Tag Archives: Environmental Review Tribunal

Legal actions against wind farms continue

18 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

This is a heavy duty week as Ontario communities fight back against the unwanted incursion of huge wind power generation facilities. As you know, the Green Energy Act removed local land-use planning powers for renewable power projects, so the environmental appeal process and ultimately the courts, along with a noise nuisance bylaw, is the only way communities can act to protect their residents.

(The new procurement process for large-scale renewable power projects still does not allow for a return of municipal planning powers; communities can have a say, as long as it’s not “no” and in fact, the regional energy plans are pre-designed by the province—in other words, if the province decides you’re getting a wind “farm” then you are. But we digress…)

This week:

Manvers/Pontypool: last few days of the appeal of the Sumac Ridge wind power project, part of which is on the Oak Ridges Moraine, a fragile and (formerly) protected environment. The Green Energy Act over-rode the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, along with 20 other pieces of legislation.) The City of Kawartha Lakes is involved.

Plympton-Wyoming: again, the municipality is involved with the appeal of the Suncor Cedar Point wind power generation project. Today, the Environmental Review Tribunal hears a motion for a stay of proceedings, until experts can review the raw data from the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study. (No report or article has yet been published from this study; there is only a brief summary and PowerPoint presentation.) The Health Canada study showed that 16.5% of people living within 2 km of a wind turbine were experiencing distress.

Niagara Region: Mothers Against Wind Turbines is a appealing the 77, 3-megawatt turbine Niagara Region wind power project, which will affect over 4,000 homes. Preliminary hearing is tomorrow in Wellandport.

Other appeals have been filed and several judicial reviews are in various stages, as well as private legal actions on property value loss and nuisance. Decisions are expected on the Ostrander Point appeal (lawyer Eric Gillespie), and the Drennan/Dixon appeal (the Constitutional challenge, lawyer Julian Falconer).

Ottawa Wind Concerns has retained a legal firm and is prepared to enact legal actions should another proposal come forward for a wind power project.

Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com Donations welcome at PO Box 3, North Gower K0A 2T0

Wind farm Constitutional challenge now before the judges

21 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Wind farm legal decision expected before January

Turbines near Ridgetown: environmental review tribunals ignore evidence of adverse health effects
Turbines near Ridgetown: environmental review tribunals ignore evidence of adverse health effects

Big money on one side, families on the other

Jonathan Sher, London Free Press, November 20, 2014

A judicial fight over the future of wind turbines in Ontario wrapped up Thursday with the fate of the province’s green energy law in the hands of judges.

On one side is big money, wind energy giants like Samsung and a Liberal government intent on becoming a world leader in creating green energy.

On the other are four families in Huron and Bruce counties whose homes are close to dozens of proposed turbines.

But while it seems a David and Goliath affair, the underdogs have enlisted a legal pugilist who Thursday seemed to dance circles around the arguments of his adversaries, wrapping up a four-day hearing in London with an emotionally-loaded challenge to three Superior Court justices.

“The system has utterly broken down,” said Julian Falconer. “You have been tasked with keeping these people safe.”

Falconer was the most dynamic of lawyers representing four families in Southwestern Ontario battling the building of wind farms.

It’s not the first time lawyers have challenged the Green Energy Act in court. Three years ago, wind opponents lost in court fighting a decision by an environmental review tribunal to allow a wind farm. But the 2011 effort had a handicap this one does not — it was a judicial review, in which judges must give deference to the tribunal.

This time, Falconer wants the three-judge panel to:

  • Halt, by issuing what’s called a stay, wind farms that are expected to be tested in January.
  • Rule the environmental tribunal violated the constitutional rights of wind opponents when it refused to allow new evidence from a Health Canada study.
  • Allow wind opponents to stop wind farms by showing they might be seriously harmed rather than proving they had been harmed.

The judges expect to issue a decision on the stay soon, and while they didn’t specify a date, it’s likely they’ll act by January.

Environmental review tribunals shield their eyes to contrary evidence, Falconer said.

“They keep the blinders on. They’re not interested in new information. They’re interested in getting the turbines up,” he said.

But lawyers for the government and wind companies disagreed, one arguing the Health Canada study only showed a link between turbines and annoyance and the early results hadn’t yet been peer-reviewed.

“It’s a work in progress,” said Darryl Cruz, who represents St. Columban Energy.

The decision by the environmental tribunal was correct and wind companies should be allowed to complete their wind farms, he said.

That’s a position one Niagara wind opponent has been fighting for about four years, moving from her Welland home to keep away from planned turbines.

“It’s just wrong,” Catherine Mitchell said.

Wind opponents say turbines cause dizziness, headaches, heart palpitations and other illness.

The government says that’s wrong and that neighbours are protected because turbines are placed at least 550 metres from homes.

Ontario has more than 6,000 wind turbines built, planned or proposed, mostly in the southwest. Turbines account for about 4% of Ontario’s power.

Read the full article here.

