South Dundas wind power plant target

26 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

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

Not the photo the Standard-Freeholder used, of a turbine alone in a field. THIS is reality: a house and turbine near KIncardine, Ont.

Not the photo the Standard-Freeholder used, of a turbine alone in a field. THIS is reality: a house and turbine near KIncardine, Ont.

U.S.-based Invenergy is trying to persuade South Dundas to reverse its unwilling host resolution and put its stamp of approval on a proposal for more wind turbines for the area.

Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, May 25

South Dundas remains a magnet for wind power developers, despite an earlier proclamation the municipality is “not a willing host” for the controversial turbines.

Just on the heels of a presentation made by the township’s only resident turbine developer, EDP Renewables, a second firm wants in on the action. South Dundas council heard last Tuesday from James Murphy and Ryan Ralph, who were representing Invenergy, reputed to be the continent’s sixth-largest green energy entity.

Invenergy is proposing its Nine Mile Project, which would be considerably more ambitious the current South Branch project that is now operating in the Brinston area. It would also spill into North Dundas.

If developed, Nine Mile would produce between 50-90 megawatts/hr. South Branch delivers 30 megawatts, but EDP is hoping to expand its operations in the township.

Invenergy needs council’s blessing in order to arm itself with a best-case argument to get provincial approval as it competes with some 40 other companies. One of the requirements that South Dundas wants projects to satisfy is to show there is a demand for more electricity.

Invenergy has indicated by 2019, more energy will need to be produced in Ontario, reversing a current trend of selling power at loss to other jurisdictions.

Mayor Evonne Delegarde said the new council welcomes new presentations in order to analyze their individual worth.

One of the social spinoffs for hosting a turbine project is the community donations the township receives annually – $1,000 for every megawatt produced, so Nine Mile would provide $50,000 to $90,000 per year for 20 years.

As for her opinion, the mayor said the community investment would not be a factor in view of whether to accept the proposal. Several property owners have already signed up to receive $500,000 in lease payments if the project goes ahead.

twitter.com/GregPeerenboom

NOTE: Ottawa Wind Concerns has learned that a community group opposed to the wind power project may be forming in North Stormont–we will keep you informed.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Queen’s Park to pass new legislation to ram through new hydro corridors: Ottawa Citizen

21 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Pathways and green space along the Hydro corridor in the Bridlewood area of Kanata.

Hydro corridor in Bridlewood area of Ottawa: millions of dollars’ worth of new power lines needed

Ottawa Citizen May 21

The provincial government is preparing a new law to make it easier to build and expand hydro corridors, with the Ottawa area a prime target.

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli told a summit of energy companies in Toronto in early May that he’s working on legislation that’s mostly about adjusting the way Ontario’s main regulator for the industry, the Ontario Energy Board, works once the province sells off a majority share in Hydro One, its main transmission utility.

But part of the new law, according to the text of his speech, will “give cabinet enhanced powers to designate key transmission corridors to expedite their construction.”

Chiarelli’s spokesperson Jennifer Beaudry explained by email that the idea is to let the politicians decide what’s “in the public good” and remove a stage where the energy board makes its own determination about whether a transmission project is really needed. The regulator would still go over costs and decide who should pay what share of them, she said.

A key transmission corridor could be one that brings electricity to a remote First Nations reserve, one needed to power northern mines, or one that’s needed for “enhanced intertie capacity with neighbouring jurisdictions to support clean energy import,” the text of Chiarelli’s speech says.

And that means Ottawa, which is a major transfer point for electricity Ontario buys from Quebec’s hydro dams but where our existing wires are nearly maxed out.

“At present the firm import capability that could be relied on for all hours on the Quebec — Ontario interties is quite restricted due to transmission issues in the Ottawa area,” says a report prepared last fall by the Independent Electricity System Operator, the provincial agency that monitors and forecasts the flow of electricity around Ontario.

Lines that run through Ottawa carry power into Ontario both from northern Quebec and from the big Beauharnois dam near Montreal. Electricity doesn’t travel all that well, so a lot of the energy we use here comes from Quebec, especially in the summer.

A shortage of transmission capacity will be a big deal in the North, where the eventual development of Ring of Fire mines and related industries will take a lot of electricity. It could even affect Toronto, which has a lot of heavy-duty power lines around its outskirts but only a webwork of little ones serving its condo-packed downtown. But it’s here that the clock is really ticking.

