Time to get real about wind power in Ontario

07 Wednesday Oct 2026

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Wind turbines are an industrial land use: a low-density power source that uses up valuable farmland, and poses a risk to wildlife and groundwater. [Photo by D. Larsen for Wind Concerns Ontario]

October 7, 2026

We have plenty of organizations of different types in Ottawa who continually refer to “renewable” energy or “clean” energy as a goal for the city. Though deeply conflicted—most of them devoutly claim they love trees and birds and turtles and then in the next breath support land-gobbling, bird and bat killing industrial wind turbines—they maintain that “clean” energy will bring prosperity, jobs, and self-reliance.

Incredibly, one such group (CAFES) recently claimed that having local wind and solar would mean less reliance on “imported” power. As if electricity were avocadoes from California. The ignorance of Ontario’s electricity system is stunning.

Wind Concerns Ontario (we are a corporate community group member) recently published a summary of Ontario’s now 20-year experience with industrial wind power. What’s clear is, wind is not the solution. To anything, except more money in the pockets of developers.

Ontario’s rural municipalities are about to face the possibility of more industrial wind power proposals, when the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO finally launches its long overdue “window 2” of its Long-Term 2 Request For Proposals (LT2-RFP),

The next RFP was meant to be released much earlier this year (after a not entirely successful 2025 which saw only two or three wind power contracts awarded out of more than 20 proposals), but Ontario’s rural opposition to being industrialized by noisy giant wind towers is such that the IESO (and probably the wind power lobbyists) declared the October municipal election a “challenge” for new proposals, and put the whole thing off.

That should tell you something right there: with 159 municipalities (out of 444 total) having declared themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new industrial wind power projects, community opposition is a real force to be reckoned with.

In Ontario, wind power operators speak less about climate change and more about economic realities. That means promising cash-strapped and challenge-worn small rural municipalities cash in the form of community benefit funds (or “vibrancy” funds in the wind power lobby’s continuing adeptness at cutesy names for completely serious matters), and the prospect of multiple jobs. The community benefit funds of course are a pittance against what the wind power developers cart off to the bank and reward investors, and the  local jobs always turn out to be short-lived, related to construction. Even then, actual construction of wind power sites is done by specialized teams travelling to the site, usually by highly trained teams from the United States.

As Dr. Chris Keefer of Canadians for Nuclear Energy quipped, “There are no employee parking lots at wind farms.”

It is time then to see through the magician’s smoke and look behind the mirrors at what wind power in Ontario really is.

First, it is not a reliable source of power.  Ontario is a low “wind resource” area—we will never be able to produce significant power consistently from wind power, and that is that. Wind power is “part-time power”. Who said that? Only Ontario’s current Minister of Energy Stephen Lecce. Last January, while a certain Toronto-based faux environmental group was pushing to triple Ontario’s wind power capacity and abandon its nuclear ambitions, Mr. Lecce said that Ontario cannot “power a full-time economy with part-time power.”

Economist Edgardo Sepulveda undertook the first independent cost-benefit analysis of wind power in Ontario (though past Auditors General in the province have asked for one) in 2024. In his paper Chasing The Wind: the value of wind generation in a low-emission nuclear and hydro dominant grid, Mr. Sepulveda acknowledges that to keep costs artificially low, the Ontario government subsidizes 70 percent of the cost of wind. In fact, he alleges, “the costs of wind far exceed its societal and climate benefits for the 2020–23 period… Due to its nuclear and hydro dominant generation and elimination of coal, Ontario is one of the lowest-emission large grids in the world. The climate benefit from any new zero-emission generation will be limited to the extent it can displace gas generation. Relative to other areas, Ontario’s wind capacity factors are modest and out of sync with gas generation, all resulting in a relatively low wind emissions offset.”

The high cost to Ontario taxpayers was revealed recently with the release of the public accounts figure of $6.9 billion annually to subsidize electricity generation costs in Ontario. That represents more than half of Ontario’s $13-billion deficit.

So, wind power’s scorecard so far: high cost, low benefit.

But does it help with power generation to keep the province running? Again, Mr. Sepulveda: he refers to “modest” capacity factors for wind in Ontario. It’s actually much worse. This past summer, 2026, saw lengthy periods of low wind power generation simultaneously with high demand. Mr. Sepulveda: “wind generation is uncorrelated with Ontario demand … correlation data with gas shows that wind is negatively correlated with gas generation. This indicates that wind did not efficiently displace gas in Ontario.”

Energy analyst and director with Canadians for Nuclear Energy Christopher Adlam took a snapshot of wind power in January this year and provided this analysis.

“On this frigid Saturday evening Ontario is generating 21,545MW. Of that capacity:
– 194MW is from 4,943MW of wind (0.9%)
– 0MW is from 478MW of solar (0.0%)
– 60MW is from 851MW of batteries (0.2%)
– 184MW is from 287MW of bio (0.9%)
– 4,639MW is from 8,866MW of hydro (21.5%)
– 7,682MW is from 10,551MW of gas (35.7%)
– 8,786MW is from 9,546MW of nuclear (40.8%)

We are also currently exporting 757MW to Quebec and 873MW to New York. To replace gas and nuclear with wind for this hour would require 422,256MW of wind capacity, or 122,749 of the 3.44MW wind turbines installed at Nation Rise, which, at $2.33M/MW would cost $984 billion dollars.”