Energy Minister Chiarelli fails to answer FIT contract question

20 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

MPP Laurie Scott asked Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli today whether there was still a FIT contract in place for the now withdrawn Sumac Ridge wind power project in Kawartha Lakes. After making a lame joke about shoe stores, Minister Chiarelli said his government will not cancel contracts and to do so would result in $20 billion worth of litigation for Ontario. (That is the amount of contracts for the 55 wind power projects still in the approval process.)

This is false. The FIT contract is the first step in a long process leading to Renewable Energy Approval; the government has the ability to choose not to fulfill the contracts, and not to grant a renewable energy approval at any stage, or to rescind such approval once granted.

In a rare appearance on this issue, Environment Minister Jim Bradley also stands to not answer the question, replying with platitudes about how rigorous the approval process is, and how the public can appeal any project. Right.

Here is the clip from Queen’s Park today. Note the mention of Wind Concerns Ontario’s letter to Minister Chiarelli.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rDjrTGRVoQ&feature=youtu.be

Environmental Review Tribunal wraps up: evidence shows harm to human health ‘probable’

24 Monday Jun 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County
P.O. Box 173
Milford, Ontario K0K 2P0

APPEC Appeal Shows Probability of Harm to Human health

Milford, ON  June 24, 2013.   The Environmental Review Tribunal hearings on the Ostrander Point wind project concluded in Toronto on June 21.   The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) has presented evidence that indicates the probability of harm to human health from wind turbines.

Summations by counsel for APPEC, Gilead Power, and the Ministry of Environment (MOE) focused on three important issues:  the relevance of the Erickson appeal (2011), the medical evidence presented, and the standard of proof required.

APPEC lawyer Eric Gillespie argued that reliance on the Erickson decision avoids an onerous and unmanageable process of re-litigation on matters already addressed by 25 expert witnesses. The present ERT has to consider the principal findings in Erickson because they relate to a wind project, like Ostrander Point, approved to operate with 40 dBA noise limits and 550-m setbacks.

Mr. Gillespie urged the ERT panel to accept the testimony of 11 witnesses who reported adverse health effects from living near currently-operating wind projects.  All of them have suffered a range of symptoms known to result from exposure to audible noise and low-frequency sound. Expert opinion has related these to the proximity of wind turbines as far as 2 km away.

Gilead’s and the MOE’s own witnesses, said Mr. Gillespie, have testified that there are always “some people,” or a “non-trivial percentage of the population,” affected by wind turbines. APPEC’s case has shown the probability, not just biological plausibility, of serious harm to human health.  There is enough evidence on the “balance of probabilities” for the ERT to make a decision.

 

“People are obviously suffering despite the MOE’s regulations,” said APPEC President Gord Gibbins. “There will be more victims if Ostrander Point and other wind projects go ahead.”

The ERT panel also questioned the location of the wind project on Crown land.  The public will have access to the site via 5.4 km of maintenance road and would be exposed to the risks of ice throw, blade breakage, nacelle fire, and tower collapse. 

“These concerns are another sign,” said Gord Gibbins, “that public health and safety appear to be secondary to wind power development.”

The ERT’s decision is due by July 10.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Henri Garand, Chair, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, 613-476-4527, hgarand@xplornet.ca

Let’s catch up on our TV and radio!

12 Tuesday Mar 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

There have been some interesting TV news stories and radio interviews lately, let’s catch up, shall we?

MPP asks Premier to halt wind power project: CTV news, Kitchener. Note that MPP Pettapiece speaks of a referendum conducted in his riding, the results of which were that 96% of those surveyed said NO to the wind project. Note also the proximity of the turbines to a public school which has a special program for autistic children, who will be very affected by the noise and shadow flicker. The wind power developer doesn’t care. The province doesn’t care.

The story is here: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mpp-asks-premier-to-put-an-end-win-energy-project-1.1189439

The last two days, CFRA’s morning show has been running interviews on the negative effects of wind turbines and wind power projects. Monday was an interview with Ottawa Wind Concerns/Wind Concerns Ontario chair Jane Wilson and the Globe and Mail’s Roy MacGregor. The topic was the wind power projects proposed for the scenic Algoma Region of Ontario, which is visited by countless tourists from around the world annually, who come to see the unparalleled beauty, made famous by Group of Seven painters.

Tuesday, CFRA’s Steve Madeley interviewed biology prof and executive director of the Long Point Waterfowl Conservancy on the negative impacts of turbines on wildlife. Note that Dr Petrie says Ontario’s setbacks are inadequate, that some areas of Ontario have been the “worst possible” place to put turbines, and further that because wind power developers do the environmental assessments themselves, they “always come up with the right answer.”

This interview is important coming as it does in the midst of the Environmental Review tribunal for the project at ostrander Point, a “globally significant” area for migrating birds.

To catch the radio interviews, go to http://www.cfra.com/interviews/ and scroll down the list. They’re only about 10 minutes each.

STOP WIND SCAM signs are now on Prince of Wales, Roger Stevens, Third Line Road, and more…get one today! Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

Globe and Mail: wind power in Ontario is “green nightmare”

03 Sunday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

And here it is: wind power generation is not “green” … it won’t replace fossil fuel power generation it doesn’t save lives, and it doesn’t even really work very well. That, and it is actually harmful to the environment, as the power projects displace the natural environment, and harm birds and other wildlife.

