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.
Nobody can say for sure … but it’s “far too many” says the American Bird Conservancy
Raptors such as Red Tailed Hawks and eagles, critical to the eco-system, are killed by wind turbines (not cats)
Ottawa-based Community Association for Environmental Sustainability or CAFES, which describes itself as a “network of local environmental and climate leaders”, has undertaken a campaign against “climate misinformation.”
In a newsletter to followers this week, it has a list of topics it says are sources of misinformation, including “Wind turbines kill big numbers of birds and bats.”
“We don’t have to choose between wind energy and wildlife,” CAFES says. “We can have both.”
To support their claim they offer a number of research reports including —our favourite—an article that says keeping cats indoors will prevent bird deaths. Cats do kill birds, of course, and there are many factors behind the millions of birds killed in North America each year.
But wind turbines are not blameless, and the bird kill numbers are not insignificant. We offer this 2021 statement from the American Bird Conservancy:
“Countless studies have shown that climate change will cause far-reaching and devastating impacts to wildlife and humans alike. Renewable energy development is a critically important component of the transition away from fossil fuels, making our air cleaner and reversing the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, we have also learned that wind energy development has a substantial negative impact on birds.
“But just how many birds are killed by wind turbines?…
“Rather than going down the proverbial rabbit hole to decide which study might be the most accurate, let’s take the average of the results from these studies. This gives us an estimate of approximately 366,000 birds killed by wind turbines in the U.S. in 2012.
“It’s important to consider that wind energy capacity has grown considerably since then. The study by Loss and others reported that there were 44,577 turbines in operation in 2012, while the U.S. Wind Turbine Database indicates that there are 65,548 today — an increase of 47 percent. Adjusting for this industry growth, we can project that approximately 538,000 wind turbine-caused bird deaths occur in the U.S. each year.
“However, projecting mortality based on energy produced is more frequently used because it accounts for the size of turbines in addition to their numbers. The American Wind Energy Association reports that there were 60,067 megawatts (MW) of wind energy capacity in the U.S. in 2012, versus 111,808 as of this writing in 2021 — an 86-percent increase. Taking this change into account, it can be projected that approximately 681,000 birds are currently killed by wind turbines in the U.S. each year.
“These estimates likely underestimate the true extent of the problem due to the fact thatmany bird fatalities escape human detection.
“Consider that small songbirds are the most abundant birds in the U.S., and are the most frequently killed by turbines. A study published in March 2020 found that dogs located 1.6 and 2.7 times as many small bird fatalities as human monitors did at two wind sites in California. This was true even after attempting to correct for searcher detection error, which is a standard practice for such studies.
“The Erickson* study reported that 62.5 percent of the birds in their data set were small birds. Taking 62.5 percent of the 681,000 annual mortality estimate calculated above and adjusting this with the 1.6- and 2.7-fold multipliers from the dog search study (and adding the other 37.5 percent of birds back in), this would translate into a total of 936,000 and 1.4 million birds based on the numbers from the two sites. Averaging the two, this would suggest that 1.17 million birds are killed by wind turbines in the United Stateseach year.
Indirect effects
“In addition to the bird fatalities discussed above, wind power projects also cause important indirect effects that must be considered.
“For example, many wind facilities are located far from the existing power grid and require the construction of new powerlines, which are yet another source of bird mortality.
“In a 2014 study, researchers estimated that 25.5 million birds are killed each year due to collisions with powerlines, and another 5.6 million are killed by electrocutions. Therefore, powerlines built exclusively to connect new wind facilities to the existing energy grid result in additional bird mortalities that should be factored into the total toll in birds associated with wind energy development.
“Wind facilities also require relatively large areas of land. Facility development can fragment or otherwise alter habitat in ways that make it unsuitable for species that have historically been present. For example, a study at wind facilities in the Dakotas found displacement effects for seven of nine grassland bird species after one year. While these effects have been documented in various studies, they have yet to be broadly quantified.
“When the facts above are considered, it becomes clear that existing estimates of the toll of wind energy development on birds are narrowly considered and do not account for the industry’s full impact.
“It should be noted that the estimates above are imperfect, as they are based on studies derived from an incomplete data set.
“While most wind facilities are required to conduct bird surveys to inform project planning and post-construction bird mortality studies, they are unfortunately not always obligated to share their data, and many companies maintain a proprietary hold on this information. If these data were made publicly available, bird mortality could be better understood and conservation prescriptions could be tailored accordingly.