In short, wind doesn’t work.

It truly is “part-time power,” and is further incapable of replacing fossil fuel power generation in periods of high demand.

Another critical factor in wind power is “energy density”, in short, how much energy can be delivered by a generation system relative to its physical size.

Here again, wind power disappoints, especially when compared to high density nuclear.

Wind turbines use up a significant amount of land, a grave concern here is Ontario where target communities for industrial wind power are also the location of successful agriculture. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) and others have expressed grave concern about the future of farming and farmland in the province.

“Farmland is vital to our survival,” the OFA said in a statement before the last federal election in 2025.  “We cannot rely on importing our food.  We must remain a food sovereign nation. We cannot achieve this if we continue to develop on agricultural land that is home to reliable and arable soils.”

The wind power industry not only maintains it uses very little land (we have seen preposterous claims of perhaps a quarter of an acre—suburban housing lots are bigger than that) but the lobby also claims that farming can co-exist with the power generation facility. That conflicts with again the OFA advice to landowners to be careful about signing contracts to lease land for industrial wind turbines, as land use may be restricted by the wind power enterprise, which comes first.

Well, OK, wind is expensive and maybe doesn’t work all that well in Ontario but isn’t it good for the “environment” and climate, cry the “environmental” agencies.

No.

Wind power generation is an industrial land use and its side effects are pretty much what you’d expect from industry: noise, altered landscapes, impacts on wildlife (that means they are killed dead despite assertions of care and mitigation by the industry), and danger to aquifers as evidenced by the travesty in North Kent where wind turbine construction an operation interfered with groundwater over a fragile geology (nothing has been done to help the dozens of families now without potable well water, despite a provincial science committee recommendation).

Ontario has now had industrial wind turbine complexes since 2006. It hasn’t gone well, spurring the Unwilling Host movement which began in 2014 when a rural municipality mayor protested against the contracting process which gave local governments virtually no say in approving the industrial sites.

She wasn’t the first: on April 5, 2011, Amaranth Mayor Don McIvor wrote to then Environment Minister John Wilkinson about the effects of the large Melancthon wind power project in his municipality. The mayor was not too proud to plead with the minister to halt all wind power development in the municipality: “There is no question that the impact of wind turbines and the transformer that connects this power to the grid have negatively affected the health and wealth of neighbouring residents. The Council of Amaranth is opposed to any further wind turbine projects.”

A team of university researchers took aim at the approval process for industrial wind power projects in 2016 and found that health and environmental concerns had been “dismissed” unnecessarily. Stewart Fast (then with the University of Ottawa) and others said in their paper, “Lessons learned in Ontario wind energy disputes,” (Nature Energy, January 2016) the insistence on rigid criteria of direct causation had resulted in an approach that ignored real concerns. “Depending on the evidence cited, there is epidemiologic evidence to sustain various interpretations of wind-turbine impacts on well-being,” Fast et. al said.

The process through which developers applied for approval did not properly engage communities and left citizens feeling like “victims”.  “Setting minimum engagement requirements, such as the requirement for two local public meetings, tends to be treated as the maximum requirements — a ‘tick box’ to be completed by developers.”

Ten years later, nothing has changed. In 2019 the Ontario government repealed the Green Energy Act and allowed municipalities some “say” in the siting of industrial wind power projects so that now, the IESO has municipal approval as a mandatory requirement for submissions. However, as seen in 2025, developers were acutely aware of opposition throughout the province and did not want to spend much money on impact studies and other information. As a result, they approached municipal councils with the scarcest of information, and sometimes with vague maps of a “study area” rather than precise turbine locations. In more than one location, developers said to a municipal council, if they got the council’s approval, then they would go ahead and do the complex impact studies. (That means that approval was given though and could not be taken back—councils were not fooled).

Chatham-Kent, where there are more than 500 wind turbines currently operating, had to deal with two proposals in 2025. At a crucial meeting of Council in October 2025, formerly turbine-friendly councillors voted No, citing the lack of information, and the poor process.

Councillor Alysson Storey said, “I am not comfortable” making a decision when there are so many questions and no answers. Staff confirmed upon her questioning that this meeting was the only time the issue could be brought before Council. Storey added that she was sick of the provincial government forcing “do or die” votes on Ontario municipalities.

That was 2025. Despite the IESO’s effort to avoid wind power proposals becoming an issue in the 2026 municipal election, it is one, as it should be.

 In Chatham-Kent again, the topic came up at a mayoral candidate debate  where most of the candidates spoke out against further wind power development. That included former mayor Randy Hope who was in the chair for much of the wind power project approvals, and who said in his view, the municipality was now “at capacity” for wind power. He added there was a need for greater community engagement.

As to the process, criticized by academics and by municipal councils, to say nothing of citizens who would be forced to live inside industrial wind power sites, nothing has changed. The IESO still only requires a minimum of one public “meeting” which isn’t a meeting at all in most cases, but rather a storyboard show with public relations hirelings representing the developer.

As professor Fast and others noted ten years ago, “Although such storyboard-style meetings can be a useful way of alleviating contentious issues, they often leave residents feeling like victims of a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy, in which answers and promises are given only to individuals and are not made publicly.”