Within five years, the agency says, there’ll be no capacity to move electricity from Quebec through Ottawa to the rest of the province unless we build hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of new power lines; all the juice we can suck in, we’ll be using locally. At a minimum, keeping the system functioning means replacing existing lines that run past backyards in Kanata and Orléans with heavier-duty ones, a $325-million project that would only keep the power supply in Ottawa stable, not give us any to spare.

The most ambitious scenario the IESO considered would cost more like $2 billion. It’s a list of things we’d have to do if Ontario wants to make a major deal to buy Quebec electricity in quantity. We’d have to do major work on just about all of Ottawa’s high-voltage lines, but especially on the ones that run through Orléans because they mainly carry electricity from an “intertie” with Quebec at a hydro dam in Masson-Angers to Ontario’s main power grid. It would also mean building a new eight-kilometre line through Kanata, connecting transfer stations at South March and Terry Fox.

As Ontario knows well by now, new electricity projects are rarely popular. Usually, they benefit other people more than those who live nearby — a wind farm is good for the company that runs it and for whoever leases or sells the land, and (arguably) for the province as a whole, but not for the neighbours who have to look at it.

Same thing with a hydro corridor. We need high-voltage wires but nobody has yet found a way to make them pretty. Plus the science is pretty compelling that they don’t pose a health risk, but there’s no convincing some people. There’s really no way that high-tension wires carrying Quebec power past your house in Ottawa’s suburbs toward Toronto are a selling point. Which is why the cabinet will want the authority to shove them down people’s throats.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/davidreevely

 

20-25 MORE wind turbines for Brinston area south of Ottawa

20 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Cornwall Newswatch May 20, 2015

Invenergy wants 20-25 windmills west of Brinston

Posted on May 20, 2015 by in News, North Dundas, South Dundas // 1 Comment

James Murphy, left, and Ryan Ralph, senior manager of business development for Invenergy, make their presentation to South Dundas council May 19, 2015 for a proposed wind farm west of Brinston. The 20-25 windmill site would be west of the existing EDP Renewables’ South Branch Wind Farm. (Cornwall Newswatch/Bill Kingston)

SOUTH DUNDAS – Another company is looking to cash in on wind energy in the Municipality of South Dundas.

Representatives from Chicago-based Invenergy made a presentation to South Dundas council Tuesday night – a presentation very similar to EDP Renewables’ last month.

Spokesman James Murphy told council they’ve already secured land leases with 30 landowners for a total of 11,000 acres in South Dundas.

The company says it has paid out $500,000 to date for the leases.

“We get asked a lot, well, how big is the project? Is it big, is it small? In general, we think it’s going to be around 50-90 megawatts, using a similar unit on the South Branch (Wind Farm) project….somewhere between 20-25 positions (windmills) on that 11,000 acres,” Murphy told council.

The wind farm would be west of Brinston and south of Irish Headline Road.

Answering a question from Deputy Mayor Jim Locke on where the exact locations of the windmills would be, Murphy said that wouldn’t come until late 2016 if they were successful in their bid this year.

Murphy says they also have a smaller land footprint in North Dundas but, when they asked to make a deputation to the council there, they were refused. North Dundas is also a non-willing host. Instead, a public meeting is being held at a nearby community center.

Murphy also stressed there would be public meetings on the proposed project this summer, which has to be submitted to the government by September.

Much like EDP Renewables, Invenergy would have a community reinvestment fund.

Invenergy and EDP Renewables are both trying to woo support from council is order to score better on a points system for the request for proposal (RFP) process, despite the fact South Dundas committed to being a non-willing host in October 2013.

South Dundas listened but made no commitments Tuesday night.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is expected to outline the capacity for wind power on the hydro grid in two days (May 22) and, at that point, both companies will have a better idea how big their wind farms will be.

 

Wind farm tax revenues “chump change”

19 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A recent news report stated that South Dundas council was rethinking its position of not supporting a proposed wind power generation project, partly because of the tax revenues that would come to the municipality.

Council need to reads this.

No windfall in tax revenue for Ontario communities hosting wind farms

With a cap on assessments for wind turbines, Ontario municipalities are limited in tax revenues on the multi-million-dollar power projects. Revenues work out to less than 1% of what the developers have in their money bags
With a cap on assessments for wind turbines, Ontario municipalities are limited in tax revenues on the multi-million-dollar power projects. Revenues work out to less than 1% of what the developers have in their money bags

Revenues no more than “Chump Change” for municipalities

Wind power developers bringing projects to Ontario’s municipalities offer various inducements to persuade politicians they will benefit from millions of dollars.  Like the landowners signing leases for turbines, money is frequently the reason municipal politicians support wind power development and locating projects locally.