“On a similarly important note, the species being negatively affected by wind turbines must be considered. Some species are more susceptible than others to collisions with wind turbines, and some have slower rates of reproduction and thus their populations may be more dramatically affected by losses. Some of our rarest and most iconic species, including California Condors and Marbled Murrelets, fit this bill and are at risk of collisions with wind turbines. Others like Whooping Cranes are losing habitat as a result of wind energy development.
“As noted above, our projections leave little doubt that the annual toll in birds lost to U.S. wind turbines is at least more than half a million, and a similarly conservative estimate would put that number at nearly 700,000 birds. There is a case to be made that the number could exceed 1 million. And for multiple reasons stated above, these are all likely to be under-estimates.
Far too many
“Regardless of the specifics, this is far too many when one considers the many other threats to birds on the landscape, and the massive declines we have already seen in our bird populations.
“What’s the solution to this conundrum? How do we continue to add wind turbines to fight climate change when this development is harming birds? Our answer: Bird-Smart Wind Energy. Smart wind energy development starts with good data collection and appropriate siting to avoid high-risk areas for birds. Available measures can then be incorporated to further minimize risks, and impacts should always be offset by solid on-the-ground mitigation measures.”
So, siting is important, says the American Bird Conservancy.
But that’s not what CAFES says—they want wind turbines, period. And if you are concerned about bird deaths from industrial wind power sites in the Ottawa area you are guilty of spreading “misinformation.”
It’s worth noting here that the Ottawa area is on the Atlantic Flyway, a pathway for migrating birds.
Our question is, of course there are multiple causes for bird deaths, but why do you want to kill more?
In our view “environmental and climate leadership” would be looking for the best solutions, and doing a full risk-benefit analysis.
Huge wind turbines in a migratory bird pathway is not the answer for protecting the environment, or dealing with climate change.
*A Comprehensive Analysis of Small-Passerine Fatalities from Collision with Turbines at Wind Energy Facilities, by Wallace P. Erickson , Melissa M. Wolfe, Kimberly J. Bay, Douglas H. Johnson, Joelle L. Gehring, in PLOS ONE, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107491
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’s rural residents have a rare opportunity to express their views on city services and policies. (And there is a question on wind turbines, too!)
March 25, 2024
In advance of the 2024 Rural Summit, the City of Ottawa is offering a survey on issues and policies of interest to rural residents.
The City explains:
“In 2005, the City of Ottawa hosted a Rural Summit to address the results of the City’s Citizen Satisfaction Survey. This summit helped advance several successful initiatives in rural Ottawa. In 2008, another Rural Summit occurred, and this resulted in improved opportunities for rural residents. A Rural Summit has not occurred in over a decade due to the pandemic, a municipal election, and other priority projects. Recently, a new Official Plan was adopted, a Zoning By-law is being prepared, and the Rural Economic Strategy is being updated. In addition, the newly adopted City Strategic Plan supports stimulating growth in economic districts. These plans and regulations clearly impact rural Ottawa, and therefore it is an opportune time to consult with rural residents.
“At the City Council Meeting on December 14, 2022, Councillor Kelly brought forward a motion regarding the City of Ottawa hosting a Rural Summit. This motion noted that staff should be working to host the summit during the current term of council.
“The objective of Rural Summit 2024 is to recommend improvements to the provision of the City of Ottawa services to residents and communities of rural Ottawa.”
The survey is a mix of questions, and statements with which you can agree or disagree.
Of interest to many will be this statement:
Rural areas should be the primary location for wind turbines, waste management, solar farms and battery storage.
You are asked to agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5.
More to come
The City seems to be encouraging “engagement” before the Rural Summit—this is a good opportunity to express views as rural residents. More from the City:
“Your participation is crucial as it will help shape the content and focus of ward-specific workshops scheduled for this spring. These workshops will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on local issues and brainstorming solutions.
“The outcomes of these workshops will be integral in shaping the agenda for the Rural Summit 2024, slated for November. Your input will directly contribute to the development of strategies aimed at enhancing the well-being and prosperity of our rural communities.
“Your opinion matters, and we value your insights. Please take a few moments to complete the survey using the link provided below:
“In addition to the survey, Rural Workshops will take place in each of the rural wards in the hopes of to gain as much feedback as possible. These workshops will be in-person, are open to all residents of the respective ward, and we encourage all to attend.”
Please take this survey as soon as you can: our city needs to know rural residents are informed, and have opinions that matter.
