Tag Archives: BESS

Land use conflict prompts citizen legal action over West Carleton battery storage site

02 Monday Feb 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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. 

As stated in an editorial from the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the decision to be an Unwilling host came “not from fear but from experience.” 

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. 

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com 

A story on the WCCA legal action was published by West Carleton Online 

Ottawa Wind Concerns supports West Carleton residents

24 Monday Feb 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Concerns for environment, water supply with proposal for 250-megawatt battery storage system

Source: Stop West Carleton BESS

February 23, 2025

Ottawa Wind Concerns released a statement yesterday expressing support for the residents of West Carleton who are concerned about the potential negative impacts on the environment from a proposed large battery energy storage system or BESS, currently planned for the Marchurst Road area near Dunrobin. The power developer is Evolugen, a division of Brookfield Renewables.

“We share resident concerns about the proposal for a large Battery Energy Storage System on farmland in West Carleton,” said Ottawa Wind Concerns Chair Jane Wilson, in a letter sent to community group Stop West Carleton BESS, one of several opposing the project.

“Like large-scale industrial wind power sites that were forced on rural Ontario communities, the BESS raises concerns about negative impacts on the environment such as the risk of fire, and noise pollution.  

“We echo the concerns of the local OFA in that even classes 4-6 of agricultural land have a role to play in food production and food security for the people of Ontario. 

“The process for the BESS is the same as for wind and solar power installations which features limited public engagement, and the need for communities to approve this significant industrial land use with minimal details provided. “

The West Carleton residents are concerned about the potential for fire, due to multiple battery storage system fires around the world, including several in the U.S. A fire at the three-year-old Moss Landing battery facility in California, which resulted in toxic smoke and the evacuation of residents. The fire has reignited several times. There have been calls for more stringent safety rules for such installations.

In West Carleton, residents are concerned that in the event of a fire, the site would be far from City of Ottawa fire services, and first responders would be volunteer fire fighters, as is the case for most Ottawa rural communities. The chemicals used to fight a lithium battery fire could contaminate the aquifer, which would affect neighbouring farm properties.

Noise from the 250+ containers housing the batteries is another environmental concern.

Residents say they are not opposed necessarily to the battery storage technology, but are asking whether an industrial location close to services like fire would not be more appropriate for this industrial land use. They also note proximity of the site to area wetlands, some of which have been proposed for protection. (See illustration, above.)

The BESS is to be located on farmland currently used for hay, which is part of the food production cycle, says the local chapter of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which also supports the West Carleton resident concerns.

In a story presented by CTV News Ottawa today, https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/proposed-battery-storage-site-in-ottawas-west-end-raises-safety-concerns-from-residents/ Stop West Carleton BESS representative and local farm owner Courtney Argue said, if there was a fire event and the groundwater was contaminated, “there is no remediation.”

Argue also said Evolugen surveyors were on her farm last month without permission.

Kanata North councillor Cathy Curry told CTV News that there was already a battery storage facility in her ward and that it was operating without problems; however, there are no grid-scale BESS installations in Ottawa. Evolugen proposed another BESS near the Trail Road landfill on land zoned industrial with did get CIty of Ottawa support. The West Carleton project however, has a contract from the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO to sell power, but it does not have the municipal support resolution which is mandatory for the project to proceed. (See IESO, Section 11 at https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Resource-Acquisition-and-Contracts/Long-Term-2-RFP )

The battery storage operators (many of whom also operate wind and solar generation projects and are paid for their power, whether it is needed or not) buy power in times of surplus, store it, then sell it back to the grid operator. In theory, they sell the power at one price, buy it back at a lower price, then sell it again at a higher price when power is needed.

Does battery storage work?

One U.K. analyst says battery storage units don’t do what the promoters say they will. In a video titled “Exposing the battery storage con,” released recently, Paul Burgess says that batteries will provide only minutes of power when needed, as they can only use 60 percent of the power stored. In times of “wind drought” which can last more than a week, he says, the battery power stored will have run out immediately. “It is one hair on a camel’s back relative to what’s required,” he says. Battery storage would not be adequate and will cost billions.

Stop West Carleton BESS currently has the support of the Carleton Landowners, and the Ontario federation of Agriculture, and is one of at least four community groups. A petition to the CIty of Ottawa is available and is approaching 1,000 signatures.

