Category Archives: Renewable energy

Ontario electricity bills: pain, and more coming

06 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ontario ratepayer fatigue: covering the costs of bargain basement sale of surplus power from wind and solar

When will it end?

Another month goes by and another $168 million from Ontario ratepayer’s pockets went to subsidize surplus electricity exports to our neighbours in New York, Michigan and Quebec. The month of August saw another 1,759,000 megawatts (MWh) or 1.76 terawatts of excess electricity generation exported. That cost Ontario’s electricity ratepayers $209 million—the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) sold it for $41 million.

The 1.76 terawatts (TWh) sold at the big discount was enough to supply 183 thousand “average” Ontario households with power for a full year. That sale brings our exports to 15.09 TWh for the first 8 months of 2015, enough to supply almost 1.6 million “average” households with power for a full year!

The costs of those export losses fall to all ratepayers; for the eight months ended August 31st, that means a “green energy tax” of $1.4 billion, or about $300 per average household. Quick math will disclose that the average monthly cost is $177 million meaning the total cost for Ontario’s ratepayers in 2015 may reach $2.1 billion or roughly $460 per ratepayer. The 23 TWh we will probably export would have provided 2.4 million ratepayers with their average annual power needs.

What about wind power in all this? In August, wind produced 3.5% (459.3 gigawatts or GWh) of total generation (13.05 TWh) and just over 26% of our exports; solar produced about 29 GWh (not including “embedded generation”). Combined, they represented 27.7% of our exports which begs the question—what benefit do they provide and why do we keep adding more generation at subsidized rates, if we lose money because we must export our surplus generation?

That question is unfortunately not going to be answered any time soon, if we look at the recently released IESO 18 month outlook (Oct 2015 to March 2017).   The IESO report notes:

“About 1,900 MW of new supply – mostly wind and solar generation – will be added to the province’s transmission grid over the Outlook period. By the end of the period, the amount of grid-connected wind generation is expected to increase by 1,300 MW to about 4,500 MW. The total distribution-connected wind generation over the same period is expected to be about 700 MW. Meanwhile, grid-connected solar generation is expected to increase to 380 MW, complementing the embedded solar generation capacity of about 2,200 MW located within distribution networks by the end of the Outlook.”

According to the IESO report, Ontario will add 1,700 MW of generation from wind and solar generation over the next 15 months, which brings wind turbine capacity to 5,200 MW and solar to almost 2,600 MW. This is clearly not needed or dependable.

The IESO report also highlights what we have been told by various business associations that have expressed concern about the effects of rising electricity costs: “For the three months, wholesale customers’ consumption posted a 5.9% decrease over the same months a year prior with Pulp & Paper, Iron & Steel and Petroleum Products accounting for most of the reductions.”

That’s evidence that our primary processors are exiting Ontario, in large part because of high electricity prices, taking jobs with them.

The Ontario Wynne government is bent on ensuring Ontario leads the way to the highest prices of electricity in all of North America; they have only a couple of jurisdictions to overtake.

Time to turn the lights off!

©Parker Gallant

October 4, 2015

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario www.windconcernsontario.ca

Hundreds protest wind power projects in The County

28 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

A few of the 300 people in Milford Ontario yesterday: not the right place for a power project

A few of the 300 people in Milford Ontario yesterday: not the right place for a power project (Photo: MPP Todd Smith)

HGTV host of Income Property Scott McGillivray once described Prince Edward County as “it is to Toronto what the Hamptons are to New York.”

For now.

Despite the fact that Prince Edward County is classified as an Important Bird Area for migrating birds in North America, despite the fact that taxpayer dollars have gone to promote its tourism and wine industries, and despite the fact that The County is steeped in Canadian Loyalist history, the Ontario government has approved not one but two wind power projects for the area.

People don’t think that’s right.

And they said so yesterday, as more than 300 people gathered at the Mount Tabor Community Hall in Milford to protest.

