Tag Archives: Eric Gillespie

Ottawa area citizen groups to sue Ontario over wind turbine noise

28 Sunday Jan 2018

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

CBC.ca

Citizens sue province over proposed industrial wind turbine projects

Groups allege 5 wind power projects are allowed to defy safe noise limits

By Amanda Pfeffer, CBC News Posted: Jan 28, 2018 6:20 AM ETLast Updated: Jan 28, 2018 6:20 AM ET

Citizens living near five proposed wind turbine parks in Ontario have launched a lawsuit alleging the provincial government is allowing the companies behind the projects to defy safe noise limits.

The province approved the wind park projects in 2016. They are scattered around rural Ontario, and two are within an hour’s drive from Ottawa.

The projects are now going through a “technical review” as part of the final approval process by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

In 2016, the Ontario government also introduced new and more accurate standards for how companies model the noise impact of turbines before they’re built.

Map of wind turbine impact, Eastern Fields Wind Power Project

Map depicting range of impacts of wind turbines for Eastern Fields project near St Bernardin and St Isidore, east of Ottawa [Photo: Radio-Canada]

Suit alleges standards out of date

The lawsuit, however, alleges the proponents behind the five projects have been using old modelling standards.

“It appears that the majority of proposed turbine sites are out of compliance with the [new] requirements,” states the suit, which has been filed with the Ontario Divisional Court.

If the projects were forced to adhere to the new standards, three quarters of the more than 200 proposed turbines in the province would be breaking the rules, according to Eric Gillespie, the Toronto lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of concerned citizens.

If the companies used the new guidelines for modelling, Gillespie said, those rule-breaking turbines “will have to be relocated or removed.”

Citizens concerned about impact on health

The suit doesn’t ask for monetary damages, said Gillespie, but is about ensuring “that anyone living near an industrial wind turbine project is safe.”

“There’s well-documented research that you don’t want to go above the legislated level,” said Gillespie, adding that the noise associated with the loud, rhythmic drumbeat of the turbines can affect sleep, heart health, and general well-being.

“Unfortunately, it appears almost all these projects and most of the turbines in them are going to [break the guidelines] if they’re allowed to proceed.”

The lawsuit includes affidavits from experts on noise pollution, as well as from residents affected by the projects.

Gary Wheeler, a spokesperson with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, wrote in an email that the ministry is working with the companies behind the wind turbine projects to make sure they meet “our stringent noise standards.”

“We will be determining the appropriate next steps,” said Wheeler, who declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Margaret Benke

Margaret Benke, right, lives near the proposed Nation Rise Wind Farm located in the Township of North Stormont. She met Saturday with other residents to discuss the lawsuit. [Photo: Radio-Canada]

Residents plan strategy

The five proposed projects include two in eastern Ontario:

  • Eastern Fields Wind Power Project, in the Municipality of The Nation.
  • Nation Rise Wind Farm, in the Township of North Stormont,

Some of the residents living close to those projects met Saturday to discuss the suit and their next steps.

“We’re asking the government to consider the sentence they’re imposing on the people of rural Ontario,” said Margaret Benke, who lives near the proposed Nation Rise Wind Farm, about 60 kilometres southwest of Ottawa.

Benke said she’s concerned that almost three quarters of the turbines proposed in her community would break the current noise standard.

“I can move out,” she said, “but there are many people without that option. Even if their health is affected.”

The three other projects are all in southern Ontario:

  • Otter Creek Wind Farm, north of Wallaceburg, Ont., in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.
  • Romney Wind Energy Centre, in Lakeshore, Ont.
  • Strong Breeze Wind Power Project in the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich.

###

Wind Concerns Ontario obtained records of noise complaints and government response in two batches, 2006-2014 and 2015-2016, under Freedom of Information legislation. There are thousands of unresolved citizen complaints about wind turbine noise and vibration; yet, the government is in the process of approving more industrial wind power projects. Read the WCO report here. NoiseResponseReport-FINAL-May9

NOTE: these power projects are NOT “parks.”

