  There’s enormous potential for vibration, and yet Adam Rosso, project development director for Boralex, said there are no plans on doing baseline testing on water wells in and around the Otter Creek Wind Farm area. And Mr. Weatherill added: “If that’s something that is required of us then we will, but as of right now we don’t have any plans to do that.”

I would point out that the Otter Creek developers hope to vacuum about $218 million directly out of the ratepayers’ pockets over the 20-year life of the contract. Since the Minister of Energy has acknowledged that Ontario has a “robust supply” of generating capacity for the next decade, we will pay the Otter Creek owners about $100 million over the next 10 years in exchange for exactly zero net benefit. The cost of baseline and ongoing water testing pales in comparison to the potential profit.

Confirming “there’s no proof that wind turbines are responsible for dirty water” is as simple as installing an in-line turbidity meter and data logger at several wells in key locations before construction and continuing past start-up. This would confirm the water quality throughout the entire process. If there was an increase in turbidity, the data logger would be able to pinpoint the exact time it occurred, which could then be compared with any activity such as pile driving for turbine bases or when the turbines are operating. If there’s no change in the water turbidity, it would be definitive proof that the turbines are not causing any problems with the wells.

This so obvious, that refusing to perform such simple and low-cost testing would result in the public perception that the developers are engaging in willful blindness, perhaps out of fear of the results.

Santo Giorno

Camlachie

Published: http://www.wallaceburgcourierpress.com/2017/02/03/letter-no-reason-why-otter-creek-cant-do-more-tests 

 

Controversial Donation tangles Lambton County Council

How does Lambton County end up taking money from a wind project it has been engaged in supporting residents bitter opposition to?  The County is being taken to task  over its recent action.  A staff report is to look at the process of how such tainted donations are accepted.

 

Agreeing that it’s too late to change the past, Lambton County Council has set new guidelines for handling possible donations from wind power companies.

Lambton’s Creative County Fund accepted a $200,000 donation from the Cedar Point II Wind Power Project in December.

Members of county council were not informed and many expressed concerns after, given the history of the project in Lambton County.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley hopes it never happens again.

“I think there was a great deal of disappointment and anger here, that the donation was accepted from a corporation, the industrial wind turbine group, who this county has been opposed to over the last three years and have gone to the courts to support the different organizations that have been fighting these industrial wind turbines,” says Bradley.

In the future, council has decided that all donations and financial or policy decisions pertaining to industrial wind turbines will be referred to county council.

County council also endorsed a motion from St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold, asking staff for a report on how the donation receipt process works.

READ AT: http://blackburnnews.com/sarnia/sarnia-news/2017/02/01/county-sets-new-guidelines-controversial-donation/

Is there a remedy to Industrial Wind Turbines?

Is there a Remedy for People Suffering, Health Issues, Financially, etc. from Industrial Wind Turbines in Ontario ?– approximately 7700 planned for Ontario.

shawn-tricia
Trish & Shawn Drennan

“Congratulations to Trish and Shawn Drennan!”

The Goderich Superior Court Room was filled to capacity when Shawn and Trish Drennan went to Court on January 19th to reverse the negative impact that the 140 Industrial Wind Turbine Project (K2), two transformer stations and several transmission lines have on their family, home and their Heritage Farm operation.

They put a compelling and sensible case together and spoke with passion and the strength of truth behind their words.  One comment was that some felt they were witnessing an important step in this fight.  I heard, from a lawyer,… “that a lawyer could not have done a better job in arguing the case”.  Most felt the judge really got it and it was in no small part because of the time, work, expense and personal sacrifice they both have given to their case to put the facts on the table.

shawn-drennan
Shawn Drennan at home on his farm operation

Shawn, “presented himself”, and told the court that the government has created an impossible barrier when he has to prove “Serious Harm to human health” at an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), when the turbines have not been installed or in operation yet. The ERT appeals and Divisional Court Hearings occur prior to the IWTs becoming operational. The Divisional Court also confirmed that the ERT’s lack the jurisdiction to determine the validly of section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and its constitutionality. In addition, to date, there appears to be no definition for the term “Serious Harm” even after all the ERT’s, Judicial Reviews and Divisional Court cases here in Ontario.