The Ostrander Point project has already been under appeal for years, and recently heard shocking testimony that a species at risk expert working for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommended a permit NOT be granted for the project. The province gave the permit to kill wildlife, and approved the project. Hearings resume October 27th as the Ministry has been directed to produce more documentation on that process.

The community has also appealed the “White Pines” project by Germany-based wpd Canada, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for early November.

All this time, various community groups such as the Point2Point Foundation, the Hastings Prince Edward Land Trust, and the South Shore Conservancy have been working with the federal and provincial governments to have the entire south shore declared off-limits to development like wind power plants.

How does the Ontario government justify its wind power program which is supposed to “save” the environment, while it is despoiling fragile environments and killing wildlife?

These groups could use your help.

Ostrander Point: www.saveostranderpoint.org

White Pines: Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County https://appec.wordpress.com/

ToughonNature-smaller

Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario

Fixing a bad law: lawyers collaborate to fight Green Energy Act

24 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

Wellington Times, September 23, 2015

Legal minds collaborate to restore rights and safeguards diminished by the Green Energy Act

The Green Energy Act (GEA) is the target of a proposed judicial review to be launched this fall. CCSAGE Naturally Green, a not-for-profit public interest corporation led by its directors Anne Dumbrille, Alison Walker and Garth Manning, believe the GEA is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. They argue the GEA tramples rights and freedoms, punishes rural Ontarians, contravenes statutes and conventions the province is bound to uphold, and, at its core, is fundamentally unjust.

One example: Currently, wind developer wpd Canada is appealing a decision, made under the provisions of the GEA, permitting it to build 27 of 29 industrial wind turbines it proposes in South Marysburgh. In making this appeal, the developer is allowed to make a wide range of arguments and present evidence in its favour. It will certainly argue that the decision will impair its ability to make money from the project. It may argue that the heritage value of the nearby properties has been overstated. It is likely to argue many things. Because it can.

Meanwhile, opponents of the project are permitted only to object on the basis that the project will cause serious harm to humans or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.

The developer is granted unlimited scope to argue in favour of its profit, while residents are restricted to just two near-impossible tests. The province designed the GEA this way.

Alan Whiteley, a lawyer acting for CCSAGE, considers the GEA a fundamental assault on the rights, freedoms and statutes that have been constructed to protect citizens and the environment from this kind of overreach by government. It is something, he argues, we must all resist.

Specifically he is asking the courts to examine the process by which the province reviewed and ultimately granted the renewable energy approval (REA) to wpd Canada for its White Pines project in South Marysburgh.

“We believe there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the process,” said Whiteley. “The GEA has created a minority—residents of rural Ontario—and has taken away our right to object except for the narrowest of grounds.”

He argues that the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), as the sole appeal mechanism of an REA is a product of this bias.

He explains that under administrative law, the Ministry of Environment’s director plays a quasijudicial role—examining and weighing evidence and reaching a decision, for example, to grant a wind developer an approval, which could include a permit to “harm, harass and kill” an endangered species. But as citizens, we are precluded from knowing how that decision was reached— or whether it was fair.

To assist CCSAGE scale this legal mountain, the group has enlisted the assistance of York University professor Stepan Wood and five of his law students at Osgoode Hall Law School. Together, they are working to accumulate evidence and legal arguments to buttress the group’s claim that the GEA violates natural justice, prevailing statutes and individual rights in at least two dozen ways.

PREJUDICIAL AND UNFAIR
Whiteley returns to the inequity of the ERT appeal mechanism that enables the developer a wide scope of arguments, but restricts opponents to just two—human health and animals, plants and habitat destruction.

“Only the proponent may argue matters of heritage, economics or property rights,” explained Whiteley. “We are precluded by the act from showing how this project will impact heritage, the local tourism economy or property values. The ERT is part of the unfairness.”

He points to the divide created by the GEA in Ontario between rural and urban communities.