So, time to come “clean” about wind power in Ontario.

Reliable affordable power? No.

Jobs and local prosperity? No.

Action on climate change and fossil-fuel use? No. Wind can’t replace anything.

As Ontarians go to the polls again this October, we must ask all candidates for their stance on the prospect of industrial wind power invading their community. And then, vote accordingly.

(C) Wind Concerns Ontario 2026

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

The stats tell the story: wind doesn’t work

30 Thursday Jul 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Wind power is erratic and unreliable

Source: IESO power data, accessed 11:30 a,m. July 30, 2026

July 30, 2026

A few months ago, Ontario energy minister Stephen Lecce said that Ontario was pursuing an aggressive program of nuclear and hydro power because, he said, “You can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power.”

This summer has offered almost daily proof that, in Ontario at least, wind power just can’t do what is asked of it.

At the time of writing for example, IESO power supply and demand stats show that while demand of more than 18,000 megawatts, wind power is providing just over 300 megawatts. Last hour it was 200. For the entire province.

Locally, output from the 29 wind turbines at Crysler-Finch-Berwick have been in the single digits all day and at the time of writing, output is exactly zero. It was zero last hour too, and hasn’t gone over 7 MW all day, so far.

Several “environmental” and “climate” organizations in Ottawa are pushing wind power as a clean alternative to current electricity production (though emissions-free nuclear an hydro do most of the work) despite the fact that the many environmental concerns about low power-density, land-gobbling, noise polluting wind turbines clearly go against their other program goals. Like, saving birds.

But whatever else you think about industrial wind power sites, the fact remains: in ONtario, with our climate and weather patterns, wind doesn’t work. It can’t. And battery storage can only do so much. Very little, in fact.

With a very important municipal election approaching, it will be important to ask candidates, do they believe in the wind power public relations? Or the truth. The numbers tell the story.

Wind power locally: reliably unreliable

12 Sunday Jul 2026

Posted by in Wind power, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 12, 2026

Wind turbines at Crysler near Ottawa: not replacing any fossil fuels today (Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario)

Wind power in the Ottawa area is outperforming IESO forecasts this hour (5 p.m. July 12).

Yes, it’s true.

The IESO forecast ONE MEGAWATT of power output from the 100-megawatt industrial wind power site at Crysler, but instead, the turbines are generating an impressive TWO megawatts.

Wind power has not had a great week in Ontario where warm summer weather has pushed up demand daily over 20,000 megawatts but Ontario’s wind turbines have struggled to produce more than a few hundred.

This is typical of wind power in our province: in periods of high demand—either hot of cold weather—wind takes off for the beach.

All this has been documented in the cost-benefit study done by economist Edgardo Sepulveda, Chasing The Wind. The analysis is available here: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/chasing-the-wind-the-value-of-wind-generation-in-a-low-emission-nuclear-and-hydro-dominant-grid-the-case-of-ontario/

(Mr Sepulveda offered to address the City of Ottawa’s environment committee on this issue but as far as we know, his offer was never accepted…or even given a response.)

The influencers

Meanwhile, Ottawa’s $57-B Energy Evolution plan (sneaked by both citizens and Council during the early months of COVID) is still official city policy, and includes a plan for “investment” of $4B in unreliable, part-time, non-performing wind power. The chapter on energy was written for the City by activist Pollution Probe, and its prescription for massive amounts of wind power (3200 megawatts) goes against the City’s own preliminary research which said, There really isn’t a lot of wind here, guys, but if you want to have a showpiece demonstration turbine, go ahead. (CANMET on Timm road was suggested)

Wind power is pushed by local “environmental sustainability” group CAFES, which even told the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee that fewer regulations and approval requirements are needed—let’s get those multi-billion-dollar projects built, never mind the environment consequences. And Ottawa Climate Action Fund, which was launched several years ago with a $20-million grant from the federal government. Its debut was hosted by none other than Diana Fox Carney.

Clearly, the pro-wind lobby thinks Ottawa should have wind turbines. Despite the fact we have no wind.

Never mind that Ottawa’s rural residents (promised much more voice in the 2024 Rural Summit but whose voices were ignored in favour of Brookfield’s battery storage project on farmland in West Carleton) are not keen on seeing their quite farming and residential communities turned into industrial power sites. The approval of the battery storage and the amendments to zoning that allowed it to proceed is currently before the courts in legal action brought by residents.

Not great for Ontario, either

Ontario’s own energy minister Stephen Lecce has said wind power can’t do what Ontario needs: “You can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power,” he said on social media last fall.

Of 22 wind power proposals put forward in 2025, only one is proceeding to construction (one other by Enbridge got a contract but has since been withdrawn when the company and the First Nation involved could not agree to terms).

Many proposals were thwarted by refusal of local councils to grant formal approval. In Ontario, there are 159 municipalities that are formally Unwilling Hosts to new wind power, including multiple jurisdictions around this city such as Merrickville-Wolford and North Stormont (hope of the listless Crysler turbines today).

The myth of wind power needs to end, and the people of Ottawa should ensure that conversations about power generation are part of discussions with candidates in the coming municipal election.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Has Ottawa lost its focus on city priorities?