In Ontario, local politicians have no real power to support or deny those projects, and also, little ability to generate a real community benefit due to the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA).  It doesn’t matter what the capital value of an industrial wind turbine (IWT) is, or what they levy in local realty taxes as the provincial government has set the taxable value!   Former Minister of Finance, Dwight Duncan decreed (one year before resigning) IWTs would be assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) at a maximum of $40,000 per megawatt (MW). That translates to tax revenue averaging $1,000/2,000 per MW, based on local industrial mill rates.

My research indicates Ontario has the lowest assessed value per/MW capacity of all provinces.

Ontario:

The 2014 3rd Quarter update from the OPA claimed they had contracted for 5,697 MW of wind capacity.  Payment per MW hour for wind generated power averages $123.50/MWh.

Using an average of $1,500 per MW for the OPA-contracted 5,697 MW of wind means Ontario host municipalities will generate about $8.5 million annual realty taxes. (5,697 X $1,500 = $8.5 million)

Those 5,697 MW will produce energy at 30% of their capacity producing cash for the developers of $1.8 billion (5,697 X 30% X 8760 [hours per annum] X $123.50 = $1.8 billion)  Eighty percent (80%) of the time the power will be surplus to Ontario’s demand.1.   Tax revenues represent less than 1% of developers’ revenue.

Nova Scotia:

Nova Scotia’s legislature set the annual price for their realty taxes at $5,500 per MW “plus a percentage of $5,500.00 equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Canada at the end of the calendar year ending in the immediately preceding municipal taxation year relative to the Consumer Price Index for Canada at the end of the 2005 calendar year”.

If Nova Scotia had contracted for the 5,697 MW the OPA has in Ontario, realty tax revenues would be in excess of $31 million. (5,697 X $5,500 = $31.3 million)

In Nova Scotia those 5,697 MW of wind turbines operating at 30% of capacity would be paid an an average of $100 MWh and generate $1.5 billion.  Tax revenues would represent slightly more than 2% of revenue for the developers.

British Columbia:

For British Columbia realty taxes applicable to farms are applied to wind developments which presumably means assessment of the capital cost (depreciating) of about $1.5 million per MW.  Specific information was difficult to locate; however, what I found indicates realty taxes appear to be approximately $14K/MW and the price paid for generation is $105 per/MWh.

Using the limited amount of information available and applying it to the Ontario contracted 5,697 MW of capacity; in BC the tax revenue would be $80 million annually (5,697 X $14K = $80 million) and at $105 per MWh would generate $1.6 billion annually for the developers.  Taxes would represent 5% of the revenue generated for the developers.

Alberta:

It was almost impossible to locate assessment values for wind turbines in Alberta except for one reference in a report from the Greengate Power Corporation posted on the University of Calgary site.  That report claimed a 300 MW wind development would pay municipal taxes of $5 million annually which indicates a realty tax of about $16K per MW.

Using that information and applying it to Ontario’s 5,697MW of contracted capacity, suggests annual tax revenue for municipalities would be $91 million.  In Alberta the wind developers must sell their production via the spot market and in 2013 a BNN article suggested they earned an average of $54.97 per MWh which translates to annual revenue of $820 million for the developers.  In Alberta realty taxes would therefore represent 11% of the revenue generated by the developers.

Summary:

With Ontario municipalities receiving so little for hosting industrial wind turbines it is surprising the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) when faced with any kind of opposition would issue a press release that claims:  “Right now there are literally thousands of Ontarians participating in the province’s ground-breaking clean energy economy. Communities across this province — from Chatham-Kent to Frontenac Island, Tillsonburg to Niagara — stand to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in direct benefits from wind energy projects.”

MPAC’s 2014 annual report claims they assess and classify “more than five million properties with an estimated total value of $2.2 trillion.”  The assessed value of the contracted 5,697 industrial wind turbines at $40K per MW gives them a total value of $228 million or .0001% of total assessed values versus a likely capital cost approaching $8.5 billion, or 4% of MPAC’s total value!