For more information email stopwestcarletonBESS@gmail.com

Former Ward 5 Councillor Eli El Chantiry signs the Stop West Carleton BESS petition at a community “pop up” signing opportunity

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/proposed-battery-storage-site-in-ottawas-west-end-raises-safety-concerns-from-residents/

Community discussions marred by NIMBY insults in Ottawa

05 Tuesday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Ottawa’s rural residents were concerned about proposals for huge battery storage installations. They didn’t get answers to their questions about risks and impacts—for that, they got called NIMBY [Photo: D. Larsen]

December 5, 2023

During the discussions about proposals for Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS last week, it was disappointing to see the “NIMBY” insult being employed, especially by so-called environmentalists and community leaders.

One is a “Director of Emotional Health” for a community association, who thought it was perfectly healthy and supportive to brand her fellow West Carleton residents as “NIMBYs” just for expressing concern about the environment, health and the safety of cropland.

The NIMBY epithet was so prevalent in presentations to Ottawa’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) that ARAC chair George Darouze said “We are not NIMBYs” and then went on with an elegant and important discussion of how rural residents are concerned about environmental impact for not just rural communities but for all of Ottawa.

He said rural residents were especially “sensitive” to environmental issues, which is why they had questions about the battery proposals.

Using the NIMBY insult says a lot about you

The term NIMBY is not just an insult to those who are concerned about a particular type of development, it also speaks volumes about the people who use it.

Environmental lawyer McRoberts:

To urban-based environmentalists, resistance to wind and solar farms is often seen as nothing more than Not in My Backyard attitudes (NIMBYism), and turbine opponent concerns are trivialised. … [M]any communities opposed to these projects have genuine concerns about impacts on environmental integrity, viewscapes, food production, and social fabric. … Moreover, the supposed “NIMBY syndrome” has been criticised by environmental justice scholars and others as an oversimplification of opposition that more accurately is based on a complex mix of factors including perceptions about a lack of procedural and distributive justice in approval processes. (McRobert, D., Tennent-Riddell, J. and Walker, C. (2016) Ontario’s Green Economy and Green Energy Act: Why a Well-Intentioned Law Is Mired in Controversy and Opposed by Rural Communities. Renewable Energy Law and Policy, 7, 99.)

So what were people who live in Ottawa’s rural wards worried about? Mainly environmental concerns, specifically from the risk of fire in a battery storage unit, and pollution from chemicals and water. They were also worried about noise and light pollution, and they had concerns about the proposed locations The battery storage installations would be an industrial land use, yet in many of the proposals were to be located near homes.

The risk of fire was not addressed satisfactorily by the proponents at the public meetings which, people felt, were rushed and held without wider notice.

The technology is new and there simply was not enough time to learn about it, or to get answers to very important questions about the risk of fire. At the ARAC meeting November 30, the leaders of 

Ottawa Fire Services said that the fire risk is a concern for fire services across Ontario. The Ontario Fire Marshal will release a report but it is not available yet — nevertheless, residents and municipal governments were expected to grant support in spite of questions about that risk.

Battery storage: myth or solution?

What are the battery installations supposed to do, anyway?

Shirley Dolan, appearing at ARAC as a Director with the Ontario Landowners Association, said that there had been no cost-benefit analysis presented for any battery storage proposal. In short, she said, there was no rationale for the installations, no explanation of costs or other impacts, no details beyond basic claims that the batteries would provide power during outages, and no reasons given for the locations proposed.

The claim that the batteries are needed for power outages warrants examination.

If we lose power as the result of a storm, the usual cause is damage to electricity infrastructure such as downed power lines. That was confirmed by Hydro One’s CEO earlier this year. So, if we have power lines or other features such as transformers damaged and not functional, the power (maximum of FOUR HOURS, by the way, not days) still cannot reach our homes.

So, again: what is the benefit? Where is the cost-benefit analysis to support these proposals?

NIMBY? or objection to a flawed process?

People in communities where battery storage was proposed said they were interested in the concept of the technology, but were concerned about the process created by the IESO. There was little opportunity for public input, as the comments and questions from the public at the proponent meetings don’t go anywhere and are not recorded—no response is necessary from the proponent. As Mr. Darouze pointed out, the process was rushed and provided very little information to both the public and the municipal government, which was expected to evaluate the proposals and grant support.

He said, correctly, that the city’s own assessment process is far more rigorous for any type of development than is required by the IESO. That is not acceptable, many thought.

