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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Destruction of woodlands, loss of farmland, disruption of rural community life for an unsupportable, intermittent source of power
View of trucks and oversize turbine parts from Green Madness
A documentary film made in Upper New York State provides much needed insight into what really happens during construction of an industrial wind power site.
It’s one thing to read about the environmental destruction that results from the construction of these industrial sites, but it’s another to actually see see the horrific damage day by day, as filmed by the crew.
A well written voice over details the reality of wind power: it is supported by subsidies, it is intermittent and out of phase with demand in New York as in Ontario (in fact, Ontario energy economist Edgardo Sepulveda says Ontario is bad for unreliable wind power—New York is worse), and it is simply a tool to make money for investors.
“Wind power is a charade sponsored by investment banks,” is one comment. “Somebody’s making money but it’s not the little guy.”
Promises of jobs are also false, as the film makers demonstrate by filming the license plates on cars and trucks owned by workers on the project: Texas, Arizona, California…anywhere but upper New York State.
Likewise, promises of increased revenues for the municipality are not accurate—expenses incurred outweigh any pittance revenues from the huge multi-national wind power developers.
It’s important for the people of Ottawa to see this film and to understand the reality of wind power construction and development.
Local “environmental” or “climate” groups promote tree planting and wildflower gardens while also hypocritically pushing for industrial wind power in rural Ottawa. The loss of good farmland and woodlands, plus the danger to wildlife and the environment will be horrendous.
If wind power proposals come forward, everyone needs to know what is really involved: it’s not “clean” “green” innocent “windmills,” it’s industrialization of our rural communities and farmland.
To join our mailing list, email ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and be sure to subscribe to this page.
A documentary film follows the construction of a 37-turbine industrial wind power project in upper New York State, and is a chilling portrayal of the destruction that comes with these industrial power projects.
Experience with existing industrial wind power sites and community opposition to expensive, unreliable power generation leads rural municipalities to say NO
December 10, 2024
One of the many effects of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act passed in 2009 by the McGuinty government to give wind and solar power developers an advantage was the removal of local land use planning powers from municipalities.
Today, that authority has been restored by the repeal of the Act (which altered 20 other pieces of legislation), and now, a Municipal Support Resolution is required by the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO before any power generation contract can be awarded.
In 2013, in protest against the carpeting of rural Ontario with industrial wind turbines against community wishes, municipalities across the province began passing resolutions declaring themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new industrial wind power sites. The first was Wainfleet, spearheaded by then Mayor April Jeffs, and others quickly followed.
Today, there are 157 Unwilling Host municipalities.
What’s interesting is the fact that most already have operating wind power sites, or they are neighbours to active projects, so they are well aware of the negative impacts.
In Eastern Ontario, several municipalities are now Unwilling Hosts following the 2016 approval of the “Nation Rise” industrial wind power project in North Stormont, and in Renfrew County after there was a spate of wind power proposals. To the south east, Prince Edward County is an Unwilling Host after fighting off at least three wind power projects, and where residents spent more than $1.5 million on appeals and court challenges.
Wind Concerns Ontario recently developed a map of Unwilling Host communities that is a graphic demonstration of the dissatisfaction of municipalities with wind power development, and the fact that after 16 years, the Ontario government has not updated noise or setback regulations. Environmental noise pollution has been a problem for a number of industrial wind power sites.
The IESO is planning a new Request For Proposals, probably coming in January (more details will be revealed in an IESO event this Thursday) but municipalities remain unhappy, as indicated in communications to the IESO during “engagement.” Part of the process is an Agricultural Impact Assessment that must be reviewed and approved by any municipality dealing with proposals for new wind power.
Municipalities say they don’t have the time or the resources to deal with these assessments. And, the timing is not appropriate: a proponent can file a cursory Agricultural Impact Assessment or AIA at the time of proposal and request for a Municipal Support Resolution but a full assessment does not really have to be done until 18 months after the company gets a contract.
That’s still not enough time, said a planner from Oxford County in the IESO November 21 event: there are just too many pieces of these assessments to be looked at. The process may not “align” with reality, she said.
Just “another form of farming” investor group claims, says it will bid in next IESO round
Industrial wind turbine just south of Ottawa: industrial land use
Following a web event held by the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO a few weeks ago, Ottawa-based investor consortium Ottawa Renewable Energy Cooperative filed a comment in which it stated the group plans to bid for renewable energy projects, when the IESO releases its next Request For Proposals.
OREC already has invested in 24 renewable energy projects in Ontario, mostly solar, but also two small wind turbines, in the Kincardine and Bluewater areas of western Ontario (Huron County).