12 Friday Jun 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 12, 2026

Has Ottawa lost sight of local issues such as food supply as it follows a climate change agenda? Is farmland just empty space for power projects? [Photo: Shady Lane Farms]

As we get closer to the October municipal election, and candidate nominations have begun, discussions about the current state of the City of Ottawa are starting to get interesting.

Mayor Sutcliffe has had the job of mopping up after the Watson years, and the difficult state of affairs with the Light Rail, for example.

Issues of concern are: transit, roads, affordable homes, food prices and taxes, among others

One commentator, Mike Patton, recently remarked that the reason Ottawa is having difficulty with these issues is that over recent years, Councils have lost focus on local issues and devoted time—and lots and lots of money—-to larger, non-Ottawa, issues like climate change, he says.

See Mr Patton’s comment here: https://x.com/Mike__Patton/status/2065222913062580673?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Of course, the City should do what it can to improve performance in areas such as air pollution and emissions, but is a $57-billion “Energy Evolution” plan, which calls for an investment of $4 billion in unreliable, unaffordable wind power the way to go? (The electricity section of the report was written by activist group Pollution Probe.)

The Ontario experience with wind power demonstrates it is not an appropriate use of funds, and an unsuccessful way to generate reliable power.

Energy economist Edgardo Sepulveda published a report in 2024 documenting the failure of wind power to replace any problematic power generation sources, and to be a reliable power source. Read that report here: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/chasing-the-wind-the-value-of-wind-generation-in-a-low-emission-nuclear-and-hydro-dominant-grid-the-case-of-ontario/

Yet there are promoters here in Ottawa. The Ottawa Climate Action Fund or OCAF recently released a statement claiming that Ottawa’s farmland was “opportunity” … not for local food production and food security, but for renewable energy.

“Nearly eighty percent of Ottawa’s land is rural, including farmland, greenspace, forested land and of course rural communities. For OCAF, thinking about sustainable city planning and climate solutions in Ottawa extends far beyond the urban boundary and must include rural strategies,” says OCAF.

Farmers, not to be totally left out as we industrialize farmland for an energy resource plantation, can make money through these rural strategies, OCAF asserts.

(In a very unfortunate sidebar, OCAF suggested that farmers could perhaps do a better job of using their land more productively, via “regenerative farming”, as if they are not already do that and everything they can. This suggestion was not met with enthusiasm by farmers we know. )

Another group, CAFES (very busy building up its “environmental” cred by hosting bird-spotting and tree-planting events), is ideologically committed to invasive, noise-polluting, wildlife-killing wind power, and has suggested that there should be fewer approval requirements, not more, so big wind power projects can get built faster.

As we move toward October’s election, Mr Patton’s comments about priorities might also guide questions to candidates.

What plans do we have for the whole city, that benefit everyone, not just a certain ideology and agenda? Do candidates really see Ottawa’s valuable and important farmland as simply empty space? Where will the food come from?

Let’s think about it.

OttawaWindConcerns@gmail.com

Pro-wind groups in Ottawa collaborate to “educate”

02 Thursday Apr 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Uncategorized, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Rural Ottawa residents waiting to be “educated” by downtown Ottawa “environmental” group [Photo Pexels Canada]

April 2, 2026

Local “environmental” coalition CAFES or Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability and OREC, the Ottawa Renewable Energy Cooperative, are teaming up this year to “educate” Ottawa’s rural residents on the positive benefits of accepting renewable energy projects.

In its most recent email newsletter, CAFES announces “Thumbs Up for Renewable Energy” program which “will focus particularly on rural areas of Ottawa, where many projects may be proposed.”

The timing is linked to the next Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Request For Proposals, which may include large industrial wind power installations.

CAFES says it will host “workshops, site visits, community events, and accessible information resources, the project will help residents better understand the electricity system, engage in discussions about local energy project planning with proper safeguards, and position us to maximize local benefits.”

CAFES claims that Ontario needs a “more resilient grid” without mentioning that industrial-scale or grid-scale wind power projects actually destabilize the grid, require fossil-fuel backup, and in Ontario at least, are completely out of phase with demand. Last year saw weeks when there was no wind, and wind power in Ontario was dramatically below capacity.

Hardly “resilient.”

Although not a charity because of its political bent, CAFES nonetheless receives grants from unnamed sources.

Unaudited financial statements filed for the organization for 2024 show that CAFES received $86,848 in “grant revenue” and a further $28,799 from “donations and fundraising for a total of $138,055 in revenues that year.

As written in this space before, CAFES is all about saving trees and birds and frogs but at the same time quite OK with deforestation of landscapes and the use of productive farmland for wind turbines, which are an industrial land use.

Acknowledging that municipalities have an important role in renewable energy installations (the Ontario government made municipal support a mandatory requirement for successful project applications), CAFES also says their goal is to get projects approved faster and with fewer regulations: “CAFES will be advocating for a more enabling provincial regulatory environment for renewable energy and energy storage.”

In an Open Letter to CAFES written last year following their appearance at Ottawa’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), Ottawa Wind Concerns criticized the group for their stance to reduce regulation and simply approve projects. CAFES had told ARAC that the City of Ottawa needed to “minimize delays” and simply approve renewable energy projects.

Translation: get out of the way and approve big projects.

