Tag Archives: environment

Time to get real about wind power in Ontario

07 Wednesday Oct 2026

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Wind turbines are an industrial land use: a low-density power source that uses up valuable farmland, and poses a risk to wildlife and groundwater. [Photo by D. Larsen for Wind Concerns Ontario]

October 7, 2026

We have plenty of organizations of different types in Ottawa who continually refer to “renewable” energy or “clean” energy as a goal for the city. Though deeply conflicted—most of them devoutly claim they love trees and birds and turtles and then in the next breath support land-gobbling, bird and bat killing industrial wind turbines—they maintain that “clean” energy will bring prosperity, jobs, and self-reliance.

Incredibly, one such group (CAFES) recently claimed that having local wind and solar would mean less reliance on “imported” power. As if electricity were avocadoes from California. The ignorance of Ontario’s electricity system is stunning.

Wind Concerns Ontario (we are a corporate community group member) recently published a summary of Ontario’s now 20-year experience with industrial wind power. What’s clear is, wind is not the solution. To anything, except more money in the pockets of developers.

Ontario’s rural municipalities are about to face the possibility of more industrial wind power proposals, when the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO finally launches its long overdue “window 2” of its Long-Term 2 Request For Proposals (LT2-RFP),

The next RFP was meant to be released much earlier this year (after a not entirely successful 2025 which saw only two or three wind power contracts awarded out of more than 20 proposals), but Ontario’s rural opposition to being industrialized by noisy giant wind towers is such that the IESO (and probably the wind power lobbyists) declared the October municipal election a “challenge” for new proposals, and put the whole thing off.

That should tell you something right there: with 159 municipalities (out of 444 total) having declared themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new industrial wind power projects, community opposition is a real force to be reckoned with.

In Ontario, wind power operators speak less about climate change and more about economic realities. That means promising cash-strapped and challenge-worn small rural municipalities cash in the form of community benefit funds (or “vibrancy” funds in the wind power lobby’s continuing adeptness at cutesy names for completely serious matters), and the prospect of multiple jobs. The community benefit funds of course are a pittance against what the wind power developers cart off to the bank and reward investors, and the  local jobs always turn out to be short-lived, related to construction. Even then, actual construction of wind power sites is done by specialized teams travelling to the site, usually by highly trained teams from the United States.

As Dr. Chris Keefer of Canadians for Nuclear Energy quipped, “There are no employee parking lots at wind farms.”

It is time then to see through the magician’s smoke and look behind the mirrors at what wind power in Ontario really is.

First, it is not a reliable source of power.  Ontario is a low “wind resource” area—we will never be able to produce significant power consistently from wind power, and that is that. Wind power is “part-time power”. Who said that? Only Ontario’s current Minister of Energy Stephen Lecce. Last January, while a certain Toronto-based faux environmental group was pushing to triple Ontario’s wind power capacity and abandon its nuclear ambitions, Mr. Lecce said that Ontario cannot “power a full-time economy with part-time power.”

Economist Edgardo Sepulveda undertook the first independent cost-benefit analysis of wind power in Ontario (though past Auditors General in the province have asked for one) in 2024. In his paper Chasing The Wind: the value of wind generation in a low-emission nuclear and hydro dominant grid, Mr. Sepulveda acknowledges that to keep costs artificially low, the Ontario government subsidizes 70 percent of the cost of wind. In fact, he alleges, “the costs of wind far exceed its societal and climate benefits for the 2020–23 period… Due to its nuclear and hydro dominant generation and elimination of coal, Ontario is one of the lowest-emission large grids in the world. The climate benefit from any new zero-emission generation will be limited to the extent it can displace gas generation. Relative to other areas, Ontario’s wind capacity factors are modest and out of sync with gas generation, all resulting in a relatively low wind emissions offset.”

The high cost to Ontario taxpayers was revealed recently with the release of the public accounts figure of $6.9 billion annually to subsidize electricity generation costs in Ontario. That represents more than half of Ontario’s $13-billion deficit.

So, wind power’s scorecard so far: high cost, low benefit.