Advertisement

Who pays for turbine take down? Not clear says lawyer

14 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Who pays for wind turbine teardown? Not clear, says lawyer

"No pocket to go to in 20 years": wind turbine teardown can cost thousands
What goes up must come down

“No pocket you can go to in 20 years”: Environmental lawyer says taxpayers and landowners could be responsible for costs

Farmersforum.com , January 2016

By Brandy Harrison

Toronto- With more wind turbines coming to Eastern Ontario, there has been a lot of talk about what happens when it comes time to take down the towers. While the provincial government may put the onus on wind project developers to pay for teardown, it’s far from certain they’ll be able to collect if a company goes bankrupt — which could mean taxpayers are on the hook, says a Toronto-based environment and municipal lawyer.

“Many of these companies are relatively small, or based outside of Canada, and that creates what appears to be a real risk as there will be no pocket you can go to 20 years from now when a cleanup is actually required,” says Eric Gillespie, who has represented landowners and municipalities with wind turbine concerns.

It’s anybody’s guess who would end up paying for decommissioning — the landowner, the municipality, or provincial taxpayers, he says.

Farmers shouldn’t underestimate what it takes to remove a single turbine, Gillespie warns. The nacelle — the central hub containing the generator — is 80 to 100 metres in the air and weighs as much as 70 tonnes. “It’s not something where you just call your neighbor and ask him to bring his tractor over.”

While Ontario costs are yet unknown, world-wide decommissioning has ranged from $30,000 to $80,000 per turbine.

But the worst case scenario can be avoided if funds are set aside as part of the approval process, suggests Gillespie.

Decommissioning plans are required to get renewable energy approval but they don’t have financial strings attached.

There is already a good model in place, says Gillespie. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the government will ask for financial assurance if there is a risk of adverse effects that could require remedial work. A letter of credit or security is required up front.

“Anything other than that might keep lawyers busy for a long time but won’t help communities. It’s about addressing the issue now rather than waiting for the end and crossing your fingers. It should be the companies that are earning the profits that have to pay the bill.”

Ontario ignored recommendation not to build wind farm: government scientist

07 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Did the McGuinty government ignore real science in favour of political ideology?

Did the McGuinty government ignore real science in favour of political ideology?

Report from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists on stunning testimony at the Environmental Review Tribunal, September 4.

What began as a usual day in the extended Environmental Review Tribunal appeal of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change plan to allow development at Ostrander Point in the PEC South Shore Important Bird Area finished with an unexpected ruling.

The witness was Joe Crowley from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, who was qualified as a species at risk herpetologist with expertise in Blanding’s Turtles.  Mr. Crowley has a long history of interest in and working in the field of herpetology in Ontario and helped to develop the Ontario Herpetology Atlas, a citizen science project, while working with Ontario Nature before he started his tenure with MNRF.  At MNRF his responsibilities included being the species at risk expert on herpetology, giving advice to staff and partners and conservation groups on the development of species at risk protection plans.  He was instrumental in developing the provincial task team forestry policy regarding amphibians and reptiles. He is a member of the reptile and amphibian sub- committee of COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), reviewing reports for that committee of technical and scientific information which informs decisions regarding listing species at risk.  He is the Vice President of the Canadian Herpetology Society responsible for web site development and communication.

Mr. Crowley’s witness statement was concerned with the attempts to mitigate harm to the indigenous turtle population at Ostrander Point through the installation of gates on the turbine access roads and a program of monitoring, signage and staff training.  Mr. Crowley answered many questions about the effectiveness of the various mitigation measures proposed to protect the turtles.  Gates are proposed on about 6 road intersections on the site including the intersection of Helmer Rd and Petticoat Point Lane.  Mr. Crowley indicated that he felt that those gates would reduce the risk of turtle mortality to public vehicular traffic; however the presence of roads would increase the probability of turtles nesting in a place that would make them more vulnerable to predation and the roads were unlikely to deter poachers.

The unexpected part of the day came when Mr. Crowley was asked about his role in the granting of the Endangered Species Act permit granted allowing the proponent to “kill harm and harass” the Whip—poor-will and the Blanding’s Turtle at Ostrander point.  Mr. Crowley stated that his advice at the time was not to allow the permit because the project roads would prove a risk to the site’s indigenous Blanding’s Turtles.

This new information caused an abrupt halt in the proceedings.  The legal argument was made by PECFN counsel, Eric Gillespie that it appeared that a senior manager at MNRF had advised against approval of the Ostrander project at the very onset. Mr. Gillespie requested documentation of that advice. Mr. Crowley was unable to produce any documentation and asserted that the final decision on the project was not his. Ultimately after much legal discussion the Tribunal issued a ruling:

That the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry witnesses produce forthwith all papers and electronic correspondence to date relating to roads and/or Blanding’s Turtle and this renewable energy approved project and site.