No matter what citizen concerns exist for the environment, loss of farmland, and money spent on an unreliable, weather-dependent power source. Or that the energy minister himself, Stephen Lecce, has said renewables, i.e., industrial wind, are not the affordable reliable solution Ontario needs.

CAFES and its partner OREC that seeks investment in power projects certainly have the money to put on workshops and events (even free lunches as they did to promote battery storage) to promote their agenda, but we’ve already seen the enthusiasm rural communities will bring to opposing industrial projects in quiet rural areas. In Ontario, 159 municipalities are now Unwilling Hosts to new wind power project, a decision they made out of experience with industrial wind, not fear of the unknown.

The patronizing nature of this campaign to “educate” rural residents on their electricity system will not go unnoticed.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Thinking of signing for a wind turbine lease? Better get informed to protect yourself

01 Wednesday Apr 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Wind turbines are an industrial land use that affects property owners, neighbours and the wider community. The decision to lease land for these structures is deadly serious. [Photo: D. Larsen]

April, 2026

With the IESO soon to launch its Long-Term 2-Request For Proposals window 2 which will include industrial wind power, it’s likely that rural Ottawa could see some proposals.

If you, or someone you know, has been approached by a wind power developer to sign a lease, it is important to learn all the facts about this transaction. It will affect you, your family, the future of your farm, your neighbours and your community for a very long time.

The best advice we’ve seen comes from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) which has prepared a fact sheet on what to consider. Prepared by a farm owner with experience in wind turbine leases, it is a valuable document.

Read it here: https://ofa.on.ca/resources/agreements-for-renewable-energy-installations-on-your-land/

Your neighbours and your community at large will be affected, too. To learn more about the impacts of wind power installations, check out Wind Concerns Ontario’s Impacts page, here: https://www.windconcernsontario.ca/impacts-of-wind-energy/

Wind power developers can be very persuasive, telling you this power is desperately needed (it isn’t, it’s expensive and unreliable), you’ll make lots of money (you’ll lose a lot too), while helping the environment and climate change (false, wind power does nothing for either of these things).

The IESO is an independent agency, that is responsible for contracting for new power sources. They don’t care about agriculture, the environment or health or in fact YOU. It is your duty to be responsible in making any decisions that will result in impacts for 20, 40 even 50-60 years.

It’s not just about money.

For more information contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

High-Speed Rail opposition in Rural Eastern Ontario: a lesson for wind power developers

20 Friday Feb 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 20, 2026

Small, rural communities are aware of impacts on the environment and wildlife, and the effect of industrial projects…and they’re saying NO. That likely means NO to huge, noisy, invasive, land gobbling wind turbines, too.

Opposition to high-speed rail through fragile environmental areas in Ontario sprang up fast … and hard.

Eastern Ontario rural communities just north of the St Lawrence River are buzzing with the news of a proposed, $90-billion high speed rail system.

In a matter of days, Facebook groups have been formed, community meetings held, petitions organized, and small municipalities (Rideau Lakes, Hawkesbury, Tyendinaga, more) have already seen councils voting against the project.

Several issues dominate the discussion: the outrageous cost of the proposal (estimate is $90B for the first stages, but a McGill U study says it’s more likely hundreds of billions, Chris Selley reports in the Financial Post, branding the proposal a “fantasy”), murky details about the project (engagement events are storyboard presentations, just like wind power developers use), there is no clear assurance of who would actually use the system at elevated fares, and last—the environment.

One of the proposed routes involves the South Frontenac and Rideau Lakes areas, geography familiar to many Ottawa residents, and would result in significant impacts to the Frontenac Arch and the UNESCO World Heritage Site the Rideau Canal.

Properties would be expropriated, farms divided, wildlife affected, noise introduced to quiet environments along with multiple other impacts.

Active participation at recent ALTO community “engagement” event—same playbook as the wind power developers, where do citizen comments go?

Communities aware of the negatives

At the time of writing, information events are being held, petitions signed, even inventive “PIN pointing” opportunities so property owners can put their locations on the proposed route maps, and citizens are turning out to speak up—one event in Small-township Sunbury attracted 700-800 people over the course of the day, according to the spokesperson for Save South Frontenac.

To us, with yet another phase of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Long-Term 2 Request For Proposals looming in the months ahead, the High Speed Rail opposition may be a sign to any wind power developers out there cajoling landowners into signing up for 20-,40-, even 50-year leases: rural communities are sick of proposals for industrialization of natural environments and quiet communities, together with more lost farmland.

Out of possibly 20 proposals made last year for new wind power projects in Ontario, only ONE has proceeded to the submission stage. One hundred and fifty-nine Ontario municipalities are officially Unwilling Hosts to new windpower proposals.

Wind power is seen now as expensive, invasive, environmentally harmful, and erratic. It is not a cost-effective reliable source of electricity. Even the Ontario energy minister Stephen Lecce remarked in January (during a wind no-show in very cold weather) that, “You can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power.”

Recently, a community in Wales insisted on a cost-benefit analysis for a proposed wind power project. The result was that for five positive impacts (one of which was  the vague “we need clean energy”), there were sixteen negative impacts. Council voted NO.

Ottawa’s urban-dominated City Council ignored the environmental concerns of West Carleton residents over a recent Battery Storage project, and approved it anyway. Battery storage is a new development, but the impacts of massive, noisy, industrial wind turbines will be easier to understand, and environmental damage clear for all to see.