But does it help with power generation to keep the province running? Again, Mr. Sepulveda: he refers to “modest” capacity factors for wind in Ontario. It’s actually much worse. This past summer, 2026, saw lengthy periods of low wind power generation simultaneously with high demand. Mr. Sepulveda: “wind generation is uncorrelated with Ontario demand … correlation data with gas shows that wind is negatively correlated with gas generation. This indicates that wind did not efficiently displace gas in Ontario.”

Energy analyst and director with Canadians for Nuclear Energy Christopher Adlam took a snapshot of wind power in January this year and provided this analysis.

“On this frigid Saturday evening Ontario is generating 21,545MW. Of that capacity:
– 194MW is from 4,943MW of wind (0.9%)
– 0MW is from 478MW of solar (0.0%)
– 60MW is from 851MW of batteries (0.2%)
– 184MW is from 287MW of bio (0.9%)
– 4,639MW is from 8,866MW of hydro (21.5%)
– 7,682MW is from 10,551MW of gas (35.7%)
– 8,786MW is from 9,546MW of nuclear (40.8%)

We are also currently exporting 757MW to Quebec and 873MW to New York. To replace gas and nuclear with wind for this hour would require 422,256MW of wind capacity, or 122,749 of the 3.44MW wind turbines installed at Nation Rise, which, at $2.33M/MW would cost $984 billion dollars.”

In short, wind doesn’t work.

It truly is “part-time power,” and is further incapable of replacing fossil fuel power generation in periods of high demand.

Another critical factor in wind power is “energy density”, in short, how much energy can be delivered by a generation system relative to its physical size.

Here again, wind power disappoints, especially when compared to high density nuclear.

Wind turbines use up a significant amount of land, a grave concern here is Ontario where target communities for industrial wind power are also the location of successful agriculture. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) and others have expressed grave concern about the future of farming and farmland in the province.

“Farmland is vital to our survival,” the OFA said in a statement before the last federal election in 2025.  “We cannot rely on importing our food.  We must remain a food sovereign nation. We cannot achieve this if we continue to develop on agricultural land that is home to reliable and arable soils.”

The wind power industry not only maintains it uses very little land (we have seen preposterous claims of perhaps a quarter of an acre—suburban housing lots are bigger than that) but the lobby also claims that farming can co-exist with the power generation facility. That conflicts with again the OFA advice to landowners to be careful about signing contracts to lease land for industrial wind turbines, as land use may be restricted by the wind power enterprise, which comes first.

Well, OK, wind is expensive and maybe doesn’t work all that well in Ontario but isn’t it good for the “environment” and climate, cry the “environmental” agencies.

No.

Wind power generation is an industrial land use and its side effects are pretty much what you’d expect from industry: noise, altered landscapes, impacts on wildlife (that means they are killed dead despite assertions of care and mitigation by the industry), and danger to aquifers as evidenced by the travesty in North Kent where wind turbine construction an operation interfered with groundwater over a fragile geology (nothing has been done to help the dozens of families now without potable well water, despite a provincial science committee recommendation).

Ontario has now had industrial wind turbine complexes since 2006. It hasn’t gone well, spurring the Unwilling Host movement which began in 2014 when a rural municipality mayor protested against the contracting process which gave local governments virtually no say in approving the industrial sites.

She wasn’t the first: on April 5, 2011, Amaranth Mayor Don McIvor wrote to then Environment Minister John Wilkinson about the effects of the large Melancthon wind power project in his municipality. The mayor was not too proud to plead with the minister to halt all wind power development in the municipality: “There is no question that the impact of wind turbines and the transformer that connects this power to the grid have negatively affected the health and wealth of neighbouring residents. The Council of Amaranth is opposed to any further wind turbine projects.”

A team of university researchers took aim at the approval process for industrial wind power projects in 2016 and found that health and environmental concerns had been “dismissed” unnecessarily. Stewart Fast (then with the University of Ottawa) and others said in their paper, “Lessons learned in Ontario wind energy disputes,” (Nature Energy, January 2016) the insistence on rigid criteria of direct causation had resulted in an approach that ignored real concerns. “Depending on the evidence cited, there is epidemiologic evidence to sustain various interpretations of wind-turbine impacts on well-being,” Fast et. al said.

