Category Archives: Ottawa

Ashton farmer sells everything; electricity bills too high

11 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Ashton farm sold when local profits couldn’t keep up with hydro bills

By Brandy Harrison, farmersforum.com

May, 2014

ASHTON — It’s a done deal: the store is empty, the equipment auctioned off, and the farm signed away. Ashton beef farmer Rick Hobbs has quit full-time farming and is putting at least some of the blame on soaring electricity costs.

“Our hydro was more than what we were bringing in. It came down to a choice: do we pay the hydro or do we pay the mortgage?” says Hobbs, who ditched commercial beef sales for an on-farm store stocked with beef, a bakery, and restaurant south of Ottawa in 2010.

Local beef sales shot up quickly but began to tail off about a year ago when he said he lost customers to cheaper grocery store prices. At the same time, he worried his wife, Chris, the primary cook and baker for the restaurant, was burning out.

He closed the store for good at the end of March and sold the farm late last month to a buyer from Richmond, who will wait until September to move in his heavy horses and construction equipment. The store, house, barn, outbuildings, four Cover-Alls, and 92 acres were originally on the market for $950,000 but Hobbs dropped the price to $799,000.

Soaring hydro rates just cemented the decision to sell, says Hobbs.

The power was cut off for the better part of a day at -33 C in late January when he was a day late paying the bill because of a snowstorm. The next monthly bill shot up by an extra $1,400. Hobbs says he didn’t get a satisfactory answer as to why.

Since word got out that electricity costs played a part in the sale, Hobbs says he has fielded 15 to 20 calls from people, including some farmers, in similar situations.

 

Read the full story here.

See related story, on opening of the Hobbs’ on-farm store, in 2011.

Letter: ask questions about Gunn’s Hill (and Prowind)

06 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a letter to the Editor from the current edition of the Norwich Gazette. This community is the location of Prowind’s ONLY active wind power development.

Letters to the Editor

Norwich Gazette

May 5, 2014

The public should be asking questions about the Gunn’s Hill wind project, and asking about the organization called The Oxford Community Energy Co-operative.

If the “community” in the project area wanted a co-operative why wouldn’t they create their own? Why are Prowind Canada, Ontario Sustainability Services (OSS), “Friends of Wind” (presumably funded by Canadian Wind Energy Association) and IPC Energy trying to push it into the community? Doesn’t this appear more like a mechanism for the developer to apply for the “co-operative” adder from the Ontario Power Authority (to make more money for the developer) rather than a true community initiative?

What is IPC Energy’s interest in this project? Will the project be changing ownership? Why would the Oxford Community Energy Co-operative’s (OCEC) corporate office address have been registered as the IPC Energy address in Mississauga, with IPC’s president being a director of the OCEC?

While Prowind stated in its Renewable Energy application documents its plans to be a “long-term presence and neighbour”, it already tried unsuccessfully to sell the Gunn’s Hill project to Boralex in 2013. Given that Prowind Canada has still not begun operating any projects in Canada, and their staff has been dwindling in number each year, why would there be any assurance that Prowind will be involved long-term? At what point will the project ownership change?

Ask about the provider, Prowind.

Why does Prowind claim employment opportunities will be offered to Six Nations workers in one section of their REA documents, while stating preference will be given to local community residents in another?

Why did Prowind claim the Talbot Wind Farm near Ridgetown was a “well planned project” without researching the impact on residents? Why have they not admitted that residents have had significant adverse impacts in this “well planned project”, including having to vacate their homes or sleep in their basements?

Take a look at a website we’ve been observing – http://www.windontario.ca. You already know the Norwich Township council has declared themselves to be an “unwilling host”.

Do you truly believe the Gunn’s Hill project will benefit the environment? Ontario’s coal-fired generating stations have already been shut down and we are exporting surplus electricity at a loss to other jurisdictions on a regular basis, with manufacturing industries closing down in Ontario.

The public should be asking the hard questions.

Gerald and Carol Engberts. RR4 Woodstock

Prowind's Head Office in Hamilton until 2013
Prowind’s Head Office in Hamilton until 2013

 

Editor note: Prowind is the Germany-based company that has proposed a wind power development for North Gower-Richmond until the Feed In Tariff subsidy process was put on hold in 2013; a new procurement process is slated to begin in the summer of 2014.