So, Ontario’s wind developers walk away with an estimated $1.8 billion annually and $36 billion over the 20-year term of the contracts, while Ontario’s hosting municipalities have to make do with chump change of $8.5 million annually, and only $170 million over the full terms of those contracts.

Far from enjoying millions in cash windfall, Ontario’s municipalities got stuck with the worst possible deal.

©Parker Gallant,

May 19, 2015

1.  Professor Ross McKitrick: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/oebletter_feb2013.pdf

Social responsibility key in wind farm leasing decisions: Wind Concerns to OFA

19 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

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

Clarify position on wind farms: WCO to OFA

Land owners need to be socially responsible when deciding to sign leases for wind turbines, Wind Concerns Ontario tells Ontario Federation of Agriculture president

The following is a letter sent by Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson to OFA president Don McCabe, in response to remarks made by Mr. McCabe at a wind farm information meeting in Finch, Ontario. Several of Mr. McCabe’s comments to the audience, such as that there is no surplus of power in Ontario, were not correct, WCO said in the letter.

As well, while Mr. McCabe’s advice to landowners to “get a lawyer” is sound, Wilson said, the attitude that landowners need to concentrate only on getting everything they want in a lease is isolationist and archaic, and is helping to divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.

“Not one word was said about responsibility to community, and neighbours. This [attitude] does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others,” Wilson said.

The letter was sent to Mr. McCabe, and the Board of Directors for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Print

Dear Mr. McCabe:

It was interesting to meet you last week in Finch, Ontario at the Lions’ Club event, where we both spoke, along with Mr. Levy of CanWEA.

I was relieved to hear your strong advice to those attending and contemplating signing a lease with a wind power developer, to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.” This is excellent advice: as you know, these contracts typically contain dozens of pages of various clauses outlining requirements and limitations…many people do not understand what they are being asked to sign.

I was disappointed, however, in other aspects of your presentation. First, there were a couple of statements made that are not correct and may even be misleading.

Power surplus in Ontario: in my presentation I had suggested that more wind power projects were not necessary, especially not for a form of power generation that is intermittent, produced out-of-phase with demand and is expensive, causing Ontario electricity rates to rise. You countered by saying that Ontario has no surplus of power. This is not correct: the Ontario Energy Minister himself admits that Ontario has surplus power and also says that the province will have a surplus for years to come. See his quotes and the forecast for power rates in a Globe and Mail article here.

“Net metering”: you told the audience that they should arrange in their lease to share in the wind power produced by any turbines on their land. This is not correct—it is unlikely one could get power from the wind turbine on a farm, and moreover, it would be in violation of the contract the wind power developer has with the Ontario government to obtain the Feed In Tariff to do that.

Turbine noise: you suggested to the audience that if the noise from turbines were to bother them, they could make sure that there is a clause in the lease so that the power developer would have to address that. This is extremely unlikely; at present, there are thousands of noise complaints in Ontario that go unresolved by either the developer or the Ministry of the Environment.

Community input to power projects: In response to several questions from the floor, you did advise people to go to the government website on the new Large Renewable Power Request for Proposal process, but you also suggested to at least one audience member that there is nothing communities can do, if a power proposal comes forward. That is not correct: people can work with their municipal governments, members of their community, and also choose not to sign the agreement required of adjacent property owners.

Contracts: I believe you also suggested to a farm owner who had signed a contract/option and was now having second thoughts that there was nothing he could do. This also is not correct, and would have been another opportunity for you to advise him to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.”

That brings me to the second area of disappointment in your presentation: the overarching theme of your remarks was that if people are going to sign a lease for a wind turbine project they should make certain that they get concessions from the power developer that benefit them. There was not a single mention in your remarks of the need for responsible consideration of other members of one’s community, including fellow farm operators, and neighbours.

This was a very narrow view that demonstrates no balance and instead indicates an archaic, “I can do whatever I want on my land” view. This does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others.

Our concern with this isolationist view of farm ownership is that it will further divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.

OFA needs to clarify its position on this matter, and further, consider advising your membership that when it comes to deciding whether to participate in a wind power project, the responsible course of action is to balance their financial opportunities with the economic, health and social needs of others around them.

We would be pleased to meet with the OFA Board to discuss our concerns.

Thank you very much.

Jane Wilson

President

Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind farm documentaries show community impact of power projects

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

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

As the residents of Stormont Dundas and Glengarry come to terms with the proposal for a large wind power project in their communities, they are interested in receiving more information, and learning about the experience of other Ontario communities.