“In Toronto, you can rely on your official plan to protect you from industrial wind turbines from diminishing the value of your property,” said Whiteley. “In rural Ontario, local decisionmaking has been taken away. Our mayor has said clearly that this community is not a willing host to these projects. Yet the GEA permits it over the objections of the community.

“The GEA has created a minority in rural Ontario and taken away our right to object to development that fundamentally alters our landscape, economic prospects and heritage value—with no recourse,” said Whiteley. “This is prejudicial and unfair.”

He says the province is signatory to statutes and memorandums of understanding with other governments to protect endangered species and species at risk. Yet it grants wind and solar developers permits to ‘harm, harass and kill’ these animals and destroy habitat— without knowing how, or on what evidence, the province reached its conclusion.

This is a particularly acute question since a ministry expert on turtles testified earlier this month in an ERT hearing in Demorestville that he recommended against granting a developer the permit to ‘harm, harass and kill’ the Blanding’s turtle.

The group hopes to commence court proceedings shortly after Thanksgiving. They expect muscular response from the Ontario government and from the developer and the Canadian wind industry. If successful, they expect, the decision will be appealed—likely landing at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another measure of the significance of the challenge is the participation by the Osgoode Law School’s Wood and students Stephen Gray, Sabrina Molinari, Timon Sisic, Amanda Spitzig and Imelda Lo.

“Each of them comes to the project with a remarkable CV,” noted Garth Manning. “They have taken to this challenge like ducks to water. It is such an important issue, with a great many powerful adversaries. We are fortunate to have them working with us.”

Manning notes that a judicial review is being funded initially by the group internally. Much of the legal work will be done on a pro bono basis by Whiteley and the law school students, with research and evidence-gathering assisted by Anne Dumbrille and Allison Walker among others. He notes as well that this effort is not meant to conflict or compete with other appeals— but rather it is a parallel examination of the impact the GEA has had in upending justice, diminishing basic rights and contravening statutes the province is obligated to uphold.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT
The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) is hosting a major rally in Milford on Sunday, which they hope will be a large and impressive statement about the prospect of as many as 29 50-storey industrial wind turbines erected around that community.

From 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Milford Fairground, there will be music, food and inspiring words. Participants are encouraged to don their anti-wind turbine kit. At 12:30 p.m. participants will be asked to join hands to form a protective circle around Mount Tabor.

“We encourage everyone from across the County to join together to say that this is the wrong place for industrial wind turbines,” said Gord Gibbins, APPEC chair.

Impact analysis shows no benefit from solar panels on North Grenville building

17 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Facility Rental

Renting roof for solar panels? Not worth the risk, North Grenville decides

This story is about solar power, not wind, but is remarkable for two reasons: first, a municipality actually took a measured approach to a decision about “green” energy, and second, the results of the thorough impact analysis showed there was little or no benefit to the municipality from putting solar panels on a public building. In fact, there were substantial liabilities.

If the same approach were to be taken for wind power projects, including an analysis of such impacts as property value loss and social costs, we believe the result could be the same: wind power is high-impact for low benefit.

Two Auditors General have recommended that the province undertake a cost-benefit analysis for its whole green energy program—this has never been done. Kudos to North Grenville.

Kemptville Advance, September 17, 2016

MUNICIPALITY SAYS NO TO SOLAR PANELS

Jennifer Westendorp

Staff have recommended to council not to proceed with the proposal to install solar panels on the North Grenville Municipal Centre arena roof.

SunSmart Solar, a company located in Kemptville, made the presentation at the Aug. 24 committee of the whole meeting, requesting the municipality consider leasing the arena roof for 20 years for the installation of solar panels as part of the provincial Feed-In-Tariff Program (FIT).

… Mark Guy, director of parks, recreation and culture, conducted an analysis of the benfits and risk involved with the proposal which he presented September 8.

“There are many factors to consider when assessing the installation of solar panels onto the NGMC roof,” the document read, “as part of the FIT program, including the insurance and risk tolerance, safety of fire personnel, approval from the building owner, installation and maintenance, terms of the proposal under the FIT program and the procurement process.”