No ‘safe hands’ here: 5 ways the Ontario Liberals are messing up the economy

28 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Five ways the Ontario Liberals are messing with the province’s economy

Scott Stinson, National Post, April 28, 2014

Kathleen Wynne has spoken repeatedly in the past month about how her Liberals are the only party to be trusted with the fortunes of a province that is still unsteady on its economic feet.

Ontario, the Premier has said, needs her “safe hands” to guide it through its recovery, not those “reckless schemes” of the two parties in opposition.

Other Liberals have picked up the thread. In blasting the NDP for its demand of increased corporate tax rates, Transportation Minister Glen Murray last week said the province, “is emerging from the global recession. However, our recovery remains fragile.”

Add a couple of seafaring metaphors about troubled seas, and the comments were perfectly in line with what the federal Conservatives were touting in the 2011 election: now isn’t the time to mess about with our delicate economic recovery.

Except there is a key difference: the Ontario Liberals are furiously messing with the economy.

On Thursday, after the federal Tories announced plans to tinker with public pensions, Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa all but rolled his eyes at the proposal and insisted that the province will forge ahead with an Ontario-only enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan. It is fair to say a debate remains over whether a CPP top up is needed, and if so whether a mandatory plan as envisioned for Ontario is the solution. But there is little such debate in the business community.

“It’s going to have a devastating impact,” Nicole Troster, senior policy analyst with the Canadian Federation of Business, said in an interview. Among the key concerns for the CFIB, Ms. Troster said, is that mandatory pension contributions are essentially a profit-insensitive tax. Even struggling businesses would be hit with a new, additional cost. Other business groups have lined up to express concern over the Liberal proposal: the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Certified General Accountants of Ontario, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, among others.

Read the full story here and see the Liberal Party’s new ad.

Excerpt Re: hydro rates:

Hydro rates

The Liberals announced this week that they plan to remove the Debt Retirement Charge from the bills of residential electricity users in 2016. It will remain on those of businesses for another two years after that. Further, while the government is expanding plans to allow companies to switch to time-of-use billing, many of them couldn’t take advantage of the option, even if they were large enough to qualify.

“A lot of our members,” Ms. Troster of the CFIB says, “don’t have a way to switch their energy usage.” Businesses are often neither open nor staffed during non-peak hours, when energy is cheapest. And with hydro rates in Ontario having doubled since 2008, and scheduled to rise further, electricity is “the most important cost concern for our members over the last two years,” she says.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Parker Gallant: the Liberal shell game on hydro bills

28 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Liberals’ promise of ‘significant relief’ on power bills: a closer look

The April 2014 Liberal event calendar has had a minimum of an event a day, including the Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s delivering a message on how the government plans to help small and medium Ontario business deal with electricity bills. The event was held at Giant Tiger’s HO in Ottawa.

Energy

Bob Chiarelli and friends: did they look at the numbers, really?

These daily announcements are leading up to the budget presentation on May 1st which is widely expected to trigger an election.

Not once in the 27-minute podcast did the Minister mention “Timmies” coffee in the context of either what it would cost ratepayers or how much it would reduce hydro bills for those small and medium sized companies. But what he did was to spin the bad news electricity story: first they rob Peter and Paul to pay wind and solar developers, and when Paul becomes vocal you rob more from Peter to pay Paul. As soon as Peter laments, you tell him you have a plan to give him a break and you simply stick Paul with higher rates. Then, while you are telling Peter he will soon get a break, you rob the company that employs him so they can no longer afford to hire Paul. Shortly after that the company laments that they may have to lay Peter off so you rob even more from Peter and Paul, so that they will be able to keep Peter on staff and may even be able to afford to hire Paul.

Should you decide to watch Chiarelli’s podcast you’ll see he doesn’t make it quite that simple. Instead, he talks about “pillars,” points and electricity acronyms like “IEI” (Industrial Electricity Incentive) or “ICI” (Industrial Conservation Initiative) programs. Like the other promises of prosperity coming daily from the government, the benefits are all in the future. Only one of his suggestions came with a specified time (2015). That was one that will instruct your local distribution company (LDC) to become a lending institution! They will be told to provide financing for “up-front capital costs” associated with “conservation programs.” Needless to say this and the other programs will be financed by other ratepayers via the Global Adjustment (GA).