Shawn declared that the many witnesses who have come forward to testify that they have been harmed by turbines all over this province have not been given the gravity and respect they deserve for putting their testimony forward.  Shawn told the hearing that the government and K2 knew the turbines will harm people even before wind project proposals and permits went ahead.  The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) lobbied the government to remove Infra and Low Frequency Sound regulations and testing when the Green Energy Act was written and this requirement was subsequently removed. If Judge Raikes had asked, at least half or more of the people in the court room that day could have stood up and said, “ I am the evidence of harm from Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs).”

Shawn told the hearing that the difference between then, (ERT Hearings prior to operation) and now (May 29 2015), is that now the switch has been turned on, and the IWT’s are operational and we are being harmed.k2-wind-turbine

Judge Raikes challenged K2 and the MOE to tell him what remedy the Drennans have besides more time in court. We all watched them try to answer to no avail, because as was pointed out the only remedy right now is to move away. “Most people do not want to move away to begin with but do so to regain health.  They  are often penalized yet again when they have to lower the sales price to even get the home sold.

kingsbridge-120910
Home with a K2 industrial wind turbine just a few hundred metres away

When Judge Raikes looked at the K2 lawyer, Mr Bredt,  the judge tried to paraphrase what the lawyer had just said to him, “ So, the Drennans went to the ERT and Divisional Court, have complained to MOE, and still have no remedy, so it’s tough luck for them?  Bredt replied, “Yes.” which drew gasps of disbelief from the full gallery of people who attended.

When it came time to argue about who should be named as defendants in the Charter Challenge; K2 and /or govt., it was interesting to watch the judge see both parties try to throw each other under the bus.

Those in attendance are waiting to hear Judge Raikes decision and keep their fingers crossed that Shawn and Trish can move forward in finding a remedy for the harm they have experienced.  This hearing has implications for property owners and people living within at least a 10 km radius of a turbine project here in Ontario.

Thank you, on behalf of a whole lot of us in Ontario.

Dave Hemingway, Reporter, The Landowner

Kafkaesque world of windmill neighbors

despair-400.jpgThe definition of “Kafkaesque”: “Describing something that is horribly complicated for no reason, usually in reference to bureaucracy.” Neighbors of operating and proposed wind projects are watching in disbelief as they witness the Public Service Board (PSB) issue Orders affirming the rights of the wind industry while putting neighbors through expensive, time-consuming legal processes that tramples neighbors’ rights and provide no relief.

Paul Brouha of Sutton lives 6,385 feet from the nearest turbine in the Sheffield Wind plant. He filed his first noise complaint on Dec. 24, 2011, after the wind turbines began operating in October. The PSB dismissed his complaint.

Brouha hired a noise expert who conducted testing and found that instead of the 15 decibels (dBA) noise attenuation between outside and inside projected by wind company experts, the home attenuated 1 dBA.  The expert’s measurements showed “multiple and frequent violations of the CPG noise criteria.”  The PSB ordered the Department of Public Service (DPS) to investigate the complaint early in 2014. DPS hired a consultant who conducted the same test on July 1, 2014.

In January 2015, Brouha filed a nuisance lawsuit in Superior Court in Vermont.

In Sept. 2015, DPS reported to the PSB that Sheffield Wind exceeded interior noise standards 10-14% of the time.

At the end of 2015, the PSB opened an investigation. Sheffield Wind moved to stay Brouha’s nuisance lawsuit which they had moved from Superior to Federal Court.  The Federal judge approved the stay request until the PSB ruled on the complaint.

Brouha’s nuisance complaint has been held hostage by the PSB’s laborious investigation and enforcement process for a year, during which Sheffield Wind, DPS, and Brouha filed written arguments about whether or not a violation occurred.  Brouha argued that the project is in violation.  Sheffield Wind vigorously argued that new monitoring must take place.  The PSB Hearing Officer agreed.  Brouha filed a Motion to Reconsider six months ago.  The Hearing Officer has not ruled.