New procurement announced, but difference from Green Energy Act is that municipalities now have final say in approvals of siting for projects, and can create bylaws for siting
Turbines and transformer station at Nation Rise wind power plant [submitted photo]
Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO has announced that it plans another round of procurement for new power generation, which will include “non-emitting” generation such as wind, solar, hydro and bioenergy.
The announcement also states that IESO will look at “options options to re-acquire, upgrade, or expand existing facilities”.
The news release came on the eve of the deadline for the most recent procurement initiative which, the IESO says, was intended to increase capacity. The next round will attract “new supply will help meet the province’s overall energy needs, according to IESO CEO Lesley Gallinger.
A report in the Toronto Star framed the announcement as the Ford government doing an “about-face” on earlier policies about wind and solar. The Star said that Minister of Energy Todd Smith stated in a speech earlier this week that the Ford government approach would be different.
“Smith was quick to contrast this new round of renewable energy from the previous build out that took place under Liberal governments,” the Star said.
Wind and Green Energy Act was ‘fiasco’
“When we talk about this much renewables, many minds are immediately going to turn to the absolute fiasco that was the Liberal’s Green Energy Act … when wind and solar projects were forced on unwilling host communities,” he said, according to the Star.
“We’re doing it differently by competitively procuring these resources. Based on system need, we can deliver these projects for much lower costs. In fact, the IESO’s report today confirmed that we could get wind and solar for far less than the Liberals (did).”
The Star said “Smith highlighted how the Progressive Conservative approach of competitive procurement has already resulted in recontracting existing generation at 30 per cent below what was being paid before. The IESO estimates the next round of wind contracts will go for less than half of what the province paid in the mid 2000s.”
Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson* expressed concern over the announcement.
“Everyone knows there has been nothing but problems with Ontario’s wind power fleet,” she explains. “Not only is wind an intermittent, unreliable source of power but it has also caused problems for many of the communities that were forced to ‘host’ these industrial power installations. They produce noise and vibration, and have had other environmental impacts such as disturbing local aquifers and affecting water supply. We know from tracking internal government documents created since 2006 that there are literally thousands of files of noise complaints. And, unfortunately, there are still, after all these years, wind power projects that do not have final audits completed verifying their compliance with regulations. That’s not acceptable.”
Any effects from wind turbines are regulated by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Regulations which include setbacks between wind turbines and homes as well as noise limits, have not been revised since they were created after the Green Energy Act in 2009.
Wind Concerns Ontario says experiences with wind turbines around the world indicate it is past time to review and revise the regulations.
Power is in municipalities’ hands
A critical difference between the current PC government and the previous Green Energy program, Wind Concerns says, is that support from the local municipality is required for renewable energy projects. Municipalities also have been given back the power to pass zoning by-laws that regulate how turbines are sited in their communities.
These energy policies place Ontario’s municipal Councils at the centre of energy policy debates moving forward.
“At the end of the day, as citizens, taxpayers and ratepayers, we question the value of wind as a reliable source of power,” Wilson says. “Everyone wants to do the right thing for the climate and the environment—intermittent, invasive wind power that effectively industrializes communities, isn’t it.”
contact@windconcernsontario.ca
ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
*Jane Wilson is also Chair of Ottawa Wind Concerns
Renewable energy projects are an industrial land use, and people must be protected from noise and other impacts, says Ottawa Wind Concerns [Photo: D. Larsen for Wind Concerns Ontario]
July 12, 2023
Ottawa City Council today passed an amendment to the Official Plan, that will not allow for new renewable energy projects to get municipal approval until after the City has new zoning bylaws appropriate to that land use.
Municipal approval is now mandatory for successful proposals to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). The IESO is launching another Request for Proposals in a few months, and will begin another RFP in 2025, as Ontario plans to double its power supply with “clean” emissions–free sources of generation.
“This is a step forward,” says Ottawa Wind Concerns Chair Jane Wilson. “We were concerned that proposals might come forward in the 2023 RFPs and there would be no protection for rural residents from noise emissions and other impacts of wind and solar power projects, which are an industrial land use. The City of Ottawa has clearly shown that they are aware of the need to protect health and safety as they move forward with new zoning bylaws.”
Municipal approval is mandatory and with the repeal of the Green Energy Act in 2018, planning powers removed by the McGuinty government were returned to municipalities—that means they can determine setback distances, noise limits, and other regulations to control development. A key concern for Ottawa is the protection of valuable agricultural land.
As regards the risk of noise pollution and other impacts such as danger from fires, turbine collapse and ice throw, City staff have said they want to “do the right thing.”