The day before, the announcement was about ending the Debt Retirement Charge (DRC) at the end of 2015, and was clearly aimed at residential ratepayers (people who vote). Premier Wynne said it would bring “significant rate relief.” The DRC will continue to be collected until 2018 from those to whom Minister Chiarelli promised relief too, from his perch at Giant Tiger. By the end of December 2015 we will have paid $15.5 billion to retire the original $7.8 billion of “Residual Stranded Debt” but they want more, so they will take about $1 billion from most commercial and industrial clients before they will finally declare it paid—evidence of the Liberal trick of robbing Peter to pay Paul!

“Significant relief”?

Let’s look at Wynne’s “significant rate relief” claim. Just one year ago the Ontario Energy Board announced a rate increase that cost the “average” ratepayer $3.63 a month or $44 annually, and followed that with another increase in November raising rates by $4.00 a month or $48 annually. The more recent increase of April 14, 2014 saw another increase of $2.83 a month or $34 annually, and those announcements didn’t include rate increases for the “delivery” or “regulatory” lines on our bills, which also increased. So, in just one year the electricity rates jumped $126 annually and Wynne’s announced rate relief won’t happen until the end of 2015. That’s the year the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) ends. The OECB reduces the average bill by $13.30 per month or $160 annually. The “average” bill (electricity only) at the start of 2016 will be $286 higher on an annual basis than it was as of April 30, 2013. Adding the HST brings the increase to $323.
We should also expect additional increases from the OEB’s scheduled rate setting on December 1, 2014, May 1, 2015 and December 1, 2015; those add a minimum of $100/120 to our electricity line.

In other words, the average bill will have jumped by approximately $425/$450 by which time Wynne’s “significant rate relief” will become insignificant. Just as the annual DRC charge of $67 falls away, another scheduled charge from the Wednesday announcement (aimed at reducing energy poverty) of $11 will be added, so we may see a measly $56 decrease at that time.

25% increase in two years
The “average” ratepayer will have experienced an increase of over 25% in electricity prices in slightly more than 2 years by the time the December 31, 2015 date arrives. At that time our electricity costs will be charged out at over 21 cents per kilowatt (kWh). That only gets worse as more contracted wind and solar enter the grid. The price will rise further should OPG prove successful in their “significant” rate increase request now before the OEB. Add in increases expected in the “delivery” and “regulatory” lines, tack on HST and all-in costs will be in the neighbourhood of 30 cents a kWh! That average $133 monthly bill will suddenly be $240 and Ontario residents will be challenging Germany and Denmark for the privilege of having the most expensive rates in the industrialized world.

It seems the Liberal Ontario government has apparently abandoned the “Chiarelli” math (units are based on the price of a Tim Horton’s coffee) and have now moved on to a shell game. They tell us their management of the energy portfolio is constantly saving us money—you just have to look for the pea under the right shill, oops, I meant shell!

©Parker Gallant,
April 26, 2014

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Hydro bill protest attracts hundreds to Chiarelli’s office

05 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Megan Dalaire, Ottawa Citizen April 4, 2014

Ottawa — Hundreds of people affected by Ontario’s rising energy prices gathered Friday in a protest against the province’s Long-Term Energy Plan outside of MPP Bob Chiarelli’s office on Carling Avenue.

The energy plan was announced by Chiarelli on Dec. 2 and is expected to save the province $16 billion on energy between 2013 and 2017, at a high cost to residential hydro customers, whose bills will rise by 42 per cent over next five years, 50 per cent over next 10 years, and 68 per cent over next 20 years. The cost of heating is an especially touchy subject to Ottawans, who have just experienced the city’s coldest winter in two decades, but the protesters Friday had their fellow Ontarians in mind as they rallied for the second time since December.

”Across the province people are hurting because of high gas prices,” said protest organizer Beth Trudeau. ”What we want to do is to give a voice to the people who don’t have a voice. The people who have to choose between heating and eating.”

Friday’s protest was part of a provincewide movement called Join the Fight Against Hydro Rates, which Trudeau said was originally started by two Dryden, Ont., women and now has thousands of supporters.

Complaints by protesters covered a range of issues, from hydro usage cost increases, high distribution rates, HST and surcharges, to the dubious reputation of smart meters installed by Hydro One to replace analog meters. Passing motorists honked their horns and…

Read the full story here.

Blog editor note: thanks to those of our members who attended the protest, and handed out the McGuinty FITy dollar bills, which details the reasons behind Ontario’s electricity bill increases. (They’re not what the government is telling you.)