The parties agreed to have their noise experts meet to try to agree on a new monitoring plan.  They did not come to agreement.

On Jan. 25, 2017, the Hearing Officer held a daylong technical hearing in Brouha’s noise complaint case.  Each expert’s noise monitoring plan was presented.  Sheffield Wind wants an entirely new protocol.  DPS argues for a protocol that would change the noise standard.  Brouha asks to use the protocol originally approved by the PSB.  The hearing did not finish, so three PSB staff, five attorneys and their experts will return to the PSB for another hearing.

Brouha has spent nearly $350,000 so far attempting to get his noise complaint addressed.  No end is in sight.

Melodie and Scott McLane live 3800 feet from the Georgia Mountain Wind turbines. After they filed more than 30 noise complaints, the PSB opened an investigation in Nov. 2015.  In March 2016 the McLanes filed a complaint about the turbines operating under icing conditions.  The PSB opened another investigation.

Attorneys for GMW (same attorneys representing Sheffield Wind), DPS and the McLanes argued on paper about whether an attenuation test at the McLane home should be conducted, and whether the winter operating protocol required the turbines be curtailed under icing conditions.  GMW vigorously argued against testing at the McLane home.

The McLanes also filed a noise complaint along with the icing complaint, because they experienced the loudest noise for the longest period of time since the turbines began operating in 2013.  In every filing in the icing docket, the McLanes reminded the PSB that they also were filing a noise complaint.

Recently, the PSB issued an Order[1] finding GMW violated its CPG by operating its wind turbines under icing conditions in March 2016, and issued a negligible $2000 fine.  The same day, the PSB fined a solar company[2] $17,000 for failing to comply with a condition involving a fire lane.  No one was harmed by the failure of the solar company.  The McLanes sleep is regularly disrupted by the wind turbine noise.  The PSB declined to address the accompanying noise complaint.

In response to the McLane’s 2015 noise complaint, both the PSB Hearing Officer and DPS recommended testing to determine the attenuation of the noise from inside to outside. The Board denied[3] the testing but gave the McLanes and DPS ten days to file paperwork asking to engage in further discovery and cross-examination of GMW’s expert to decide if outside to inside testing should be done.

The McLanes also filed a Motion for Relief in Nov. 2015.  In denying that motion[4], the PSB said, “Nothing in our Order today prevents the McLanes from seeking any individual relief that may be available to them in a forum that has the requisite authority to review their personal circumstances and to take action as may be warranted.”  In other words, they can file a nuisance lawsuit in court and follow Paul Brouha down the path that leads back to – the PSB.

The legislature says it’s the PSB fault.  The PSB says it’s the legislatures fault.   Vermonters are victimized while the wind industry profits.

Annette Smith is Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.  She is the Burlington Free Press’s 2016 Vermonter of the Year.

  1. 8167-memo-and-scoping-order
  2. 17000civilpenalty
  3. 26360527605365onbase-unity_96132205239795106026150
  4. 26365632768515onbase-unity_9630467781853243962494

Published: January 30, 2017  http://vermontbiz.com/news/january/annette-smith-kafkaesque-world-windmill-neighbors?utm_source=VBM+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=4405d9e165-Enews_2017_01_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_85838110bc-4405d9e165-285543701 

Niagara Wind CLC Meeting #4

enercon-wind-turbine

Tuesday February 7th, 2017 | 6pm
Wellandport Community Centre
5042 Canborough Road
Wellandport, ON L0R 2J0

The purpose of the CLC is to facilitate two-way communication between NRWF and CLC members with respect to issues relating to the construction, installation, use, operation, maintenance and retirement of the facility. All CLC meetings are open to the general public for observation.

Questions can be submitted in advance up until January 31st to Karla Kolli, CLC Chair and Facilitator at kkolli@dillon.ca or 416-229-4647 ext. 2354.