…the municipality’s risk manager, Frank Cowan Company, expressed concerns about liability exposures and more particularly the tenant’s legal liability and the general liability coverage…. Guy added the municipality’s insurance premium would increase as a result of the installation.

He [Guy] said the second things staff considered when looking over the proposal was the safety of fire personnel, such as the ability to shut down the electricity in the event of a fire in a building equipped with a solar panel system that generates electricity.

He said the third factor considered was approval from the building owner. Guy explained the NGMC is not owned solely by the municipality, but rather a separate and distinct corporation known as the North Grenville Community Care Corporation … a P3 Partnership…This separate corporation is owned by the municipality and the Taggart Group of Companies. Guy said the NGMC was not designed based on climatic data for the area and certain collateral loads, which didn’t include solar panels. [Editor’s note: Translation–the roof wasn’t designed to bear the additional load of solar panels.]

…SunSmart anticipates never having to go on the roof for maintenance. “The panels will not be cleaned off in the winter months,” said Guy. “The issue of falling snow would be a concern because the surface of the panels are less resistant, allowing snow to fall on the parking lot area, possibly damaging vehicles or injuring pedestrians.”

The final factor considered was the terms of the proposal under the FIT program. Guy said SunSmart proposed after 20 years, ownership of the panels would pass to the municipality at no cost, with a projection the panels would be at mid-life by then.

 

 

Overturn wind farm approvals, say Nature groups

12 Saturday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Wolfe Island: high kill rate for birds. Ontario is "tough on Nature" say four Naturalist groups

Wolfe Island: high kill rate for birds. Ontario is “tough on Nature” say four Naturalist groups

Nature Canada News

In an unprecedented partnership, Nature Canada has been joined by Ontario Nature, the Kingston Field Naturalists and the American Bird Conservancy in opposition to a recently approved industrial wind energy project that threatens birds and other wildlife on Amherst Island.

“Ontario’s decision to approve Windlectric’s 26-turbine project on Amherst Island—one of the province’s crown jewels of nature—is another in a string of ‘tough on nature’ decisions to build wind energy projects in Important Bird Areas in the region” said Stephen Hazell, Nature Canada’s Director of Conservation.

“Given Ontario’s failure to consider the cumulative effects of these projects on nature, the Environmental Review Tribunal should overturn the approval of the Amherst Island Project as well as that of White Pines. And given the clear breaches of the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, the federal government should in future apply its environmental assessment process to wind energy projects.”

Purple Martins, one of the species threatened by these projects. Photo Ted Cheskey

Amherst Island, Wolfe Island and the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Areas, all within a few kilometres of each other, are on a bird superhighway during spring and fall migration. They also provide prime breeding habitat for the rapidly declining Purple Martin and several species at risk including Eastern Whip-poor-will, Bobolink, and the long-lived Blanding’s Turtle. 86 turbines were constructed on Wolfe Island in 2009.

Three years of monitoring this project confirmed its reputation as one of the most deadly wind energy projects in North America for birds and bats.

The recent approval of the Amherst and White Pines projects are very bad news for birds, bats, and turtles, and represent the significant industrialization of these ecological treasures. The “new” industrial landscapes will no doubt shock tourists used to the bucolic vistas of the region.

We are all awaiting the final decision on the Ostrander Point project proposal by the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal. Valiantly defended by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, Ostrander Point is Crown land with habitat for rare species of animals and plants on the south shore of Prince Edward County. A proposal to build twelve 150 metre high wind turbines on it was approved, and then successfully appealed by the Naturalists, before passing through all levels of the Ontario judicial system.

Now it is back in the hands of the Environmental Review Tribunal for a final decision.

 

For more information visit http://www.saveostranderpoint.org/.