European countries revising wind power contracts

20 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Europe tearing up renewable energy contracts (you can too, Bob)

Europe’s renewable energy investors are facing a harsh reality – that the promises from politicians can be taken away at any moment. Canada’s renewable energy investors may soon face that same reality.
Idyllic isn’t it? Also not the truth.

Governments rip up renewable contracts

Brady Yauch, Special to Financial Post | March 18, 2014 | Last Updated: Mar 19 7:13 AM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

Companies ‘do not have a right [to expect the compensation] not to be changed’
Governments across Europe, regretting the over-generous deals doled out to the renewable energy sector, have begun reneging on them. To slow ruinous power bills hikes, governments are unilaterally rewriting contracts and clawing back unseemly profits.
In Italy, one of Europe’s largest economies and one that lavished billions in subsidies on the renewable sector, the government in 2013 applied its so-called “Robin Hood tax” to renewable energy producers. Under the new rule, renewable energy producers with more than €3 million in revenue and income greater than €300,000 must now pay a tax of 10.5%.
That follows a 2012 move to charge all solar producers a five cent tax per kilowatt hour on all self-consumed energy. The government also told solar producers that it would stop taking their power – and would offer no compensation – when their output overwhelms the system.
The result of these and other changes, says the solar industry, has been a surge in bankruptcies and a massive decrease in solar investment.
In Belgium – where both regional and federal bodies hand out renewable subsidies – a number of retroactive changes have capped the largesse renewable producers once received. In one region the price for “green certificates” – which producers received for renewable energy – was slashed by 79%. The government original committed to buy green certificates at a benchmarked price for 20 years, then cut it to 10 years.
Belgium’s regulators tried to impose a fee on all energy added to the grid from small- to medium-sized solar producers. While the country’s court of appeals struck down that fee, a defiant regional government plans to reintroduce it next year, forcing all solar producers to pay an annual fee that varies with the power they pump into the grid. Various municipalities, meanwhile, are introducing taxes on new and existing wind turbines.
As in Italy, Belgium’s renewable sector in the county has gone dark –“imploded” in the view of a solar industry publication. Many companies shrank or went bankrupt.
In France the government last year cut by 20% the “guaranteed” rate offered to all solar producers, and retroactively applied it to projects connected to the grid in the previous three months. The government is also considering ending an 11% tax break on solar energy producers.
Perhaps the most dramatic moves occurred in Spain, for years the poster child for those touting a transition to green energy. Since 2000, Spain has given renewable producers $41-billion more for their power than it has fetched on the open market. To recover those subsidies, the Spanish government recently killed its Feed In Tariff (FIT) program for renewables,….

Read the full story here.

Ottawa economist on the Fraser Institute report: Ontario in bad shape

18 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FRASER INSTITUTE REPORT

Comparing the Debt Burdens of Ontario and California

On March 8, 2014, the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute published a research study comparing the debt burdens of the state of California and the province of Ontario. Within the United States, many people consider California to represent a prime example of irresponsible government spending coupled with poor cash management. However, the Fraser Institute report uses a number of measures to compare Ontario’s situation to that of California. In almost all cases, Ontario is much worse.

Here are the highlights of the report:

  • California’s current debt in the form of government-issued bonds is US $144.8 billion, while Ontario carries CDN $267.5 billion, almost double the amount of California.
  • This figure actually understates the disparity between the two regions, as California has a much larger economy. The gross debt in the form of bonds is 7.6% of California’s economy, while it is a “whopping” 40.9% of Ontario’s economy, more than five times as large as California.
  • Per capita, each Ontarian’s share of provincial government debt is CDN $20,166 (i.e. $80,664 for a family of four), compared to US$ 3,844 in state government debt for each resident of California.
  • Servicing this debt through interest payments is more costly in Ontario. 9.2% of budget revenues in Ontario are devoted to interest payments, compared to 2.8% in California.
  • Ontario’s expenditures as a share of the economy grew from 15.5% in 2001-2002 to 19% in 2011-2012.
  • Over this period, total government spending in Ontario has been steadily increasing from one year to the next. Thus, unlike California, Ontario has not managed to stabilize the growth of the debt in terms of GDP.
  • Ontario’s net debt for 2012-2013 is the second highest as a percentage of GDP of any Canadian province, trailing only Quebec. However, Quebec’s annual budget deficit was only half as large – 0.7 % compared to Ontario’s 1.4 %.
  • Ontario’s budget analysts project that from 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 net interest payments will represent the fastest growing expense for the provincial government, growing at 5.5 % annually – more than twice the projected rate of health care expenditures.