The Tribunal resumes on September 23, 24 and 25.

– See more at: http://www.saveostranderpoint.org/september-4-2015-day-3-at-the-ert-hearing/#sthash.lokjWGkK.dpuf

Ontario wind farm halted by endangered turtles

21 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

 

Globe and Mail, April 21, 2015

A turtle that insists on crossing a road has put a stop to a massive wind-energy development in Eastern Ontario.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that a 324-hectare, nine-turbine wind farm proposed for the south shore of Prince Edward County puts a population of endangered Blanding’s turtles at risk of dying out in that region’s wetland. The risk is posed not by the wind farm itself but by 5.4 kilometres of roads to and from the site. Experts said the turtles, which range widely as part of their natural life cycle, would inevitably try to cross those roads, exposing them to vehicles, predators and human poachers.

The ruling restores an environmental tribunal’s 2013 decision that the wind farm, while not posing a serious risk to human health, would cause “serious and irreversible” harm to the Blanding’s turtle. That ruling had been rejected by Ontario Divisional Court partly because the tribunal did not know how many turtles live in the provincially significant wetland.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal said the number of turtles at risk does not matter. “The number of Blanding’s turtles, no matter what that number is, satisfies the criteria” for being deemed threatened and endangered, the court said in a 3-0 ruling written by Justice Russell Juriansz. It cited testimony from Frédéric Beaudry, a wildlife ecologist at Alfred University in New York State, that the number is “likely small.”

The Court of Appeal ruling means the case now goes back to the environmental tribunal to decide what should happen with the project, including whether an alternative plan can be permitted that takes the turtles into account. The company involved, Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP, had proposed at an earlier stage to close the road to public access.

The ruling is a setback for Ontario’s multibillion-dollar wind energy business. “It will mean that, in future, wind companies are going to have to pay attention to some of these environmental effects,” said Stephen Hazell, director of conservation and a lawyer with Nature Canada, which supported the suit launched by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, a local conservancy group.

Mr. Hazell added that other groups with concerns about the impact of wind projects in their own jurisdictions now have “a legal test that in some cases they may be able to meet.”

During the initial hearing, conservationists argued that the wind project would have adverse effects on a number of species, including migratory birds, but the final decision came down to the Blanding’s turtle alone because of its extreme sensitivity to human activity, particularly roads.

With a bright yellow throat, a gentle disposition and an expression that resembles a perpetual smile, the species makes a tempting target for poaching, even by well-meaning individuals looking for an unusual pet. But Blanding’s turtles usually die once they are captured or released in a different location.

Ponderously slow to grow and mature, females of the species generally do not reproduce until they reach 18 years of age. Even then, they may only lay eggs every other year. The turtle’s long life span offsets its slow replacement rate – adults may live 90 years or more – but only in places when individuals have a good chance of avoiding lethal encounters along the way.

“Losing a couple of females can, in the long run, do a population in,” said Dr. Beaudry, a world expert on the species.

He added that he had no doubt the turtles would be crossing the roads if the wind project went ahead, as they typically travel for kilometres from the places where they hatch in search of food or mates.

Blanding’s turtles are considered globally endangered. Small populations are found in scattered pockets from the American Midwest to Nova Scotia.

OWC editor’s note: counsel for the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists was Eric Gillespie, environmental lawyer based in Toronto. Ottawa Wind Concerns has Mr Gillespie’s firm on retainer.

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

Tribunal issues precedent-setting stay vs turbine construction

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Precedent setting decision stops wind turbine construction

TORONTO, Dec. 12, 2013 /CNW/ – The Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a stay preventing the construction of two industrial wind turbines in Wainfleet, Ontario.

The motion, decided by Executive Chair Lynda Tanaka who oversees the ERT, OMB and three other tribunals, temporarily stops the construction of two turbine towers during the appeal of the Ministry of the Environment’s approval of the project. The Appellants, Skydive Burnaby Inc. and the company’s co-owner Mikel Pitt, argue the turbines are too close to their skydiving school.