The renewables lobby works through so-called “environmental” groups. Last fall, Ottawa “environmental” network CAFES leader told the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) that existing approvals, i.e., environmental and impact assessments were too onerous and expensive for power developers. As reported in local news media West Carleton Online, Angela Keller-Herzog advised getting rid of pesky approval requirements altogether and instead using “good neighbour” agreements for nearby residents. That is an inappropriate site-specific approach that purposely ignores the fact that industrial wind power projects affect the entire city. The noise and low frequency emissions alone, for example, can be detected as far as 5, even 10 kms away.

In short, the fairy tale is over. Rural communities are ready and willing to take on corporations to protect the environment, wildlife and the economy from unjustified industrialization.

Land use conflict prompts citizen legal action over West Carleton battery storage site

02 Monday Feb 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Concerns about installing large industrial power projects into quiet communities on productive farmland are likely to continue should large wind power projects be proposed in Ottawa’s rural areas

Going to court an ‘extraordinary step’ says community group, but a review of process needed [Photo Katrin Bolovtsova Pexels Canada]

February 2, 2026 

Should a corporate power developer be able to install a large power storage project on farmland in a quiet rural community, near homes, farms and fragile wetlands? 

A citizens’ group in rural west Ottawa says no. And is willing to go to court over the issue. The West Carleton Community Alliance or WCCA, has retained a law firm and filed for a judicial review of the decision by the City of Ottawa to approve a zoning amendment to allow a Battery Energy Storage System or BESS on farmland.

The project has been proposed by Brookfield subsidiary, Evolugen, and already has a contract with the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO to store power from the grid and return if needed.  At 250-megawatts in capacity, it will be a significant storage facility, located near the village of Dunrobin.

Support from Ottawa City Council was granted, despite a recommendation by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs or ARAC not to (two other BESS did get ARAC support), and more recently, Council approved the request for a zoning amendment to allow the project to be built on agricultural land. 

Industrial land use 

The community group, an incorporated not-for-profit, is acting on citizen concerns about the siting for the large battery project, which is essentially an industrial land use. The group acknowledges that while the likelihood of fire or a “thermal runaway” event is small, it is not non-existent, and the rural location away from emergency services such as fire makes the site inappropriate. They also point to the loss of productive farmland. Although not in the highest classes of land, the property has been used for crops, and recently for grazing cattle.

Local online newspaper West Carleton Online has published letters of concern (and support) about the project, including these comments from resident Brian Parisien: 

“I, for one, am not reassured by platitudes about adhering to all currently relevant standards and regulations for this relatively new type of facility. While, as a retired electrical engineer, I am the last person to oppose the use of new technology to improve our future, I’d like to see a better informed and more honest dialog about the issues, and more diligence toward safety and monitoring as we go forward.” 

The judicial review is an extraordinary step, WCAA says. 

“The community exhausted all ordinary channels to raise concerns and was left without a meaningful venue to be heard,” said Board Chair and West Carleton resident Leigh Fenton. “We’re asking the court to assess the legality of the decision [to amend the zoning to allow the project]  — we welcome that oversight.” 

“The siting of new industrial uses, such as a 22-acre lithium battery facility on farmland, in groundwater-dependent communities raises important questions that must be addressed through transparent municipal planning.” 

The legal action names the City of Ottawa, Stantec Consultants, Brookfield Renewable Power and Evolugen as respondents. 

“When planning decisions affect groundwater, wetlands, farmland and the fabric of rural communities, residents have a legitimate expectation of meaningful participation,” Fenton adds. “These natural features cannot ever be re-created once altered.” 

The approval process for the BESS was fraught with controversy, as chronicled in local online paper West Carleton Online . 

Local city councillor Clarke Kelly was opposed to the zoning amendment and made a statement after the Council vote. 

“I firmly believe this is not the right location for a project of this scale, that the public consultation was entirely inadequate, and that the political and procurement process that forced this through was unfair to the residents of Ward 5, particularly to those who will have to live in close proximity to this project.” 

At the heart of the issue is the process used by the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario or IESO by which proposals for energy projects are made. The process has been criticized by several municipalities across Ontario as rushed and incomplete, forcing municipalities to make decisions to approve power projects on the barest details. 

The power developers in turn claim it’s not worth their while to pay money to prepare detailed reports for municipalities if they don’t know whether they are going to get a contract. 

This leaves municipalities — and citizens — without power, the exact opposite of the intent of the repeal of the Green Energy Act. 

IESO process shortchanges municipalities: councillor 

As to the West Carleton BESS, there are those who think it shouldn’t have gotten as far as a zoning amendment request — it should not have received municipal support at the proposal stage. The process to get municipal support is rushed, and based on IESO contract proposal submission deadlines, not the need to provide information to municipalities. 

Critical documents and reports were not complete and therefore not available for Council to review, a point noted by Ward 5 Councill Clarke Kelly, who has made no secret of his concerns about the IESO procurement process. 

Councillor Kelly summed up the criticism in his report following the recent ROMA convention: 

“It won’t come as a surprise that I raised the issues around the IESO and the procurement process for energy projects like BESS. I remain absolutely convinced that the provincial government and the IESO continue to ignore their responsibility to: 

  • be active in the conversation with communities where these projects are being proposed.  
  • be there to provide information and answers to questions that people can actually rely on.  
  • ensure the discussion with communities happens much earlier. Until this happens, the conversations will continue to be contentious.” 