– See more at: http://naturecanada.ca/news/blog/nature-canada-and-its-partners-raise-their-voices-in-opposition-to-industrial-wind-energy-projects-in-fragile-ibas-in-the-eastern-end-of-lake-ontario/#sthash.RuDpOcug.dpuf

Ontario ignored recommendation not to build wind farm: government scientist

07 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Did the McGuinty government ignore real science in favour of political ideology?

Did the McGuinty government ignore real science in favour of political ideology?

Report from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists on stunning testimony at the Environmental Review Tribunal, September 4.

What began as a usual day in the extended Environmental Review Tribunal appeal of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change plan to allow development at Ostrander Point in the PEC South Shore Important Bird Area finished with an unexpected ruling.

The witness was Joe Crowley from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, who was qualified as a species at risk herpetologist with expertise in Blanding’s Turtles.  Mr. Crowley has a long history of interest in and working in the field of herpetology in Ontario and helped to develop the Ontario Herpetology Atlas, a citizen science project, while working with Ontario Nature before he started his tenure with MNRF.  At MNRF his responsibilities included being the species at risk expert on herpetology, giving advice to staff and partners and conservation groups on the development of species at risk protection plans.  He was instrumental in developing the provincial task team forestry policy regarding amphibians and reptiles. He is a member of the reptile and amphibian sub- committee of COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), reviewing reports for that committee of technical and scientific information which informs decisions regarding listing species at risk.  He is the Vice President of the Canadian Herpetology Society responsible for web site development and communication.

Mr. Crowley’s witness statement was concerned with the attempts to mitigate harm to the indigenous turtle population at Ostrander Point through the installation of gates on the turbine access roads and a program of monitoring, signage and staff training.  Mr. Crowley answered many questions about the effectiveness of the various mitigation measures proposed to protect the turtles.  Gates are proposed on about 6 road intersections on the site including the intersection of Helmer Rd and Petticoat Point Lane.  Mr. Crowley indicated that he felt that those gates would reduce the risk of turtle mortality to public vehicular traffic; however the presence of roads would increase the probability of turtles nesting in a place that would make them more vulnerable to predation and the roads were unlikely to deter poachers.

The unexpected part of the day came when Mr. Crowley was asked about his role in the granting of the Endangered Species Act permit granted allowing the proponent to “kill harm and harass” the Whip—poor-will and the Blanding’s Turtle at Ostrander point.  Mr. Crowley stated that his advice at the time was not to allow the permit because the project roads would prove a risk to the site’s indigenous Blanding’s Turtles.

This new information caused an abrupt halt in the proceedings.  The legal argument was made by PECFN counsel, Eric Gillespie that it appeared that a senior manager at MNRF had advised against approval of the Ostrander project at the very onset. Mr. Gillespie requested documentation of that advice. Mr. Crowley was unable to produce any documentation and asserted that the final decision on the project was not his. Ultimately after much legal discussion the Tribunal issued a ruling:

That the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry witnesses produce forthwith all papers and electronic correspondence to date relating to roads and/or Blanding’s Turtle and this renewable energy approved project and site.

The Tribunal resumes on September 23, 24 and 25.

– See more at: http://www.saveostranderpoint.org/september-4-2015-day-3-at-the-ert-hearing/#sthash.lokjWGkK.dpuf

Is Ontario’s push for giant wind farms killing the green energy movement?

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Print

Is Ontario’s rush to wind power killing the green energy movement?

TORONTO, CAN, September 2, 2015

Ontario’s stance as an environmental activist province in Canada and would-be leader in climate change action is taking a beating after the government approved two controversial wind power projects, and continues to fight environmental groups and citizens on a third.

Last week, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approved a 75-megawatt power project on tiny Amherst Island in Lake Ontario. The island is home to several species of wildlife declared endangered or at-risk by the same government, and is also a resting place for migrating birds. The birds attract eco-tourists from all over the world.

The threat of the wind power project to the heritage environment is so great that Heritage Canada’s National Trust named the island one of Canada’s Top Ten Endangered Places.