The process through which developers applied for approval did not properly engage communities and left citizens feeling like “victims”.  “Setting minimum engagement requirements, such as the requirement for two local public meetings, tends to be treated as the maximum requirements — a ‘tick box’ to be completed by developers.”

Ten years later, nothing has changed. In 2019 the Ontario government repealed the Green Energy Act and allowed municipalities some “say” in the siting of industrial wind power projects so that now, the IESO has municipal approval as a mandatory requirement for submissions. However, as seen in 2025, developers were acutely aware of opposition throughout the province and did not want to spend much money on impact studies and other information. As a result, they approached municipal councils with the scarcest of information, and sometimes with vague maps of a “study area” rather than precise turbine locations. In more than one location, developers said to a municipal council, if they got the council’s approval, then they would go ahead and do the complex impact studies. (That means that approval was given though and could not be taken back—councils were not fooled).

Chatham-Kent, where there are more than 500 wind turbines currently operating, had to deal with two proposals in 2025. At a crucial meeting of Council in October 2025, formerly turbine-friendly councillors voted No, citing the lack of information, and the poor process.

Councillor Alysson Storey said, “I am not comfortable” making a decision when there are so many questions and no answers. Staff confirmed upon her questioning that this meeting was the only time the issue could be brought before Council. Storey added that she was sick of the provincial government forcing “do or die” votes on Ontario municipalities.

That was 2025. Despite the IESO’s effort to avoid wind power proposals becoming an issue in the 2026 municipal election, it is one, as it should be.

 In Chatham-Kent again, the topic came up at a mayoral candidate debate  where most of the candidates spoke out against further wind power development. That included former mayor Randy Hope who was in the chair for much of the wind power project approvals, and who said in his view, the municipality was now “at capacity” for wind power. He added there was a need for greater community engagement.

As to the process, criticized by academics and by municipal councils, to say nothing of citizens who would be forced to live inside industrial wind power sites, nothing has changed. The IESO still only requires a minimum of one public “meeting” which isn’t a meeting at all in most cases, but rather a storyboard show with public relations hirelings representing the developer.

As professor Fast and others noted ten years ago, “Although such storyboard-style meetings can be a useful way of alleviating contentious issues, they often leave residents feeling like victims of a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy, in which answers and promises are given only to individuals and are not made publicly.”

So, time to come “clean” about wind power in Ontario.

Reliable affordable power? No.

Jobs and local prosperity? No.

Action on climate change and fossil-fuel use? No. Wind can’t replace anything.

As Ontarians go to the polls again this October, we must ask all candidates for their stance on the prospect of industrial wind power invading their community. And then, vote accordingly.

(C) Wind Concerns Ontario 2026

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

Wind power locally: reliably unreliable

12 Sunday Jul 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

July 12, 2026

Wind turbines at Crysler near Ottawa: not replacing any fossil fuels today (Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario)

Wind power in the Ottawa area is outperforming IESO forecasts this hour (5 p.m. July 12).

Yes, it’s true.

The IESO forecast ONE MEGAWATT of power output from the 100-megawatt industrial wind power site at Crysler, but instead, the turbines are generating an impressive TWO megawatts.

Wind power has not had a great week in Ontario where warm summer weather has pushed up demand daily over 20,000 megawatts but Ontario’s wind turbines have struggled to produce more than a few hundred.

This is typical of wind power in our province: in periods of high demand—either hot of cold weather—wind takes off for the beach.

All this has been documented in the cost-benefit study done by economist Edgardo Sepulveda, Chasing The Wind. The analysis is available here: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/chasing-the-wind-the-value-of-wind-generation-in-a-low-emission-nuclear-and-hydro-dominant-grid-the-case-of-ontario/

(Mr Sepulveda offered to address the City of Ottawa’s environment committee on this issue but as far as we know, his offer was never accepted…or even given a response.)