As McRoberts wrote, what might be branded as NIMBYism is a concern about justice in procedural and approval processes. Much has been written about the public engagement process for energy development in Ontario, and the conclusion is that it has been seriously flawed. Two Auditors General in Ontario said that any energy proposal ought to have a cost-benefit analysis done: this has never happened, and is still not being done.

In his paper, “NIMBYs are not the problem”, Ottawa professor Stewart Fast wrote:

“If conflict is to be minimized and decisions given greater legitimacy, the public must be involved in the process. Unfortunately, Ontario’s approach to building wind generators and other renewable energy projects has ignored this tenet. Instead of more public participation, there has been less. … The approach was designed in the conviction that Ontario’s citizens were not to be trusted, and that anyone opposing wind energy was simply in the grip of NIMBYism. … Policy-makers must realize that not all citizens are selfish NIMBYs.” (Stewart Fast, Policy Options, IRPP.org, 2017)

The way forward in my view is to provide the public and our elected representatives with all the facts we all need to make a responsible, informed decision. One Rideau Lakes resident told Ottawa Wind Concerns, “Last week, I never even heard of BESS. This week, I’m going to meetings and writing letters!” (The project there has been withdrawn in the face of public opposition.)

Battery storage technology on grid-scale is relatively new and already there have been problems. A worldwide database documenting battery fires and failures lists more than 80 events so far. Battery storage developers say there is low risk, but not no risk.

Ottawa Fire Services told ARAC that there is no option but to let a battery fire burn while working to keep other equipment cool and to keep the fire from spreading.

Meanwhile, the emissions from battery fires include carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and corrosive nitrogen dioxide. But to the “environmentalists”, their citizen neighbours and fellow rural residents who are concerned about these emissions are NIMBYs?

We ask, if the people and organizations who claim to want to help with climate change and protect the environment do NOT support protection of health, safety, and sanctity of the ecosystem, what IS their agenda?

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

Ottawa councillor on battery storage: better consultation needed, time to evaluate

17 Friday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

November 17, 2023

West Carleton Ward 5 Councillor Clarke Kelly has published his ward newsletter with a reasonable, well thought out comment on the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) proposals now before the City of Ottawa.

An excerpt:

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) 

There has been much talk in our community about Battery Energy Storage Systems, commonly called BESS. Over the last several weeks, I have been made aware of 3 different proposals situated in Ward 5 being brought forward to the IESO for consideration. As I have mentioned in previous statements, I am not opposed to the use of this technology. In fact, I believe that electricity storage will be vital in strengthening our power grid and essential to diversifying our energy sources through renewable energy sources. Last spring, I brought forward a motion that passed and did provide municipal support for a BESS system in our ward. However, the size of that proposed system was very small, being placed at a site that already had a small solar farm, no trees were being cut down, the proponent held multiple public meetings, and no concerns were raised amongst residents in the area. Given its minimal size, the good consultation work undertaken by the applicant, and the lack of public concern, I thought it was an excellent opportunity to see how these systems work and gauge the risks on a small scale.

The applications we are currently looking at are due in early December, yet the applicants waited until the last several weeks to engage with the public. One of the applicants has not held a public meeting or had any communication with my office, so they certainly are not getting my support. The result of these poor consultation decisions is that we are basically out of time to address the numerous and legitimate concerns in a real and meaningful way. At recent meetings, the community had some basic questions around fire safety, direct benefits to the community, the effect on wildlife and wetlands on or around the property in question, and end of life plans for the units. I don’t believe the answers provided had the level of detail, clarity, or certainty required to gain public support and put concerns at ease.

As I have stated, I am not fundamentally opposed to these systems and think the idea of storing power overnight when demand is low and using it during peak demand instead of selling it to the US at a loss is a good idea. But, I also place a lot of value on public consultation and respect for the community in which these companies wish to operate, and given that this technology is relatively new and that there have been serious documented challenges with these projects around the world, my expectation would be that consultation would be meaningful and respectful. In one case, the application hasn’t bothered at all, and in the other two, they clearly missed the mark when it comes to engaging the community and ensuring their concerns are addressed.