“There are some places where wind power projects shouldn’t go,” says Michele LeLay, spokesperson for the community group the Association to Protect Amherst Island. “This is one of them.”

Abundance of birds at risk

Also on Lake Ontario, is Prince Edward County where the province recently approved another large wind power generation project for the South Shore. The environmental danger is undeniable, says Cheryl Anderson, of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists: “Data gathered over 20 years confirms the South Shore is a major migratory pathway for an astonishing diversity and abundance of birds. This unique blend of ecosystems supports numerous varieties of rare plants, eight species of at-risk turtles, Monarch butterflies and many amphibian species.  Because of its unique biodiversity, the value of Prince Edward County’s South Shore is unparalleled as an ecotourism venue.”

The Ontario government heads back to the quasi-judicial Environmental Review Tribunal in September, to hear the appeal of a wind power project at Ostrander Point, also in Prince Edward County, halted by the Tribunal in 2013 due to the danger to a rare species of turtle. After several sessions in court, the decision has been returned to the Tribunal where community groups are in the unusual position of spending hundreds of thousands to protect the environment from the Ministry of the Environment.

Prince Edward County Mayor Robert Quaiff is outraged at the approvals and has been trying to see the Premier of Ontario, so far with no luck. In a letter to her he said “efforts to implement the Green Energy Act [legislation pushing wind power] are becoming counter-productive through resulting negative impacts to endangered species, as well as the prosperity and well-being of rural Ontario Communities.”

The concern about Ontario’s pro-wind agenda and resulting environmental damage is not limited to the southern parts of the province. Canada is known around the world for its iconic landscapes in the Algoma region around Lake Superior, now also the site for unbridled wind power development. Hills and valleys made famous by Canada’s Group of Seven artists are now scarred by clear-cutting of trees, flattening of ridges, and the construction of roads and turbine foundations.

George Browne of Lake Superior Action Research Conservation (LSARC) says the devastation to the wilderness is immense. Wilderness, he says, “is a rare and unique feature, understood by many to represent the grandeur of nature; vastness is an essential part of the aesthetic appeal of the landscape. It is worthy of conservation.”

Approval of projects in fragile areas will tarnish green energy industry

Nature groups believe that Ontario’s inappropriate choices for wind power development will actually harm the green energy movement. Ontario Nature and Nature Canada jointly stated: “We sincerely believe [approval of the Amherst Island project] will further tarnish Ontario’s green energy industry, and ultimately undermine future projects in less controversial areas. The opposition of this project in the naturalist community is palpable. The risks of killing large numbers of raptors, swallows and bobolinks is high. Approval will further alienate a segment of Ontario’s population from the green energy agenda and tip an already fragile balance.”

Ontario is guilty of hypocrisy says Ontario’s premier community coalition, Wind Concerns Ontario. “The government’s recent decisions show they have lost their way,” says President Jane Wilson. “Killing birds and despoiling wilderness is not the way to save the environment.”

END

Contact: Wind Concerns Ontario www.windconcernsontario.ca

Email us here.

Prince Edward County South Shore: major pathway for migratory birds

Prince Edward County South Shore: major pathway for migratory birds

You’ll have to move: doctors tell Nation Twp mothers of sick children

01 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

Ontario Farmer, August 25, 2015

[Excerpted]

By Ian Cumming

Emotions were high the late afternoon of August 10 among the 200 or so folks who gathered outside the Nation Township Municipal Hall. They also lined the road beside, waving No Windmill signs, with most trucks and cars driving past honking support.

Doctors told mothers of ill children: you have to move if the turbines come

Two concerned mothers approached Ontario Farmer one the day before this protest, the other at the protest; one with an autistic son, the other with a daughter waiting for a heart transplant. Both said they were given medical advice that “we’ll have to move if the windmills come.”

The son, Michael, “who can hear a grasshopper deep in the grass that far away,” would be tormented beyond anyone’s comprehension, from the windmill swooshing sound that non-autistic people can barely sense, said his mother Susan, a former nurse. “When I drive by windmills I cry and choke with anger.”