Wind Turbines: Huge Profits at expense of residents and Nature

Too Much and Absurd.

Wind turbine battles are being fought globally.  In North America Germany’s use of renewable energy projects are often looked to as an ideal to strive for in power generation systems.  Wind turbines are facing increasingly stiff opposition from residents who had once strongly been in favour of wind power.  The following documentary explores how opinions change once the wind turbines go up and begin operations.  Ideals for a better future face a harsh and ugly reality.  The film was shown on the German television channel ARD – Das Erste  on August 1, 2016.   Original is in German but video has English subtitles.

Wind Turbine Bird & Bat Mortality Reports, with Summary- Ontario, Canada

Posted on 01/24/2017 by

Below is a summary Maureen kindly assembled from all of the reports retrieved through the FOI. Have a good hard look at the numbers per project. Individually, these projects have got off scot free – they have never been challenged, never been questioned, never been charged, or even slapped on the wrist for these astounding kills. Dan tallied the actual raptor deaths on the right hand side, as many raptor deaths were ignored as “incidental” – not killed at the right time/place…more on that later. There is much more to glean from these reports – please share what you gather. This is a draft that will be added to and amended as we go.

Click here to download and view in full screen

Follow link to see all of bird and bat kill reports: http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2017/01/24/wind-turbine-bird-bat-mortality-reports-with-summary-ontario-canada/

 

People vs Wind Turbines

vive-a-la-resistance-2Ontario Superior Court- Goderich  January 19, 2017

Congratulations to Trish and Shawn Drennan!

You put a compelling and sensible case together and spoke with passion and the strength of truth behind your words today.  One comment was that some felt they were witnessing an important step in this fight.  I heard, from a lawyer, that a lawyer couldn’t have done a better job in arguing the case.  Most felt the judge really got it and it was in no small part because of the time, work, expense and personal sacrifice you’ve both given to this to put the facts on the table. 

You told the court the govt has put up an impossible barrier when we have to prove at an ERT that a turbine installation that isn’t built yet, will seriously harm us and that the judicial review confirmed the ERT’s decision.

You declared that the many witnesses who have come forward to testify that they have been harmed by turbines all over this province have not been given the gravity and respect they deserve for putting their testimony forward.  You told them the govt and the wind company KNOWS it will harm people even as the proposals and permits go ahead.  And I note that if the judge had asked, at least half or more of the people in that room today could have stood up and said, I am the evidence of harm from turbines.”

You told them that the difference between then and now, is now the switch has been turned on, the turbines are running and you too are being harmed.

The judge challenged the wind company and the MOE to tell him what remedy the Drennins have besides more time in court and we all watched them try to answer to no avail, because as was pointed out the only remedy right now is to move away. 

When the judge looked at the wind company lawyer and tried to paraphrase what the lawyer had just said to him with, “ So, the Drennins went to the ERT and judicial review, have complained to MOE, and still have no remedy, so it’s tough luck for them?  The wind company lawyer replied, “Yes.” which drew gasps of disbelief from the full gallery of people who attended.  

When it came time to argue about who should be named as defendants; wind company and /or govt., it was interesting to watch the judge watch both try to throw each other under the bus.

I await to hear the decision and keep fingers crossed that you can move forward. 

Thank you on behalf of a whole lot of us.

Lorrie Gillis

 

Residents already tapped Out

image3
Transmission poles for Niagara Wind in West Lincoln, Ontario

Grimsby Lincoln News   Re. An investment in the future, Letter, Jan. 10:

I disagree with the mayor about the future of West Lincoln.

Our council has taken on a project estimated to cost $23.6 million with no firm plan except that they have set their sights on achieving a new arena and recreation complex before the next election.

In 2015, council turned down a proposal for a $14-million complex because funding was not complete, and now they have plans for a $23.6-million complex and still have no funding in place, no business plan, and no estimate of operating expenses. They have, however, decided to place all funds they anticipate receiving from the wind projects: the Community Impact Fund, the Road Use Agreement, and the funds equal to the replacement of the 7,000 trees removed by the wind company, into the project.