Here in the weekend edition of The Globe and Mail, is Margaret Wente’s column on the McGuinty government’s legacy in Ontario. Let’s hope North Gower-Richmond-Ottawa isn’t a victim of the legacy too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/mcguintys-legacy-is-a-green-nightmare/article8131320/

This week marks the preliminary hearing in the appeal against the wind power project approved for Ostrander Point, on the south tip of Prince Edward County, which is recognized as a “globally significant” Important Bird Area by the Ontario government and Nature Canada, and where rare plants and endangered wildlife exist. (Hearing is in Picton at the Town Hall, Friday February 8th, starting at 11 a.m.)

Mark your datebook for Thursday night, CBC’s Doc Zone is carrying the made-in-Ontario doc film “Wind Rush.” Catch a preview here: http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/wind-rush.html?subpage=windmill

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@yahoo.ca

The wind power lobbyists get rich: David Frum

27 Sunday Jan 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Excellent summary of what wind power in Ontario is really all about from columnist David Frum. Using the example of the egregious project proposed –and now approved–for Prince Edward County and Ostrander Point, Mr Frum says wind power is harming the environment, not helping it.

Add to that the health impacts for residents nearby wind power generation facilities (they’re not “farms”) and you have a lose-lose situation.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/david-frum-expensive-power-ruined-landscapes/

Expensive power, ruined lands

David Frum

Must we despoil Ontario’s environment in order to save it?

On Feb. 8, the Environmental Review Tribunal will consider an application to build nine large wind turbines on one of the most scenic points in one of Ontario’s most scenic places.

Ostrander Point Road bisects the small peninsula leading to the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area. The peninsula is an open area of meadows and wood thickets, bounded to north and south by the Lake. It’s a true beauty spot, but it also happens to get a lot of wind. Which is why the Ministry of the Environment has approved a project to generate up to 22.5 megawatts of electricity from wind turbines 200-300 feet tall.

This project is the first of many planned for Prince Edward County. This uniquely beautiful region of Ontario — now enjoying an economic revival thanks to winemaking, artisan farming and tourism — is to be spiked with turbines to realize the McGuinty government’s green-energy ambitions.

Moving Ontario off coal is a laudable aspiration. But moving to power that flunks the market test is no boon to the environment. Money is a limited resource, too, and money that is wasted on projects that don’ t make sense is money unavailable for other purposes: hazardous waste clean up, water purification, land conservation.

Wind energy continues to flunk the market test. Ontario buys wind energy at a price 50% higher than it would have to pay for electricity from natural gas. (A new natural gas facility can make money selling electricity at 7-8 cents a kilowatt-hour. Ontario buys newly installed windpower at prices of about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour.)

Worse, unlike solar power, windpower is not likely to become more economic in the future. The main items in the cost of wind are the cost of acquiring the ground underneath the turbines, the cost of wiring turbines to the grid, and the cost of maintaining those wires — in other words, land and labor. Solar power can at least promise to slide down a cost curve. Wind can’t.

Yet Ontario already has installed 1,500 megawatts of wind capacity and is committing to more. Why? There are cheaper and less landscape-blotting ways to go green. But a series of bad decisions in the past have pushed Ontario into a cul-de-sac demanding more and more bad decisions in the years ahead.

The cheapest and cleanest of all energy sources is hydropower. That was true in the past, and it remains true now. Canada has abundant hydro potential — and in fact Manitoba and Quebec have abundant hydro for sale right now.

But if Hydro is cheap in the long run, it requires big investments in the here and now: big investments not only in dams and other facilities, but also big investments in the transmission wires to move the electricity to market.

Those investments must be financed by debt, and Ontario flinches from piling new debt atop its terrifying mountain of existing debt.

Here’s the real beauty of windpower from the McGuinty government’s point of view: The higher cost of wind electricity can be hidden from view, tucked into Hydro consumers’ bills, hidden by gimmicks that few people notice and fewer people understand.

In exchange for receiving a higher price for his power — a much higher price — the wind power producer shoulders the capital cost of financing new electricity capacity. The transaction has the same loan-shark logic as “rent to own” vs. borrowing to buy: You pay more over the life of the product in return for not tapping your dwindling credit.

The bad decision is pushed along by a heavy seasoning of ideology: wind good! dams bad!

And of course lobbying and interest-group politicking exert their own sway over Queen’s Park: A power source that costs 50% more than its next competitor can always find a few hundred thousand dollars to hire and reward friends and supporters.

Wind enriches lobbyists. It satisfies certain varieties of environmentalists. And it protects the McGuinty government from awkward financial realities. That’s a win-win-win all around, except for the over-charged power customers (who won’t know what’s happening until it’s too late) and the people who live upon the brutalized landscape of Prince Edward County (and how many of them — us! — are there anyway)?

—-

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@yahoo.ca

Donations welcome PO Box 3 North Gower On  K0A 2T0

We have new signs: STOP WIND SCAM! Contact us if you want one!