Robert Lyman

Ottawa, March 18, 2014

Editor: It’s worth noting that Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli admits Ontario is spending $1B a year on power generated from wind energy; he also admits we don’t need it. Sound financial planning!

The Fraser Institute report is available here.

North Gower readers write: “no qualms about suing”

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Many area residents wrote to Farmers Forum after last month’s edition in which North Gower resident and wind power proponent Ed Schouten made remarks about wind “farms.”

Four were published; we reproduce them here.

Will sue for property loss

I intend to get my house appraised now and re-appraised if wind turbines are erected. I will have no qualms about suing both the property owner and Prowind for loss of property value at the very least. I hope others will be prepared to do the same.*

Julian Hughson, North Gower

*Blog editor note, Oh, they are, they are. Ottawa Wind Concerns has legal counsel on retainer and we have already notified Prowind of the intent to take any and all legal actions available.

Need more wind power studies

It sounds to me like a match made in heaven. Companies offer always cash-starved farms substantial funds to be allowed to build windmills on their farms. They sell the power to Ontario Hydro for enormous amounts of taxpayer money. The farmer is happy with his steady income, the windmill company is happy with its profits. But there are a lot of questions that still need answers about the effects of these monsters. In Europe and the United States, most of them are offshore or in isolated areas. Let’s get some reports from other countries of wind farms located near homes, schools and farms.

J.A. Fournier, North Gower

Blog editor: first of all, the wind power developer had a contract with the Ontario Power Authority or OPA to sell power under the Feed In Tariff subsidy program (which is now halted–a new program begins this year). Second, the farm owners, many unwittingly, gave away many rights to their land as part of the contracts including first right of refusal. An Ontario mayor noted at the August AMO conference that in effect, farmers sold their land for the lease amount. The contracts also contain “gag” clauses so that if the farm owners experience health problems or are disturbed by the noise and vibration, they are not allowed to speak of it. Last, there are problems the world over with wind turbine noise. Denmark alone has 170 community groups, and citizens are opposed in the UK, Germany, France, and the US. The global wind lobby has gone to great lengths to discredit these groups, and currently has a campaign which is based on the idea that the activities of community groups themselves are causing symptoms among turbine neighbours.

My retirement affected by wind turbines

As a resident of the proposed wind farm in North Gower, I will be adversely affected as we will be one of the homes closest to the turbines (the minimum distance is 550 meters). I will no longer be able to enjoy my back deck as the turbines will be far closer to my home than the home of the farm planning on erecting the turbines. Along with the health issues associated with turbines, so will our planned retirement of selling our property be adversely affected. The farmer from this area who said keeping the wind farm small will have no negative effects is, oh, so wrong.

Turbines in Europe a dismal failure

I would never have purchased this home if we had known there would be a turbine so close. Never, never, never. Being of European background, I have kept up-to-date on the fall of turbine desire there. They are a dismal failure. Germany, a country on the front line of energy efficiency, has decided not to erect (more) turbines but is instead returning to coal-fired generation.

What more need I say?

Gerry Courtney, North Gower

North Gower wind project is too big

Farmer Ed Schouten’s comment that the Brinston wind power project (it’s not a “farm”) could be a test case for others is interesting: with 6,700 megawatts of wind power already contracted for in Ontario, I think we have quite enough “test cases.”

What we do have is people sick from the environmental noise near wind power projects at Kincardine, Amaranth and Ridgetown, to name a few. It’s really quite simple: if the noise is so loud people can’t sleep, they become ill.

1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, that was accepted by Ottawa

I disagree with Mr Schouten’s claim that keeping a wind power project small avoids problems. The one proposed by the  Germany-based developer for his farm was a 20-megawatt power plant with eight turbines close to 1,000 families. That’s not “small” in my books. It’s also the reason why over 1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, which was accepted by Ottawa City Council.

With lawsuits over property values on the rise, and concerns about the health of livestock exposed to the turbine noise and vibration, Mr. Schouten must have a few concerns he hopes the Brinston project will allay.

The question that remains, however, is why is Ontario doing this? Why are we paying millions for wind power projects that have such a high impact on Ontario communities, for power we don’t need?

Ontario never did a cost-benefit analysis on wind power, the Auditor General complained in 2011. That was the real “test case” we needed.