OREC’s comments to the IESO include the claim that it intends to bid for contracts. It acknowledges community opposition to some types of renewable energy development but claims it can avoid that by building smaller projects that will not attract opposition. The group correctly states that opposition to the Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS was aided by the inability of developers to provide answers to citizen concerns.
OREC’s comments follow. Emphasis in italics is ours.
Concern 1: We previously noted a qualification bias in LT2 material in favour of indigenous engagement, including indigenous participation as co-proponents. We wish again to request that community-based investment entities such as OREC will be granted equivalency to indigenous participation in terms of rated criteria points as well as set-asides, particularly if such set-asides will be structured to incentivise partnership with indigenous communities. Our question is, “why not community groups too?”
Concern 2: Rural Ottawa is still reverberating from the process of approving large BESS contracts in LT1. Much negative feeling has grown since November 2023 when a plethora of Open House events were held in Ottawa’s rural areas and developers were not ready with adequate answers about appropriate project scale and risks to communities. OREC is monitoring continuing conversations among opponents and their municipal representatives, and we anticipate greater opposition to LT2 projects. OREC believes a development model involving multiple small projects on distribution lines, funded by community investors, will attract significant interest within municipalities. This approach will attract municipal councils to the benefits of local economic activity, and the virtuous loop of generating energy locally, thereby relying less on large energy sources from outside community boundaries. OREC believes that scaling generation and BESS units such as OREC is proposing, meaning smaller, more widely distributed locally owned projects will attract positive attitudes, especially within rural areas, to what is effectively another form of farming. OREC recommends to the IESO that future energy procurements accommodate smaller scale projects, particularly clusters of small projects that have commonality of ownership and regional proximity. Clustered projects on different but proximate distribution feeder lines could be considered as single projects. OREC further recommends that the IESO include rating criteria that reward developers who partner with community-based organizations, similar to indigenous engagement criteria.
Our comments:
Community support: OREC is requesting that community groups supposedly representing local residents should get the same consideration as Indigenous peoples. First, although OREC claims to be “local” its membership is unknown, and in fact the consortium actively reached out to residents in Huron County to invest, as well as Ottawa area residents. So, what is “local”? But more important, OREC misses the point of the IESO’s initiatives regarding Indigenous communities. The goal is to assist these communities with a “clean, reliable and affordable” energy, such as, for example, reducing communities’ reliance of diesel generators for power supply.
Community opposition: After acknowledging the problems of the BESS proposals in the fall of 2023 (a rushed process with little information available), OREC says it anticipates more community opposition. Instead of acknowledging citizen concerns about loss of farmland, industrialization of rural communities, and the significant environmental impact that industrial wind turbines can have, OREC says it has the answer — “multiple small projects.”
OREC has demonstrated grid illiteracy in the past and this is more of the same. Former energy minister Todd Smith commented in February of this year that the addition of renewables (wind and solar) under the McGuinty-Wynne governments created “a lot of instability” on the power grid. The answer, Minister Smith said, was to build a supply of “clean, reliable, baseload power” and the best way to do that was to use Canada’s proven nuclear technology to build large power sites.
Creating multiple small sources of intermittent power generation will not provide reliable power for Ottawa, and it may add to grid instability. That’s not good for anyone.
Citing a “virtuous loop” of local power generation, OREC seems to imply that cute little windmills operating in the area will be like locally grown food. It is not.
Local benefits: OREC claims there are “local benefits” to renewable energy projects. What are they? There are no jobs after the construction phase (and few of those unless you drive trucks), and few if any jobs afterward. Wind turbine maintenance and monitoring is done from remote centres, with a few highly trained technicians on the ground. As the president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy Dr Chris Keefer commented, There are no employee parking lots for wind farms. There are plenty of problems with wind turbines, which is why in Ontario there are currently 157 municipalities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves to be Unwilling Hosts to industrial wind power sites. Most of the Unwilling Hosts either have wind turbines already or are nearby jurisdictions that dothey know the problems, such as noise pollution, risk to wildlife, and irreversible damage to aquifers.
Farming: While possibly drawing analogies to local food production OREC purposely ignores a very big question about wind and solar power development—they use up a lot of land. Good land. Wind and solar are both “low density” forms of power generation because they require so much land for very little power generation. Ottawa’s Official Plan states that renewables cannot be sited on prime farmland, but in truth, all classes of farmland have value. This goes against the public’s wish to encourage local food production. OREC counters with the preposterous claim that operating industrial wind and solar power sites is ”another form of farming.” No, it isn’t. It’s industrialization.*
While OREC promotes itself as a “green” organization, interested in “sustainability,” the fact is, it is an investor group, interested in making money. They have shown little concern, even disdain for citizen concerns (see note below) about the environment and community well-being.