The Township of Rideau Lakes recently decided it would create its own guidelines for any power developers pitching new projects, including BESS. The new process will require a greater level of community engagement, and detailed reporting on environmental and economic impact. 

Discontent in Ontario over power project approvals process 

With the IESO launching more Requests For Proposals or RFPs this year, there will be scrutiny of these  controversial and unsatisfactory processes, particularly if the Ottawa area should see proposals for industrial wind power projects. 

Of the 20 or so proposals for new wind turbine projects put forward in Ontario last year, only two proceeded to submission. Others were rejected, and a total of 159 municipalities have passed resolutions declaring themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new wind power projects. Of these, many already have wind turbines operating. 

As stated in an editorial from the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the decision to be an Unwilling host came “not from fear but from experience.” 

Citizens are concerned not only about noise pollution and the danger to local aquifers, but also the loss of productive farmland, particularly at a time when the focus is on self-sufficiency and local produce. 

The WCCA legal action will hopefully shed light on the municipal approval process, and offer hope of improvement for affected citizens. 

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com 

A story on the WCCA legal action was published by West Carleton Online 

Energy Minister Stephen Lecce speaks out on renewable power sources wind and solar; emphasizes cost, reliability

29 Thursday Jan 2026

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

“You can’t power a full-time economy on part-time power,” says Stephen Lecce in searing response to anti-nuclear, so-called “environmental” groups. “Reliability and system costs matter.”

IESO DATA FROM JANUARY 24, 2026: WIND NOT THERE WHEN NEEDED

January 25, 2026

With this weekend marking the coldest winter weather in years, and wind power not showing up in its characteristic avoidance of high-demand periods (summer and winter), it was a tough time for the pro-wind power crowd.

All the usual, “clean” “green” and especially “cheap” arguments for intermittent, unreliable, low-density power seemed not to matter as Ontario power demand went over 20,000 megawatts but wind power could contribute only 3 percent yesterday.

On Wind Concerns Ontario’s Facebook page, things were obviously so bad that some commenters accused WCO of making up the numbers—ahem, the stats came from the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO. So if things looked bad, they really were that bad. No emphasis needed.

But still, the pro-wind, anti-nuclear faction continued, and Friday and Yesterday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce had had enough with the winter fairy tales. Posting on both X and Facebook, he laid bare the nonsense that wind power is the lowest cost option. Today, he hit on the reliability of wind power (it doesn’t have any), and aimed in particular at the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) which is rabidly anti-nuclear.

Last week, the OCAA pitched its no nuclear, no natural gas power to Port Hope municipal council, and urged council to reject the Ontario government plans for new nuclear at Wesleyville. (OCAA leader Jack Gibbons also once again pitched his idea of covering the Great Lakes with wind turbines.)

That was too much for Stephen Lecce.

On Friday he posted this:

“Every critic claims renewables are “cheaper.” The facts say otherwise:

* Renewables last ~20 years; nuclear delivers ~80 years of clean power (including refurbishment)

* Renewables are intermittent (~30% capacity); nuclear provides 24/7 baseload reliability

* ~60% of solar and ~80% of wind tech is made in China; ~90–95% of nuclear supply is Canadian

Take Pickering B: 2,200 MW of always-on, clean power.

The IESO – Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator found that to match its reliability and output, Ontario would need 10× more wind, solar, and batteries — plus ~2,400 km² of land, nearly 4× the size of Toronto.

For SMRs, the story is the same.

To match 1,200 MW from SMRs, IESO estimates Ontario would need 4–8× more renewables — and up to 1,300 km² of land, 260× more than the SMR footprint at Darlington.

As Bruce Power advances ‘Bruce C’, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce report confirmed it will ADD $238 billion to the national economy and create 10K permanent jobs.

How many jobs will be created with the always romanticized alternative resource? Jobs in China, perhaps, but few here at home.

And the economics? The Ontario Energy Board consistently finds nuclear among the lowest-cost options per MWh.

We have to face the reality that Ontario needs at least 65% more power to grow our economy. The question is, what is the most reliable and affordable long-term resource to keep our economy strong?

Those who stand against this Canadian industrial success story are blinded by ideology. This can be one of Canada’s most consequential investments in our economic and industrial sovereignty, leveraging a mature nuclear supply chain that employs 80K Ontarians.

Under FordNation, Ontario is doubling down on made-in-Canada nuclear to keep the lights on — and bills down. We won’t repeat others’ mistakes.”

And today:

“You can’t power a full-time economy on part-time power.

On one of the coldest days of the year, Ontario families stayed warm because our system worked exactly as designed.

Nuclear operated 24/7, hydro delivered steady baseload, and natural gas stepped in to meet peak demand — the reliability backbone of a northern, industrial economy.

At the same time, wind delivered less than 3% of its installed capacity. That’s not ideology — that’s system data.

Ontario is technology agnostic. But reliability and system costs still matter. The Opposition and groups like the so-called “Clean Air Alliance” keep pushing the false claim that intermittent renewables alone can power a modern economy. They can’t.