Several important documentary films have been made in recent years.

WIND RUSH-CBC

Wind Rush was aired in 2013 by the CBC and may be viewed online here. In the new documentary film WIND RUSH, produced for CBC Doc Zone by Toronto’s 90th Parallel Productions, the battleground for the pro and anti wind forces is southern Ontario. The government there pledged to wean the province off coal fired generation plants and replace them with green wind energy.

But as soon as the turbines went up in places like Wolf Island, Amaranth and Bruce County, people realized they could hear them. Sometimes it was like a whisper, but other times it sounded more like a jet taking off.

And then it got worse.

New turbines started coming in at two and three times the size of the old ones. And they were even louder. It led to chronic sleeplessness for many people living close by—and that can lead to diabetes, depression and heart disease. Others were affected in their inner ears by low-level sounds that set off their equilibrium. Doctors started seeing patient after patient complaining of the same sets of symptoms. And then people started to realize that no one had done any significant human health studies before giving the green light to the turbine farms.


The Hammonds, wind farmers

WIND RUSH takes viewers to southwestern Alberta, where wind has been an energy staple for more than twenty years. There is plenty of room for humans and windmills to coexist—a stark contrast to Ontario, where the same prairie technology was installed in a dramatically different landscape. The film then moves to Denmark, a country long considered the poster-child for the wind energy movement. But as WIND RUSH reveals, the relationship between the Danes and turbines has soured.

WIND RUSH talks to people on either side of the turbine divide, and then turns to scientists to try and determine what has gone wrong. In the next several years the turbines will double in size again—bigger, louder and more powerful. But without sufficient research have the people who live among the wind farms been forgotten?

BIG WIND-TVO

See this film here.

“Big Wind” explores the conflict over the controversial development of industrial wind turbines in Ontario. It is a divisive issue that at times pits neighbour against neighbour, residents against corporations, and the people against their government.

DOWN WIND-Sun Media

See a preview of this video and purchase/download here.*

The green energy scam: how corporations are making millions while Ontario communities are being changed forever.

*Ottawa Wind Concerns owns a copy of this DVD and would be pleased to offer it in a public showing. Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Conservation area within North Stormont wind farm

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

The Bobolink is an at-risk species in Ontario

The Bobolink is an at-risk species in Ontario

More than 100 bird species will be at risk from wind turbines

 

When multi-national wind power developer EDP Renewables revealed the project map at its Open House in Crysler last week, many attending were surprised to note that the project area covers and includes the Reveler Conservation Area.

The conservation area shelters more than 100 species of birds and offers a place for them to rest on their migrations twice a year. The spot is popular with bird enthusiasts and others who enjoy Nature.

Wind turbines are known for killing birds and bats, both of which are necessary parts of the eco-system. The wind “farm” at Wolfe Island is responsible for “shockingly high” numbers of bird deaths, said a report in the Globe and Mail.

The wetlands and woodlands of the South Nation watershed attract many species of wildlife.

EDP plans to erect 30-50 wind turbines in Stormont Dundas and Glengarry.

Wind developers typically claim that cats kill more birds than wind turbines, but the fact is that wind turbines are responsible for the death of many raptor species such as hawks and eagles, who are unlikely to be preyed upon by cats.

EDP Renewables bulldozes holdout landowner home

11 Monday May 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

 

 