While OREC presents dreamy ideas about “local” power generation as if it were sweet corn, we are ready with the facts: wind power is ineffective, intermittent, unreliable, and expensive —it doesn’t make sense for Ottawa.
OTTAWA WIND CONCERNS
ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
*OREC founder and Board member Dick Bakker spoke at an Ottawa IESO web event several years ago and when citizen concerns about the environment were raised, he angrily snapped that people who objected to industrialization of their communities were just “NIMBYs.” Industrialization. Acknowledged.
Farmland Trust warns that current use of prime agricultural land is “unsustainable” while wind power developers make threats if they don’t get access to it for power generation.And money.(Don’t forget the money.)
Berwick area farm: 29 huge industrial wind turbines now operate, despite community opposition [Photo D. Larsen]
The Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO is preparing to launch a new Request for Proposals in 2025, and is gearing up now with consultations for municipalities and stakeholders, prior to releasing final documents.
At issue is the policy of the Ontario government —and the City of Ottawa —that prime agricultural land must be protected.
The wind power industry sees this policy as an obstacle and is fighting back. With some success. In a recent IESO web event, a spokesperson said the question of protecting prime ag land is a topic of “active discussion” in government.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, which is not an environmental organization but a trade association and lobbyist, had this to say in a comment to the IESO. (The emphasis is ours.)
“CanREA recommends that Ontario consider orienting agricultural land use policy in a manner similar to Alberta’s recently announced ‘agriculture first’ approach for renewable energy project approvals. This approach allows wind and solar generation on Class 1 and 2 lands if they can demonstrate that they can co-exist with agriculture.
“We believe that this is a sensible approach. CanREA’s law firm members who represent Ontario farmers in negotiations with renewable energy developers describe numerous cases where siting of renewable energy projects on agricultural lands has provided additional income to allow farmers to stay on the land – making farming careers sustainable for them and their families.
“Should additional restrictions be imposed, renewable energy development would be forced into less desirable areas with lower wind and solar potential, located further away from load centres. This would result in system inefficiency, reduced levels of project investment and higher cost solutions for Ontario ratepayers.”
Very clever wording on their part and not without active threats to the Ontario government, even going so far as to mention the association’s “law firm members.” Phrases like “additional restrictions” are meant to foreshadow legal action if CanREA doesn’t get what it wants, which is unfettered access to Ontario’s farmland for profit.
People want farm land protected
The lobbyist is out of step with Ontario’s citizens and the primacy of protecting our food supply. At a time when “eat local” echoes throughout the province, and the COVID experience of interrupted food supply is fresh in everyone’s mind, the protection of Ontario’s cropland is important.
“Every day in Ontario, we lose 319 acres of farmland to non-agricultural land uses like urban development and aggregate extraction; this rate of farmland loss is unsustainable and cannot be allowed to continue. Everyone in Ontario relies on agriculture, from the food we eat, to the jobs in our communities.Without strong protections in place for our farmland, we may not be able to provide enough food to feed our growing population.”
Wind power developers: we want the money
Several wind power developers lined up to file comments with the IESO too—any resemblance to the comments from CanREA are not accidental. Here is Capital Power.
“Broad, overarching limitations or restrictions for specific classifications of agricultural land or technology types will likely limit the development of cost-effective projects in locations near existing energy infrastructure. It will also result in a loss of potential non-agricultural income for farmers. Capital Power submits that the appropriate use of land and potential impacts on agricultural use is most effectively determined between landowners, developers, and through current project approval processes. No further limitations, rated criteria, or other considerations needs to be considered for LT-2 or potential projects.”
Translation: hands off our negotiations with farm owners.
Similarly, U.S.-based Invenergy commented:
“We would work with the landowners to minimize impact to the land and form an agreement to return land to its original state. Some projects may be able to allow for the same productivity levels of the agricultural land like a wind facility.”
Invenergy also said restricting prime agricultural land mean that municipalities would lose out on tax revenues from wind power projects. That is true but with the tax rates currently capped, the amount paid is a pittance in comparison to wind power operator profits, and would need to be assessed along with municipal costs such as the need for fire services, inspections, etc. It is not possible to return land fully to its “original state”—wind turbines require massive concrete and rebar foundations that cannot be removed.
Wind power developers also under-represent the amount of land used for wind turbines. At least one developer currently claims a turbine uses only 0.2 of an acre but obviously, this does not take into account access roads and other infrastructure.
You can read more industry comments here but make no mistake: they want that prime farm land and will do anything, and say anything to get it.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 