The influencers

Meanwhile, Ottawa’s $57-B Energy Evolution plan (sneaked by both citizens and Council during the early months of COVID) is still official city policy, and includes a plan for “investment” of $4B in unreliable, part-time, non-performing wind power. The chapter on energy was written for the City by activist Pollution Probe, and its prescription for massive amounts of wind power (3200 megawatts) goes against the City’s own preliminary research which said, There really isn’t a lot of wind here, guys, but if you want to have a showpiece demonstration turbine, go ahead. (CANMET on Timm road was suggested)

Wind power is pushed by local “environmental sustainability” group CAFES, which even told the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee that fewer regulations and approval requirements are needed—let’s get those multi-billion-dollar projects built, never mind the environment consequences. And Ottawa Climate Action Fund, which was launched several years ago with a $20-million grant from the federal government. Its debut was hosted by none other than Diana Fox Carney.

Clearly, the pro-wind lobby thinks Ottawa should have wind turbines. Despite the fact we have no wind.

Never mind that Ottawa’s rural residents (promised much more voice in the 2024 Rural Summit but whose voices were ignored in favour of Brookfield’s battery storage project on farmland in West Carleton) are not keen on seeing their quite farming and residential communities turned into industrial power sites. The approval of the battery storage and the amendments to zoning that allowed it to proceed is currently before the courts in legal action brought by residents.

Not great for Ontario, either

Ontario’s own energy minister Stephen Lecce has said wind power can’t do what Ontario needs: “You can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power,” he said on social media last fall.

Of 22 wind power proposals put forward in 2025, only one is proceeding to construction (one other by Enbridge got a contract but has since been withdrawn when the company and the First Nation involved could not agree to terms).

Many proposals were thwarted by refusal of local councils to grant formal approval. In Ontario, there are 159 municipalities that are formally Unwilling Hosts to new wind power, including multiple jurisdictions around this city such as Merrickville-Wolford and North Stormont (hope of the listless Crysler turbines today).

The myth of wind power needs to end, and the people of Ottawa should ensure that conversations about power generation are part of discussions with candidates in the coming municipal election.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Has Ottawa lost its focus on city priorities?

12 Friday Jun 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

June 12, 2026

Has Ottawa lost sight of local issues such as food supply as it follows a climate change agenda? Is farmland just empty space for power projects? [Photo: Shady Lane Farms]

As we get closer to the October municipal election, and candidate nominations have begun, discussions about the current state of the City of Ottawa are starting to get interesting.

Mayor Sutcliffe has had the job of mopping up after the Watson years, and the difficult state of affairs with the Light Rail, for example.

Issues of concern are: transit, roads, affordable homes, food prices and taxes, among others

One commentator, Mike Patton, recently remarked that the reason Ottawa is having difficulty with these issues is that over recent years, Councils have lost focus on local issues and devoted time—and lots and lots of money—-to larger, non-Ottawa, issues like climate change, he says.

See Mr Patton’s comment here: https://x.com/Mike__Patton/status/2065222913062580673?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Of course, the City should do what it can to improve performance in areas such as air pollution and emissions, but is a $57-billion “Energy Evolution” plan, which calls for an investment of $4 billion in unreliable, unaffordable wind power the way to go? (The electricity section of the report was written by activist group Pollution Probe.)

The Ontario experience with wind power demonstrates it is not an appropriate use of funds, and an unsuccessful way to generate reliable power.

Energy economist Edgardo Sepulveda published a report in 2024 documenting the failure of wind power to replace any problematic power generation sources, and to be a reliable power source. Read that report here: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/chasing-the-wind-the-value-of-wind-generation-in-a-low-emission-nuclear-and-hydro-dominant-grid-the-case-of-ontario/

Yet there are promoters here in Ottawa. The Ottawa Climate Action Fund or OCAF recently released a statement claiming that Ottawa’s farmland was “opportunity” … not for local food production and food security, but for renewable energy.

“Nearly eighty percent of Ottawa’s land is rural, including farmland, greenspace, forested land and of course rural communities. For OCAF, thinking about sustainable city planning and climate solutions in Ottawa extends far beyond the urban boundary and must include rural strategies,” says OCAF.

Farmers, not to be totally left out as we industrialize farmland for an energy resource plantation, can make money through these rural strategies, OCAF asserts.

(In a very unfortunate sidebar, OCAF suggested that farmers could perhaps do a better job of using their land more productively, via “regenerative farming”, as if they are not already do that and everything they can. This suggestion was not met with enthusiasm by farmers we know. )

Another group, CAFES (very busy building up its “environmental” cred by hosting bird-spotting and tree-planting events), is ideologically committed to invasive, noise-polluting, wildlife-killing wind power, and has suggested that there should be fewer approval requirements, not more, so big wind power projects can get built faster.