Following approval of the proposed amendment at last week’s meeting of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, a spokesperson for a local group spoke out against it, saying there was no reason to slow down renewable energy proposals. Angela Keller-Herzog of Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability was quoted by the CBC as saying we need battery energy storage systems for example during power outages so “our kids” can do their homework.
According the hydro authorities, the major cause of power outages is damage to transmission lines, which prevents power from any source reaching homes.
“It is interesting when ‘environmental’ groups appear not to actually care about protecting the environment,” says Ottawa Wind Concerns’ Wilson, who is a Registered Nurse.
“Our concern is to ensure that health and safety are protected so that families can live in peace and safety in Ottawa’s rural communities.”
The amendment states in part:
This report is an interim step towards regulating renewable energy generation facilities in accordance with policies in the Official Plan which direct renewable energy generation facilities that require provincial approval to certain rural designations. Once the amendments proposed in this report come into effect, renewable energy generation facilities will not be permitted in any zone until such time as a subsequent report is approved with appropriate provisions to regulate such facilities.
Ottawa Wind Concerns’ input was noted in the report, with the statement that we will be kept informed of any developments.
Also on the Agenda at Ottawa City Council was the submission of the petitions sponsored by Ottawa Wind Concerns, asking for a minimum 2-km setback between any wind turbines proposed, and homes, as well as other land uses where people might be affected.
City staff noted that there are no proposals known for power development (but a battery storage project is in development https://evolugen.com/facilities/rabbit-battery/ in Cumberland) but with a series of Requests for Proposal coming from the IESO, anything is possible.
Ottawa Wind Concerns is an incorporated, not-for-profit group, with a membership list of several hundred residents of rural Ottawa communities and other stakeholders. We are a community group member of the Wind Concerns Ontario coalition.Our goal: a safe environment…for everyone
We’ve added an online petition to our campaign to ask the City of Ottawa to create safe, protective setbacks between industrial wind turbines and homes in Ottawa’s “rural countryside.”
Sign today.
Share the link with friends, neighbours and family!
Launched in the early days of the pandemic in 2020 and with little coverage since, Ottawa’s massive climate plan that calls for as many as 700 wind turbines in the city’s rural areas is still unknown to most. Farmers Forum has the story.
May 4, 2023
Ottawa’s climate action plan, Energy Evolution and its $57B price tag, is largely unknown to most citizens, but this month’s edition of Farmers Forum covers the story.
The Energy Evolution plan passed through the city’s environmental committee and went to City Council in the fall of 2020, when most people in Ottawa were struggling with other issues—like the pandemic that had gripped the world for several months.
In an interview with editor Patrick Meagher, Wind Concerns Ontario president and Ottawa Wind Concerns Chair Jane Wilson said that the plan is “unimaginable” with its proposal for 3,200 megawatts of wind power (equivalent to 32 Nation Rise wind “farms”) which the plan authors translate to more than 700 wind turbines, and dozens of acres of solar panels, some of which would be on rooftops. Battery storage is also proposed, which the plan authors estimate will be the size of 122 shipping containers, also on rural land.
The problem with wind power, Wilson says, “It doesn’t work. It’s intermittent, and will industrialize the rural areas.”
Wilson recalled the municipal election campaign of October last year and said when it came up in several all-candidates meetings in the rural wards, all the candidates said they were not in favour.
Wilson noted that wind turbines change a community, pitting residents against each other. When you erect a wind turbine your neighbours may not be happy, she said, adding that she has heard that some property owners with wind turbines have lamented that it was not worth up to the $15,000 a year in revenue and have found it too difficult to get out of a contract.
“With the degree of public resistance I don’t see 700 wind turbines coming, honestly,” Wilson said. “But that is still the city’s plan and people need to be aware of it and to let the city know what their feelings are.”
Ottawa Wind Concerns has launched a petition asking the City for a 2-km setback between wind turbines and homeowners’ property lines. The current setback is only 550 metres, unchanged since 2009.
Ontario has received thousands of complaints about noise and vibration since wind turbines first started going up in 2006, and many jurisdictions around the world are now moving to longer distances between wind turbines and homes. In Poland, the setback distance is 10 times the blade tip height of a turbine, equivalent to 2 km roughly. The originator of the term “Wind Turbine Syndrome” New York State Dr. Nina Pierpont has also suggested a setback of 1.25 miles.
The page includes Discussion papers including one on “Rural Zoning Issues,” one-page summaries, and a survey (which only allows for a 160-character response) and is prefaced by questions about gender identification and citizen status.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 