“We’re so relieved,” said Pitt, “This project is a real threat to our business and the Tribunal appears to have recognized that at this early stage.”

The Appellants’ lawyer, Eric Gillespie, has argued a number of Industrial Wind Turbine appeals in Ontario.  Gillespie said, “this is a precedent setting decision, it’s the first time a stay has been ordered during a Renewable Energy Approval appeal. We’re very pleased for our clients.”

Gillespie’s associate, lawyer Ian Flett remarked, “the Tribunal gave all the parties a fair opportunity to make our cases, we’re happy with the result”.

The hearing of the main appeal is scheduled to begin January 6, 2014 in Wainfleet, Ontario.

SOURCE Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation

For further information:Ian Flett at 416-703-7034 or iflett@gillespielaw.ca

Prowind aims to get investor cash from community

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

(Let us just say first, Not our community. Though we’d like to see them try.)

In this news item, Prowind Canada is reported to be trying to get cash from community members for its Gunn’s Hill project in south-western Ontario (not far from Woodstock).

from reNews, December 10, 2013

Developer ProWind Canada has helped establish the Oxford Community Energy Co-operative to partner in the 25MW Gunn’s Hill project in Ontario.

The proponent will give the coop up to a 49% equity share in the feed-in tariff proposal to help spread the local benefits, Prowind VP Juan Anderson told reNews. Community ownership adds up to 1 cent/kWh to the base FiT rate of 13.5 cents/kWh.

The group hopes to raise up to C$10m, said co-op secretary Christine Koenig. About 30 members have paid C$100 each to join so far. The co-op aims to offer a share purchase program in February 2014.

Ontario regulators meanwhile are assessing a renewable energy approval application for the 10-turbine, distribution-connected scheme.

“We expect it to be deemed complete this month,” said Anderson. A public comment period and six-month review will follow.

The proponent, a subsidiary of Germany-based Prowind GmbH, is finalizing a turbine supply agreement. The developer is also in discussions with contractors and expects to select a builder in early 2014, said Anderson.

The Oxford County project must meet a 50% Ontario content rule. Towers, blades and pad-mount transformers will be sourced in the province*, said Anderson.

Construction is expected to get underway in mid to late 2014 followed by commercial operation in 2015.

It is worth recalling that a few weeks ago, another local community group, the East Oxford Community Alliance, announced that it has hired lawyer Eric Gillespie and intends to sue Prowind and the landowners leasing land for turbines for $28 million, if the Gunn’s Hill project gets approval.

The community investment fund strategy is one being employed by some wind power developers to help them get approval from the government, as community “engagement” and “support” are now important in the approval process.

As regards now VP Anderson’s statement that all materiels for Gunn’s Hill will be from Ontario, their supplier of choice is a company called Broadwind Energy, headquartered in Illinois. Prowind’s HQ is in Germany. Once again, profits (i.e., subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers) are NOT staying in Ontario but going out of this country. A search of Broadwind’s website reveals no information on any Ontario facilities.

 

 

Prowind being sued by Woodstock area residents for $28 million

26 Tuesday Nov 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Residents of Norwich Township near Woodstock Ontario have decided that legal action is the best way to protect their community from property value loss and potential health problems related to the environmental noise and vibration produced by large-scale wind turbines.

In a news release dated today, the community members say they are filing a “draft” of the intended legal action, demanding $28 million; the legal action is directed at Prowind Canada, Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, and the property owners leasing land for the wind power project.

Prowind Canada developed a power project just south of Ottawa at Brinston, which it sold to EDP Renewables, and is the developer responsible for the Marlborough wind power project near North Gower and Richmond in the City of Ottawa.

Toronto-based environmental lawyer Eric Gillespie is acting for the Norwich area residents; he can be reached at 416-436-7473.

Gillespie is also the lawyer for Ottawa Wind Concerns, which objects to the Marlborough project, within 3 km of more than 1,000 area homes. The Marlborough project, if it proceeds, could reduce property values for nearby homes by $134 million.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

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

Eric Gillespie radio interview today

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Lawyer Eric Gillespie will appear on the Goldhawk Fights Back radio show today, Thursday, April 25th, 12:30 to 1. He will be discussing the impact of the Wiggins decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

I believe this appearance is a call-in.

Go to: http://www.zoomerradio.ca/ and click on the LISTEN LIVE button.