As we move toward October’s election, Mr Patton’s comments about priorities might also guide questions to candidates.

What plans do we have for the whole city, that benefit everyone, not just a certain ideology and agenda? Do candidates really see Ottawa’s valuable and important farmland as simply empty space? Where will the food come from?

Let’s think about it.

OttawaWindConcerns@gmail.com

Pro-wind groups in Ottawa collaborate to “educate”

02 Thursday Apr 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Uncategorized, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Rural Ottawa residents waiting to be “educated” by downtown Ottawa “environmental” group [Photo Pexels Canada]

April 2, 2026

Local “environmental” coalition CAFES or Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability and OREC, the Ottawa Renewable Energy Cooperative, are teaming up this year to “educate” Ottawa’s rural residents on the positive benefits of accepting renewable energy projects.

In its most recent email newsletter, CAFES announces “Thumbs Up for Renewable Energy” program which “will focus particularly on rural areas of Ottawa, where many projects may be proposed.”

The timing is linked to the next Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Request For Proposals, which may include large industrial wind power installations.

CAFES says it will host “workshops, site visits, community events, and accessible information resources, the project will help residents better understand the electricity system, engage in discussions about local energy project planning with proper safeguards, and position us to maximize local benefits.”

CAFES claims that Ontario needs a “more resilient grid” without mentioning that industrial-scale or grid-scale wind power projects actually destabilize the grid, require fossil-fuel backup, and in Ontario at least, are completely out of phase with demand. Last year saw weeks when there was no wind, and wind power in Ontario was dramatically below capacity.

Hardly “resilient.”

Although not a charity because of its political bent, CAFES nonetheless receives grants from unnamed sources.

Unaudited financial statements filed for the organization for 2024 show that CAFES received $86,848 in “grant revenue” and a further $28,799 from “donations and fundraising for a total of $138,055 in revenues that year.

As written in this space before, CAFES is all about saving trees and birds and frogs but at the same time quite OK with deforestation of landscapes and the use of productive farmland for wind turbines, which are an industrial land use.

Acknowledging that municipalities have an important role in renewable energy installations (the Ontario government made municipal support a mandatory requirement for successful project applications), CAFES also says their goal is to get projects approved faster and with fewer regulations: “CAFES will be advocating for a more enabling provincial regulatory environment for renewable energy and energy storage.”

In an Open Letter to CAFES written last year following their appearance at Ottawa’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), Ottawa Wind Concerns criticized the group for their stance to reduce regulation and simply approve projects. CAFES had told ARAC that the City of Ottawa needed to “minimize delays” and simply approve renewable energy projects.

Translation: get out of the way and approve big projects.

No matter what citizen concerns exist for the environment, loss of farmland, and money spent on an unreliable, weather-dependent power source. Or that the energy minister himself, Stephen Lecce, has said renewables, i.e., industrial wind, are not the affordable reliable solution Ontario needs.

CAFES and its partner OREC that seeks investment in power projects certainly have the money to put on workshops and events (even free lunches as they did to promote battery storage) to promote their agenda, but we’ve already seen the enthusiasm rural communities will bring to opposing industrial projects in quiet rural areas. In Ontario, 159 municipalities are now Unwilling Hosts to new wind power project, a decision they made out of experience with industrial wind, not fear of the unknown.

The patronizing nature of this campaign to “educate” rural residents on their electricity system will not go unnoticed.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Thinking of signing for a wind turbine lease? Better get informed to protect yourself

01 Wednesday Apr 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Wind turbines are an industrial land use that affects property owners, neighbours and the wider community. The decision to lease land for these structures is deadly serious. [Photo: D. Larsen]

April, 2026

With the IESO soon to launch its Long-Term 2-Request For Proposals window 2 which will include industrial wind power, it’s likely that rural Ottawa could see some proposals.

If you, or someone you know, has been approached by a wind power developer to sign a lease, it is important to learn all the facts about this transaction. It will affect you, your family, the future of your farm, your neighbours and your community for a very long time.