Courthouse News Service, May 11, 2015

House Bulldozed for Wind Farm, Family Says
By REBEKAH KEARN

 ShareThis

     LOS ANGELES (CN) – Wind energy companies bulldozed a black family’s house because they were the sole holdouts who refused to sell out to a huge wind farm, the family claims in court.
Darlene Dotson and her sons David and Daniel sued EDP Renewables North America, Horizon Wind Energy Co., Rising Tree Wind Farm, CVE Contracting Group, and Renewable Land LLC, on May 7 in Superior Court.
The family wastes no time in getting down to specifics. “Plaintiffs in this action are the victims of a multinational energy developer who refused to accept ‘No’ for an answer,” the 32-page complaint begins.
“The heart of the issue is that the Dotsons own property in Mojave that is sought after by EDP Renewables for windmills, and they refuse to sell,” the family’s attorney Morgan Stewart told Courthouse News.
Mojave, pop. 4,300, is 50 miles east of Bakersfield, below the Tehachapi Mountains, on the edge of the immense Mojave Desert.
“The home on the property was a family home they used for family vacations and gatherings. EDP pressured them to sell, but they still refused,” Stewart said.
“The house was damaged several times when they were away. And then one time when they went back to the house they found that it had been demolished, scraped to the foundations, along with all of their belongings. The companies did it.
“We see it as intentional because EDP needed the property for the wind farm, but the Dotsons wouldn’t sell,” Stewart said.
EDP Renewables is building the Rising Tree Wind Farm about 3 miles west of Mojave in Kern County.
Project leaders estimate the wind farm will generate 199 megawatts of electricity when it goes online sometime this year – enough to power around 60,000 homes and take 33,000 cars off the road.
The Dotsons say the defendants first approached them about the wind farm in 2009, claiming they needed to buy the surrounding parcels of land, including the Dotsons’ land, for the wind farm.
The Tehachapi Mountains, which top out at 7,992 feet, generate nearly constant winds, as the cool air on top and the Pacific Ocean to the west suck the superheated desert air through the mountain passes.
“Like the infamous Daniel Plainview from Paul Thomas Anderson’s Film, ‘There Will Be Blood,’ defendants held themselves out as friends to the local community and a source of prosperity for its residents. Among other things, defendants promised Mrs. Dotson and her neighbors that the wind farm would stimulate the local economy and generate energy revenue for cooperating landowners. All that Mrs. Dotson and her neighbors had to do was to sign over the rights to their homes,” the complaint states.
But Darlene Dotson says she resisted the sales pitch, telling the companies she was not interested in selling because her family “cherished” their home and its underlying history more than the companies’ offers of money.
“The house had been in their family for 20 years, and was one of the original homesteads built by African Americans in the early 20th century,” attorney Stewart said.
The Dotsons used the home for family gatherings, vacations, barbeques and birthday parties. Daniel and David Dotson grew up playing in the house and then took their own children to play there. It was “hallowed ground” to the family, according to the complaint.
In addition to memories, the house contained the Dotsons’ family mementos, including photographs of deceased family members, family heirlooms and antiques.
Though all of their neighbors agreed to sell or lease their land, the Dotsons held out and “respectfully declined” the companies’ numerous offers, according to the complaint.
When the companies realized the family was adamant about keeping their home, they became aggressive and hostile, the Dotsons say. Mrs. Dotson claims the companies’ agents insulted her and spoke to her disrespectfully, and told her that “the home was worthless and that the Dotsons should take the money because it was the best they would ever get for the land.”
They harassed her sons and tried to bully them into persuading her to sell the house by threatening to “surround the home on all sides with the wind farm, restricting the Dotson’s access to the home and causing the home’s property value to plummet,” the complaint states.
Stewart said the companies wanted the property so badly they approached the Dotsons’ neighbors and asked them how to persuade the Dotsons to sell.
Then the defendants vandalized the house, breaking windows and patio furniture, the Dotsons claim. “In essence, the Dotsons were being terrorized in their home,” the complaint states.
In February this year the defendants started demolishing the surrounding homes to develop the land for the wind farm.
When David Dotson went up to the family home in late March to do some maintenance, he discovered that the home was “literally wiped off the face of the Earth,” that all the furnishings and family belongings “were simply eviscerated,” the complaint states.
Stewart said the family is not sure exactly when the house was demolished, but suspects it was around the time the companies started knocking down the other homes.
The Dotsons say several people from the companies called and left messages admitting that they had demolished the Dotson’s home and insisting that it was a mistake.
But the Dotsons claim it was a deliberate ploy to make them sell their land.
“The pressure to sell from EDP, the strong-arm tactics leading up to the demolition, and coming along afterward and trying to buy again, all indicate that this was not an accident,” Stewart said. “This was an intentional act by a company that thought it could strong-arm these people.”
Though there is no direct evidence of racism, Stewart thinks the Dotsons’ race had something to do with it.
“They are the only African American family in the area, the only ones pressured very hard by the companies, and the only ones who had their house demolished when they refused to sell,” he said.
Stewart said it takes a deliberate effort to destroy a house because the gas and water must be turned off, among other things.
“It’s especially sad because they described how they built parts of the house with their own hands. It’s ugly,” he said.
Representatives with the companies did not reply to requests for comment.
The Dotsons seek punitive damages for trespass to land, violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, nuisance, unfair business practices and negligence.
Attorney Stewart is with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, of Irvine.