Jane Wilson, North Gower

Brinston not a test case, community not lab rats

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

You may recall that in last month’s edition of Farmers Forum, North Gower-Richmond farm owner Ed Schouten (the proponent in the North Gower wind power project) said he looked forward to the start-up on the project at Brinston, as it would serve as a “test case” for people who had doubts about how great wind power is.

Lots of letters flew in to the Editor, and we will reproduce them all. First though, the letter from Brinston resident Leslie Disheau who wants to put Mr Schouten straight on a few issues.

Brinston divided on wind turbines

Letter, Farmers Forum March 2014

I am going to begin with setting the record straight on the use of the term “wind farm.” This term is a skewed way of making the industrialization of farming practices more palatable to the general public by international wind development companies.

Farming practices and the farming industry have quietly moved into industrial practices while still enjoying the government subsidy/benefit programs to help sustain their bottom line, and keep their competitive edge with fluctuating world markets.

These healthy government subsidy/benefit programs are not available to any other sector of industry in Ontario. If you are going to industrialize then you should have to play by the same industry standards and requirements which currently govern all industry in Ontario.

Farm lands are now being used to host electricity producing machines, not growing food to feed cities. So let us term these industrial electricity projects correctly and allow this industry to be taxed accordingly, and without lucrative FIT contracts for 20 years.

We, the people in Brinston, Dixon’s Corners and Hulbert, directly affected by the siting of 10 30-megawatt industrial wind turbines, have every right to be upset and speak out. The Green Energy Act has stripped us of our rights to say “no” and our right to protect the well-being of our families; allowed for the devaluation of our homes; permits wildlife to be killed, harmed and harrassed; and takes top qality farmland out of food production. The rural community of Brinston is very much living with and feeling divided by this South Branch wind project.

“I am not a test animal, and my community is not a ‘test case,’ Mr Schouten”

I personally take great offence to Mr. Schouten’s comment that the “Brinston turbines will be a good test case for the rest of the area.” I am not a test animal. I am a person and my community should not be referred to as a “test case,” like a lab study.

As for Mr. Winslow’s statement about “negative publicity” and “far too much emotion,” I speak up with passion because I value my family’s health and well-being, take pride in my home and property, and understand what stewardship of the land and animals really means. I get emotional when someone makes a decision, without my consent, which directly changes life for my family and the community.

I have spent three years reading and looking at the research for both sides of this issue, from around the world, and can say I sit on the negative side of the fence–I made an educated decision to do so.

Leslie Disheau

Brinston, Ontario

The writer has one 3-MW turbine 836 meters from the front of her family home, and another 900 meters from the rear.The South Branch project, initiated by Germany-based Prowind,and purchased by US-based EDP, began operations March 4.

BrinstonTurbine BaseAerial shot of base for one of the Brinston turbines, prior to construction last year. Brinston is 30 minutes south of Ottawa, Ontario

 

Amherst Island community groups files lawsuit

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently.<br /> IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently. IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

WIND TURBINES

Amherst Island group files lawsuit 22

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:20:44 EST PM

AMHERST ISLAND – The group opposed to a wind energy development on Amherst Island is going to court to challenge a recent government ruling that permitted the project to move ahead.
In an application filed Thursday with the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, the Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) asked for a judicial review of the Jan. 2 decision by the Ministry of the Environment to declare complete the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) submitted by Windlectric Inc., the company seeking to build the Amherst Island wind project.
Windlectric plans to build a 75-megawatt wind energy project on the 70-square-kilometre Amherst Island, involving up to 36 turbines.
The January ruling meant the project was entering the technical review stage, during which the different reports filed by the company in support of the development are reviewed.
An REA deemed complete also allowed the project to proceed into 65 days of public comment, a phase set to conclude March 8.
In its application, which named Windlectric, the director of environmental approvals and the provincial ministries of the environment, natural resources and tourism, culture and sport, APAI stated the REA did not contain key components.
“The decision to deem the project application complete surprised the Association as substantial evidence as to why the project should not proceed to the technical review stage of the process,” the association stated in a release Thursday.
The association stated the application for the review is “consistent” with the position of Loyalist Township.
In October, Loyalist Township council passed a motion that called for the rejection of “incomplete” project applications.
APAI said the technical details of the Windlectric REA were far from complete.
The items missing included…

Read the full story here.

Our note: errors are not uncommon in these applications. The application Prowind filed for the South Branch project south of Ottawa originally had the project in the wrong county! Communities are taking a hard look at these documents, and consulting with lawyers.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com