The best advice we’ve seen comes from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) which has prepared a fact sheet on what to consider. Prepared by a farm owner with experience in wind turbine leases, it is a valuable document.

Read it here: https://ofa.on.ca/resources/agreements-for-renewable-energy-installations-on-your-land/

Your neighbours and your community at large will be affected, too. To learn more about the impacts of wind power installations, check out Wind Concerns Ontario’s Impacts page, here: https://www.windconcernsontario.ca/impacts-of-wind-energy/

Wind power developers can be very persuasive, telling you this power is desperately needed (it isn’t, it’s expensive and unreliable), you’ll make lots of money (you’ll lose a lot too), while helping the environment and climate change (false, wind power does nothing for either of these things).

The IESO is an independent agency, that is responsible for contracting for new power sources. They don’t care about agriculture, the environment or health or in fact YOU. It is your duty to be responsible in making any decisions that will result in impacts for 20, 40 even 50-60 years.

It’s not just about money.

For more information contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

High-Speed Rail opposition in Rural Eastern Ontario: a lesson for wind power developers

20 Friday Feb 2026

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

February 20, 2026

Small, rural communities are aware of impacts on the environment and wildlife, and the effect of industrial projects…and they’re saying NO. That likely means NO to huge, noisy, invasive, land gobbling wind turbines, too.

Opposition to high-speed rail through fragile environmental areas in Ontario sprang up fast … and hard.

Eastern Ontario rural communities just north of the St Lawrence River are buzzing with the news of a proposed, $90-billion high speed rail system.

In a matter of days, Facebook groups have been formed, community meetings held, petitions organized, and small municipalities (Rideau Lakes, Hawkesbury, Tyendinaga, more) have already seen councils voting against the project.

Several issues dominate the discussion: the outrageous cost of the proposal (estimate is $90B for the first stages, but a McGill U study says it’s more likely hundreds of billions, Chris Selley reports in the Financial Post, branding the proposal a “fantasy”), murky details about the project (engagement events are storyboard presentations, just like wind power developers use), there is no clear assurance of who would actually use the system at elevated fares, and last—the environment.

One of the proposed routes involves the South Frontenac and Rideau Lakes areas, geography familiar to many Ottawa residents, and would result in significant impacts to the Frontenac Arch and the UNESCO World Heritage Site the Rideau Canal.

Properties would be expropriated, farms divided, wildlife affected, noise introduced to quiet environments along with multiple other impacts.

Active participation at recent ALTO community “engagement” event—same playbook as the wind power developers, where do citizen comments go?

Communities aware of the negatives

At the time of writing, information events are being held, petitions signed, even inventive “PIN pointing” opportunities so property owners can put their locations on the proposed route maps, and citizens are turning out to speak up—one event in Small-township Sunbury attracted 700-800 people over the course of the day, according to the spokesperson for Save South Frontenac.

To us, with yet another phase of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Long-Term 2 Request For Proposals looming in the months ahead, the High Speed Rail opposition may be a sign to any wind power developers out there cajoling landowners into signing up for 20-,40-, even 50-year leases: rural communities are sick of proposals for industrialization of natural environments and quiet communities, together with more lost farmland.

Out of possibly 20 proposals made last year for new wind power projects in Ontario, only ONE has proceeded to the submission stage. One hundred and fifty-nine Ontario municipalities are officially Unwilling Hosts to new windpower proposals.

Wind power is seen now as expensive, invasive, environmentally harmful, and erratic. It is not a cost-effective reliable source of electricity. Even the Ontario energy minister Stephen Lecce remarked in January (during a wind no-show in very cold weather) that, “You can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power.”

Recently, a community in Wales insisted on a cost-benefit analysis for a proposed wind power project. The result was that for five positive impacts (one of which was  the vague “we need clean energy”), there were sixteen negative impacts. Council voted NO.

Ottawa’s urban-dominated City Council ignored the environmental concerns of West Carleton residents over a recent Battery Storage project, and approved it anyway. Battery storage is a new development, but the impacts of massive, noisy, industrial wind turbines will be easier to understand, and environmental damage clear for all to see.