[NOTE: EDP Renewables is the power developer proposing a 150-megawatt, 50-turbine wind power project in Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, and currently operates the South Branch wind “farm” in Brinston, Ontario]

Proof of health problems from wind turbine noise, say public health doctors

11 Monday May 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn, together with several associates, have now published a peer-reviewed article based on their literature review of studies on wind turbine noise and health impacts.

Their conclusion: we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association.

Read the complete article here.

The wind power development lobby insists there is not relationship between wind turbine noise, inaudible noise/low-frequency noise/infrasound, and often implies that people who claim such effects are actually ill-informed or not receiving money. A spokesperson for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture told an audience at this year’s Rural Ontario Municipalities Association meeting that anyone claiming to experience health impacts from turbine noise had questionable mental health stability and that the listener should “just cough on them.” His remarks were withdrawn by the OFA with an apology shortly thereafter.

Wind farm health and property value impacts: what the developer isn’t telling you

11 Monday May 2015

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Two information events were held in North Stormont last week; a panel discussion on wind power issues, hosted by the Lions’ Club in Finch on May 6, and in Crysler on May 7, the first Open House on the North Stormont wind “farm” hosted by power developer EDP Renewables.

We have already reported on the Lions’ Club event and doubtless the media will be along shortly, too; we have reports from people who attended the EDP event.

Apparently, the power developer had brochures available on health and property value impacts. Here is the “other side” on these issues.

Health

The wind power lobby is focusing on the Health Canada study which, they say, claims no “causal link” between wind turbine noise and health effects. The truth? The Health Canada study was not designed to find a causal link, so, surprise! What it DID find, however was that significant numbers of people are distressed by the turbine noise and infrasound (low frequency or inaudible sound). In Health Canada’s  PowerPoint presentation of its results, the following points were made:

  • as wind turbine noise levels increased, so did respondents’ annoyance (distress)…this was a statistically significant finding
  • in comparison to aircraft, rail or road traffic noise, annoyance/distress due to wind turbine noise was found to begin at lower levels, e.g., ~35dBA
  • the prevalence of wind turbine noise annoyance/distress was higher in Ontario than in PEI (the other area studied) and,
  • wind turbine noise annoyance/distress in the Ontario sample persisted up to distances between 1 and 2 km–in PEI this was restricted to

In fact, the Health Canada study found,16.5% of people within 1 km of a turbine experienced annoyance/distress, and at 550 metres, that went up to 25%

More recently, the Council of Canadian Academies released their report, a literature review on wind turbine noise, with the following important findings:

  • the evidence is sufficient to support a causal association between exposure to wind turbine noise and annoyance
  • standard methods of measuring sound may not capture low-frequency sound characteristic of wind turbine noise (in other words, the way Ontario is measuring turbine noise–and not measuring infrasound at all–is not adequate to protect health)
  • there is limited evidence to establish a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and sleep disturbance (which is known to cause health effects), and
  • knowledge gaps prevent a full assessment of health effects of wind turbine noise–proper population studies, especially studies of sensitive populations such as children, have not yet been done.

Did EDP Renewables present these facts at their Open House?

Property values

We’ll keep this short: we’re betting EDP brandished the recent study done by Richard Vyn of the University of Guelph, which is supposed to prove that property values around wind turbines don’t change. Aside from the fact that this is nonsense, and Vyn’s study was poorly structured—that’s not what he says!!! In fact, Vyn cautions the reader that there were significant limitations in how he went about his study and this [his conclusion] does not preclude any negative effects from occurring on individual properties. Read more analysis of the Vyn report at Wind Farm Realities.

The wind power developer is taking care to be seen to address the issues of health and property values, but they are being very selective in their choice of reference material (and in the coming federal election, you might ask candidates WHY the federal government used taxpayer money to create a misleading, attractive colour brochure to help the wind industry)

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

NOTE: This post certainly got us a lot of attention from the wind power industry. A wind industry communications officer from the UK accused us of causing harm to people by putting this information out there (he claimed people with real illnesses would not seek treatment because they will think instead it’s just wind turbine noise–absolutely unjustified and frankly, stupid); he was seconded by pro-wind physician George Crisp from Australia, and they were joined on Twitter by Chris Young, board member with the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and employee of NorSun Energy in Ottawa. Mr Young pronounced us as “irrelevant.”