I really would like to support one of these projects as I believe in the idea and see the need. I also believe these companies should have come to the table six months ago to be able to answer questions in a detailed fashion and be prepared to present the necessary information and solutions ready to put in place. Many of these groups had not engaged with the Ottawa Fire Services before presenting to the public, and fire is a genuine concern with this technology. They also were astoundingly unable to explain to the community what they were getting in return for having this in their neighborhood or even how the tax uplift would work, given that the site would be taking up only a portion of privately held land. To put it bluntly, all three applicants were unprepared to address the concerns and questions of the community, which gives the sense that public consultation as an aspect of these projects is just a box to tick as part of their standard process. That’s not good enough for the people of West Carleton-March, and any company wishing to get our community’s support, or support from me as Councillor in the future, will come to the community much earlier and much more prepared; otherwise, they can expect the same response.

Not all of the feedback I have gotten about these systems has been negative, and I will soon be meeting with a group of people in our ward who support these systems. I look forward to that and future conversations with the community on how and where we can make these work. I will be supporting a Municipal Support Resolution for a BESS system close to the Trail Road Landfill Site in Ward 21, as will the ward councillor. Residents in that ward feel that it is an appropriate place for a system such as this, particularly in the early days of this technology when comprehensive solutions to the challenges they pose are still being refined and perfected.

So the Councillor is saying, the community has not been given enough time to evaluate the benefits and risks of these projects, and that while we might want to support them, we are simply now “out of time.” Note too that the Councillor echoes the advice we posted earlier this week, when economist Robert Lyman said Ontario needs to pilot a few battery storage projects to see how well they work, how much they cost, and how we can manage any risks associated with them.

Ottawa energy economist on battery storage: we need to know how much it costs

14 Tuesday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

And whether it will work. The Ottawa area has four active Battery Energy Storage proposals. But nobody knows whether BESS will do what the proponents say it will

November 14, 2023

The idea of Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS has hit so fast, people don’t know what to make of it…and that’s the problem for proponents. (Most of whom are current and former wind power developers.)

There simply are not enough details about these projects from the technology used, to the risk of fire and other environmental hazards, noise, and impact on communities. That’s what proponents are hearing at the mandatory “community engagement” meetings held in rural Ottawa.

A big question is the cost, and whether these multi-million-dollar projects will be worth the price to Ontario’s electricity consumers. Proponents are currently vying for contracts with the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO. Submissions are due December 12.

When wind and solar were being marketed as the solution to climate change, two Ontario Auditors General recommended to the McGuinty-Wynne governments that cost-benefit analyses should be done.

But it never was.

And now, here we go again.

Ottawa energy economist Robert Lyman says figures from the U.S. show that battery storage will be expensive, no question.

How much?

And at the moment, batteries can only provide power for a few hours at most. So, do they even work?

Here’s his comment:

Any plan to power an electrical grid with wind and solar generation and to eliminate the backup security of supply provided by fossil fuels like coal and natural gas must address the cost and feasibility of the battery storage needed. 

The only battery storage technology that is widely available for grid scale storage is lithium-ion. The US federal government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory produces periodic reports on the current and projected costs of utility-scale batteries of the lithium-ion type. The most recent edition, from June 2021, gives the current average cost as approximately US $350 per kilowatt-hour. It projects declining costs over time, but those projections are speculative and do not recognize the actual trends in recent battery costs. For example, in 2020-2021, the average costs for lithium ion battery installations in New York state was US$464/kwh and in 2022, the price for contracts actually awarded increased to US$567/kwh.

Storage is extremely expensive and if generally used will drive up electricity costs significantly. They are by far the largest part of the costs of an electricity system that relies upon wind and solar generation for essential supplies. They also give rise to the need for much more transmission facilities, which also adds to the costs, although these costs are rarely if ever made public in advance. 

Lithium-ion batteries provide backup capacity for relatively short periods, usually measured in hours. However, variations in the demand for and supply of electricity due to weather or other events can occur over periods of days, weeks or even whole seasons. Lithium-ion batteries are incapable of providing such service yet, “long duration” battery technologies do not yet exist and are still at the research or pilot project stage.  

The system-wide addition of lithium-ion batteries could increase electricity bills by up to 20 times depending on how much storage is needed. Research on possible long-duration batteries is at the earliest stages, and nobody has any idea what, if any, technology might work or how much it might cost. 

 Before the province of Ontario starts building several battery-storage plants, it might be a good idea to build one pilot to find out if the darn thing works and is affordable.

–Robert Lyman, Ottawa

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com