Replacing firm nuclear and gas capacity with wind alone would require hundreds of thousands of MW of installed capacity, tens of thousands of turbines, massive transmission expansion, and system costs measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars — while still requiring backup for winter days like yesterday.

This approach would drive up hydro bills, decrease system reliability, forcing us to become more dependent on imports, and ultimately destroy Canada’s great industrial nuclear success story and the 80,000 jobs that come with it.

This type of dogma, embraced by the Wynne and Trudeau governments, was firmly rejected by the people who pay the bills.

There is a reason industrial economies and democracies are turning back to 24/7 nuclear power: Germany, Italy, Belgium, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the list goes on and on.

Energy policy must be rooted in reliability, affordability, and economic sovereignty — not ideological delusion.”

Mr Lecce referred to the work of economist Edgardo Sepulveda in that post, who earlier today posted an analysis of yesterday’s dismal numbers for wind power on his own Facebook page.

All we can say is “Wow.” And, “finally.”

Vindication for Ontario rural communities that in 2025 stood up against new wind power proposals and said, Why? Wind isn’t worth the sacrifice we would have to make. Which is why, perhaps, only two out of 20 proposals made ton the IESO LT2-RFP in 2025 are going forward to consideration, and why 159 Ontario municipalities are Unwilling Hosts to new wind power projects.

Bravo to the Minister!

Note that Ottawa’s $57B Energy Evolution plan, which is still city policy to this day, calls for 3,200 megawatts of intermittent, expensive, unreliable, land-gobbling wind turbines.

You may contact Minister Lecce at MinisterEnergy@ontario.ca

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

#ottcity #EnergyEvolution

Open letter to CAFES Ottawa

03 Monday Mar 2025

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We ask the question, How can an “environmental” organization claiming to protect the environment and support “sustainability” be promoting invasive industrial wind power?

March 3, 2025  

CAFES Ottawa  

Re: March newsletter and comments on renewable energy  

We have just seen your most recent Bulletin to your followers and have several serious concerns about the content as regards “renewable energy” in Ottawa.  

You say that City Council paused the siting of renewable energy projects, “effectively banning renewable energy projects.”  

This is not accurate. The intent of that motion passed in 2023 was to protect the people of Ottawa in the event that proposals for industrial-scale wind power and solar power projects were made, in the absence of up-to-date, appropriate zoning protection.  

This is the exact wording:   

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all future requests for MSRs continue to rise through the appropriate Committee of Council to allow for public engagement and consultation, including for LT2 RFP and all future IESO procurements, until such time as new direction is provided by Council  

The motion was not a permanent “ban” as you so dramatically put it, but rather, a step taken to ensure that the City has appropriate regulations in place to protect citizens.  

Instead of supporting a rigorous, detailed process to ensure appropriate siting, you say that CAFES wants to “minimize delay” and allow for approvals of industrial-scale or grid-scale power generation projects. This is very curious and would seem to conflict with your organizations’ other goals, namely protection of the environment and “sustainability.” 

How is it that during the presentations to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on the Ferry Road property, CAFES spoke about saving the “frogs and turtles” but is also advocating for pushing through approvals of gigantic wind turbines which we know introduce harmful noise pollution to the environment, and pose a grave risk to wildlife including birds and bats?  

You also say that communities across North America already have wind power sites that are “regulated and safe technologies.” This is far from the truth. Ontario now has 157 municipalities who have gone so far as to pass motions at Council designating themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new wind power sites. In the main, these are communities that already have wind turbines, or are adjacent to jurisdictions that do, and they are acutely aware of the problems.   

And in the United States, there is a running total of communities that have rejected new wind power sites outright, mainly due to environmental impacts. At present, the tally is 427 municipalities in the U.S. 

Ontario’s environment ministry has more than 7,000 files of wind turbine noise complaints, including hundreds for the nearby Nation Rise wind power site, which had more than 140 complaints even before the project started commercial operation.  

The problems with wind turbines are not limited to noise pollution. The municipality of Chatham-Kent has officially requested the Ontario government to take action on contaminated well water which an independent science panel found to be connected to the construction and operation of industrial-scale wind turbines in North Kent.  

The American Bird Conservancy has stated that wind turbines are a serious threat to North American bird populations and advises officials to take great care in siting new power generation projects. Ottawa is on a major migratory bird pathway, and several species of bats (Important to the ecosystem and agriculture) are already endangered.  

A recent cost-benefit analysis done by an economist showed that for Ontario at least, with its low wind resource, if you want effective action against climate change, and to provide a reliable source of power generation, wind power is not the answer. Add to that, wind power is an incredibly low power density source, meaning it uses up a great deal of land for little return.  

I ask again, How can CAFES be supporting a rush to approvals for this industrial land use which offers little real benefit except profits for a few power developers and investors, with your other goals of environmental protection and sustainability?  

Security of our food supply is becoming a more important issue every day in Canada. Wind power is a low-density form of power generation which uses up a lot of land — how can you justify that along with your goal of promoting “sustainability”?  

I invite you to reassess this situation and realize we have interests in common. Why not support making Ottawa a leader in environmental protection by choosing more effective, efficient forms of clean power generation, and ensuring people, wildlife and the environment overall have the best protection?  

Jane Wilson 

Chair, Ottawa Wind Concerns 

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com