Marc Bercier had windmills go up plus a substation on his land*, to the minimum sum of $95,000 per year for 20 years. A heck of an offer for a father who has two sons wanting to take over the operation.

“I’m pulling out of the windmill contract,” said Bercier recently. He detailed the venom that his family has faced for their decision to have windmills, including his elderly mother, when attending a public meeting the week before. [Editor: this was the huge meeting attended by 500+ people in St. Bernardin.] “I don’t want to put my family in that situation.”

The $22,000 he gets to keep as a down payment from EDF “wasn’t worth it,” said Bercier, “We value peace and family over money.” *

Even when he [Bercier] had gone public to Ontario Farmer (June 23) and other media this summer, detailing his contracts and the reasons for signing them, farmers who had done the same “attacked me, wanting me to keep quiet,” said Bercier.

Perhaps it was that self-imposed silence and the smoothness of the wind company EDF attempting a quick sales job for the community which contributed to the mounting opposition, said Bercier. “EDF didn’t do the real work with people.”

Phone call from the Liberal MPP

A last-minute pitch from EDF, which included offering to double the yearly stipend to the Nation Township from $150,000 to $300,000 per year on August 10, came the exact same day his council was meeting to reverse its earlier decisions to support the two projects [Editor: the writer fails to mention that there is a 150-MW project by EDF, and a 40-MW project by RES Canada being proposed] and declare itself an unwilling host, said Nation mayor Francois St. Amour. … The motion to reverse [Nation’s] earlier decision hadn’t even been on the agenda, but a call from local Liberal MPP Grant Crack to the mayor to deal with it, forced the issue ahead.

… [Developer EDF commented…] If people in the area have legitimate health concerns, we can certainly work with them and place the windmills so they are not affected, [Stephane Desdunes, director of development] said.

 

 

*Editor: you just don’t care about other people’s families and peace…

Amherst Island wind farm approved

25 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Kingston Whig-Standard, August 24, 2015

Amherst Island wind project approved

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

Monday, August 24, 2015 10:11:43 EDT PM

A map of Amherst Island from the Revised Draft Site Plan by Windlectric.

A map of Amherst Island from the Revised Draft Site Plan by Windlectric.

STELLA – A controversial wind energy project for Amherst Island has received conditional approval from the Ontario government.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change announced Monday the project received a renewable energy approval with more than two dozen conditions.

Windlectric Inc.’s Amherst Island Wind Energy Project is to include up to 26 wind turbine generators and one substation transformer.

The project has been ferociously opposed by many island residents, who argue the project is bad for their health, the environment and the heritage of the island.

The Association to Protect Amherst Island said the project proposal, which the government deemed complete in January 2014, is not finished and leaves too many unanswered questions.

“The Association to Protect Amherst Island deplores today’s decision by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to approve a Renewable Energy Application by Windlectric Inc. for the construction of turbines on Amherst Island, the jewel of Lake Ontario,” association member Michele Le Lay said in an email Monday evening. “The APAI team is ready to continue its commitment to preserve the cultural and natural heritage of the Island with a strong legal position and fact-based evidence.”

Since July 2014, the project has been modified four times, including a change earlier in May that lowered the maximum number of wind turbines from 33 to 26 but replaced the remaining turbines with higher power models.

In addition to the project approval, the government placed 27 conditions on the project.

Among the conditions is a three-year time frame to get the project built, requirements to monitor noise emissions and ensure they do not exceed acceptable limits, implement a post construction natural heritage monitoring program, which includes bird and bat monitoring and complete any remaining archaeological fieldwork.

South Dundas says NO to expansion of Brinston wind farm

13 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Note the comments from the Mayor, regarding the effect of the existing wind power project on the community of Brinston. And for WHAT? More intermittent power Ontario doesn’t need?