Council also brags about the 3.5 per cent tax increase to the 2017 budget as the final increase when they are actually planning a 13.6 per cent increase phased in over three years.

Now they are asking this community to start fundraising. Many of us have spent thousands of our own dollars (and thousands of hours of our time) on just attempting to keep the wind company compliant with no help from this township. Residents of West Lincoln have had to put their own funds into purchasing noise monitoring equipment, with no support from our council. Our council never done anything to help the residents of West Lincoln, except to sign the documents allowing them to collect the bribe money from the project.

West Lincoln in 2017 has 49 industrial wind turbines, miles of transmission lines, guard rails and utility poles, and families facing problems with water quality, noise, shadow flicker, sleeplessness, health issues and stress.

I expect to see more and more issues with the wind projects in the future and huge tax increases for years to come just to maintain this recreational complex.

Nellie DeHaan, Smithville

Published January 17, 2017

Canada’s Worst Bat Killing Wind Farm

Wind developers do not have to make the reports filed of bird and bat kills public.  That is now being changed.  It took over one year for the Freedom of Information request made by Esther Wrightman to be delivered. The documents received make sickening reading.

The following copied post highlights just one  of many horrors of the kill rate of wind turbines known by the Ontario government that  until now has been kept hidden from  public scrutiny.

Former Liberal Pres. Crawley built worst ‘bat killing wind farm’ in Canada: 85 bats killed /turbine/yr

Yesterday the CD arrived with loads of Bird and Bat Mortality Reports that I had filed an FOI from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for last year, and you good people had funded. I’m slowly organizing and will get them all posted shortly.

But for starters I came across five reports for Mohawk Point Wind Project, a 6 turbine project in Haldimand County. I didn’t know much about this one – it was never in the news… sort of flew under the radar. It came on around the time of the Clear Creek turbines in Norfolk County.

This was an AIM PowerGen/International Power Corporation project – whose president is none other than the past Federal and Ontario Federal Liberal Party President Mike Crawley. It was approved  in 2009, and pretty much nothing more was said about it since.

Which is so wrong. Let me explain. The “five” reports stuck out because usually (if the project is not killing over the ‘limits’ set by the government) there are only three reports. That means some ‘mitigation reporting’ was happening, for some reason.

Well that reason became pretty obvious within seconds of looking at the 2011 report.

How does 85.42 bats killed per wind turbine strike you?

Or how about 53.1% of them being the Endangered Little Brown Bat?

Perhaps I’m too soft, but my thinking is 25 bats per turbine is atrocious (I mean, 10 is the MNRF’s limit). And as for Little Browns, they usually only make up a percent or two – not HALF of the kill! It’s an endangered species for crying out loud!

Okay, based on these insane numbers, why didn’t they SHUT DOWN the project? Oh they mitigated instead, and they believe they brought it down to a more reasonably atrocious number of 24.27 bats killed per wind turbine/year by 2013. That puts you all at ease, doesn’t it? I mean shouldn’t we be happy for the success of this ‘mitigation’ even though it is still double the legal limit?

Not so fast. Think about this – female Little Browns have just one offspring a year. After 5 years of 6 turbines decimating 85 bats each (give or take), how many do you really think are left in those local colonies? Pretty damn sure that number is dropping rapidly by the oh-so-natural process of “wind turbine selection”.

And as for you, dear Crawely, at least you have the current claim of creating the biggest bat killing “farm” in the country. Now that should make the green Liberals proud.

Esther Wrightman

[With only an initial look at some reports I hope this is as bad as it gets for bat kills in this country. As the bird and bat mortality reports are slowly uncovered, the numbers just seem to get worse and worse. I never imagined it could get this low, but then again nobody was releasing this info to the public, so how were we to know? Maybe some company will outdo Crawley on this one yet…heck, maybe even some of Crawley’s other projects could claim this title too…]

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