The renewables lobby works through so-called “environmental” groups. Last fall, Ottawa “environmental” network CAFES leader told the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) that existing approvals, i.e., environmental and impact assessments were too onerous and expensive for power developers. As reported in local news media West Carleton Online, Angela Keller-Herzog advised getting rid of pesky approval requirements altogether and instead using “good neighbour” agreements for nearby residents. That is an inappropriate site-specific approach that purposely ignores the fact that industrial wind power projects affect the entire city. The noise and low frequency emissions alone, for example, can be detected as far as 5, even 10 kms away.

In short, the fairy tale is over. Rural communities are ready and willing to take on corporations to protect the environment, wildlife and the economy from unjustified industrialization.

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 

Unwilling Host communities surround Ottawa

10 Tuesday Dec 2024

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Rural issues, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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.

We’ll do our best to keep you informed.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

How many birds do wind turbines kill?

11 Sunday Aug 2024

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Uncategorized, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

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 that many 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 States each 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.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

A safe environment…for everyone

  • *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

Ottawa Valley towns on list of 155 Ontario “unwilling hosts” to new wind power sites

14 Tuesday May 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Nothing has changed, says Tom Allwood, Grey Highlands Councillor and Chair of Ontario’s Multi Municipal Energy Working Groups. Noise limits and setbacks are the same–unacceptable, say municipalities

May 14, 2024

CTV News London published a story last week on the 155 Ontario municipalities that have now passed formal resolutions designating themselves as “unwilling hosts” to new industrial wind power sites.

The list of Unwilling Hosts was compiled by Wind Concerns Ontario, a community group coalition concerned about the impacts of industrial wind turbines.

There are several Unwilling Hosts in the Ottawa area including Merrickville-Wolford, Champlain, The Nation in Prescott-Russell, Bonnechere Valley, East Hawkesbury, Greater Madawaska, and North Grenville (Kemptville).

CTV News published the news story featuring interviews with Tom Allwood, councillor for Grey Highlands and chair of the Multi Municipal Energy Working Group, and Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario and chair of Ottawa Wind Concerns.

See the news story link for a video report.

CTV News London

Scott MIller

Ontario is looking to add more renewable energy to its electricity supply, which will likely mean more wind turbines going up across the province.

However, that might be prove difficult with so many municipalities no longer interested in wind.

“I like to say it’s not 2009 anymore. We know a lot more about wind power than we did in 2009. It was supposed to bring lots of jobs. That turned out not to be true. It was going to be a reliable source of power. That turned out not to be true. It was supposed to be cheap power. Not true. Our electricity bills went up 250 per cent after the turbines went up,” said Jane Wilson, founder of Wind Concerns Ontario.

There are 155 Ontario municipalities that have said they are not willing to host wind turbine projects, now or in the future.

Among them, many municipalities in Huron, Bruce, and Grey Counties, where many of the province’s 2,600 turbines are currently spinning.

“The first iteration of wind turbines through the Green Energy Act just took away many siting decisions from municipalities, so that upset a lot of people,” said Grey Highland Coun. and Chair of the Multi Municipal Energy Working Group Tom Allwood.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has plans to add roughly 5,000 MW of wind, hydro, solar, and biomass energy by 2030. There’s currently 5,500 MW of wind turbines built in Ontario today.

“The federal government is certainly looking towards thousands of new wind turbines. Where are they going to go? The spots that have good wind have been taken,” said Allwood.

But not everyone is sour about the IESO’s renewable renewal. Wind energy is just what Ontario needs, said Jack Gibbons from Ontario’s Clean Air Alliance.

“If we integrate our wind and solar with Quebec’s storage option, then we can convert wind and solar into a firm 24/7 source of baseload electricity for Ontario,” he said.

However, Wilson believes wind energy, as it’s currently implemented, should not be of Ontario’s future energy mix.

“It’s intermittent. It comes in the fall and spring when we don’t really need it. It comes in the night, when we really don’t need it. There are some better choices and cleaner choices. Wind energy is not as clean and green as we were told it was,” said Wilson.

“They haven’t done anything with the setbacks for this round of procurement. They’ve gone out and arranged contracts for battery energy storage, and there’s real concerns about these systems as part of wind generation,” said Allwood.

IESO is seeking proposals for new renewable energy projects this fall.

#UnwillingHost

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com