Bravo, South Dundas. (Although they not declare themselves Not A Willing Host)

Cornwall NewsWatch, August 12, 2015

No support resolution for South Dundas wind farm

Posted on August 12, 2015 by in News, South Dundas // 2 Comments

In this Aug. 5, 2015 file photo, an EDP Renewables wind turbine slowly turns in the breeze in a field northeast of Dixons Corners. (Newswatch Group/File)

MORRISBURG – A green energy company will likely still go ahead with a proposed wind farm but it won’t be getting South Dundas council support.

Company reps from Spain-based EDP Renewables lobbied one last time Tuesday night for the council support resolution for the South Branch Wind Farm II project.

After distributing 1,100 letters to area property owners, spokesman Ken Little said they had four written comments following their Aug. 5 open house, one of which was critical of the project.

“This is one of the most positive meetings…when you talk about 1,100 mailers distilled down to one negative comment that really speaks a lot,” EDP spokesman Thomas LoTurco added.

There was also a cautionary note from Little about the financial benefits for the township. “A municipal council support resolution…is a chance for South Dundas to lock in the benefits of this project at an early stage. Without the municipal support resolution…we cannot make the same financial commitments to the township that we offered here,” he said.

Little also urged councillors to put aside the provincial politics surrounding green energy and think of EDP Renewables as a business that wants to grow locally. “We’ve worked very hard to build a reputation here.”

But, in a 3-1 vote, councillors decided Tuesday night against sending a so-called council support resolution to the Independent Electricity System Operator on behalf of EDP Renewables.

The lone supporter was Deputy Mayor Jim Locke, who read a prepared statement.

“It’s particularly hard for me as I presented the motion (in 2013) that South Dundas not support any future green energy projects until there was a demonstrated need. By the way, that motion did not say we were ‘unwilling host.’ That handle was added by others,” Locke stated.

“A lot has changed since that time. Green energy is not a fad and is here to stay and will be growing,” the deputy mayor added, in pointing to IESO data showing a gap in electricity needs when nuclear plants are taken offline in 2018-2019 for refurbishment.

“In my opinion, a wind contract at eight or nine cents per kilowatt hour will not cause an increase in hydro rates,” Locke said, in referring to the open house where he said the main concern he heard was skyrocketing hydro bills.

Locke said voters will ask in three years what council did for economic development and the deputy mayor suggested it was a chance to cash in on over $10 million over 25 years in benefits “not to mention the benefits to local business and individuals who live and spend in South Dundas.”

“If we do not support this project and it wants to go ahead anyway we lose $6.5 million dollars right off the bat and I’m not willing to take that gamble,” Locke said.

Coun. Archie Mellan declared a conflict of interest and was not part of the debate nor the vote.

Coun. Bill Ewing suggested the municipal benefit fund proposal of $6.5 million over 25 years not being on the table without a support resolution was akin to ransom or blackmail.

Coun. Marc St. Pierre couldn’t get past the uncertainly of the future, outlining concerns about what would happen with the windmills if the province abandons its green energy plan.

“I’m not disputing any of the results from the public meeting…I think some people were reluctant to voice their opinion at that meeting and I’ve had several calls since as well as several emails,” Mayor Evonne Delegarde.

“I think the existing project…did divide the community and it put strain on a lot of relationships with friends and families and neighbours and I think a further two to three dozen (wind turbines) to the east or to the west…this will put a further strain on those relationships,” the mayor said.

“We’ve taken a lot of pride in the agricultural sector and I think that’s changed the agricultural landscape and it’s going to be a lot more than what we see now,” Delegarde said in closing.

The resolution would have helped EDP get preferential scoring in its bid to build a 75 megawatt wind farm east of the existing South Branch Wind Farm near Brinston.

The project would be roughly 20-30 turbines spread over 10,000 acres – roughly three times the size in area of the South Branch Wind Farm.

Representatives from EDP Renewables, Ken Little and Thomas LoTurco, appeared dumbstruck at what had happened and declined comment saying they needed time to “collect their thoughts.”