Tag Archives: health effects wind turbine noise

What’s in that wind farm lease? You could lose rights to your land for longer than you will be alive

01 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

This is an advance copy of an article prepared by Garth Manning of Prince Edward County, and chair of the County Coalition for Safe Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE). The article will be appearing in the December edition of Farmer’s Forum, with a circulation of 40,000 in the agricultural community of Ontario.
For more information on Farmers Forum, go to www.farmersforum.com

WHAT’S IN THAT WIND TURBINE CONTRACT?

you could be giving up the right to your land for longer than you are alive.

 Wind companies operating in Ontario are frequently owned outside Canada, and are not interested in “saving the planet for our grandchildren” or “curing climate change” as those weary clichés would have you believe. Rather, they’re only after the biggest possible profits guaranteed over a period of from 21 to 40 years by our provincial government using the proceeds of Ontario residents’ constantly increasing hydro bills and taxes.
So what do you do when the wind company wants you to sign a contract? The land owner must first decide for him/herself whether there’s any truth in the now widely accepted beliefs that industrial machines, taller than the Ottawa Peace Tower and as tall as the London Eye, can cause health problems, reduce property values, adversely affect local economies, provide few jobs, kill birds and bats in unacceptable numbers, devastate rural Ontario and disrupt communities.  If you can get past that, you have to accept that wind power is not even required at all in an economy with an excess of electricity, some of which is virtually given away to neighbouring provinces and states on a regular basis.
The “gifts” the wind company salesmen bear while dangling the sugar plum of additional (taxable) income, include more than 30 pages of legal documents, which they urge you to sign.  In a word…DON’T. They are prepared by large, expensive, law firms to protect wind companies, not you. Have them reviewed by your own lawyer and insist that the wind company reimburse you for the legal fee.  Then make your own informed decisions.
There is no such thing as a standard form of contract used by wind companies – they’re all different in detail but usually consist of an option agreement and a stringent form of lease (which you will have to sign without change if the wind company decides to go ahead).
To protect yourself, your lawyer and you should consider and discuss a long list of valid concerns. Here are some examples.
You could be virtually handing over control of your property and the way you normally use it for a period of time extending beyond your own life expectancy. The wind company can get out of the contract but you can’t. Turbine(s) can be sited where they, not you, want it or them.  Ditto for the access roads to the turbine(s). You should discuss how your mortgage and insurance coverages might be affected. The period of construction will entail the presence of heavy machinery and considerable upheaval to your normal daily life. This could be repeated after about 21 years if the wind company decides to build bigger turbines to replace the old ones. You may find it difficult to sell, or raise money on, your property. There’s no guarantee that the wind company will follow up on its promise to make good all damage caused by construction, for which you should require a major cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit or bond.  Ditto for its promise to remove the turbine(s) and make good your land.
There’s more…the wind company can escape its obligations by assigning the contract to anyone,   including an anonymous numbered company, without assets, which could avoid removing the turbines(s) and making good the land. Without the proper financial protection, you might find yourself responsible 20 or 40 years from now for demolishing the turbine(s) at immense personal cost.
You might also be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement restricting your right to communicate publicly what you have learned from your dealings with the wind company. You could be required to give legal permission for the turbine(s) to cause flicker, noise, turbulence and general unpleasantness, thus giving up any right to sue should you or your family suffer any health or financial problems from the turbine(s). You could be sued by neighbours for knowingly contributing to diminished value or unsaleability of their property because of the presence of the turbine(s) on your land. You may be left with massive concrete foundations and other sub-surface installations on your lands.
You owe it to yourself, your family and your community to consider and act on these concerns before you sign a contract.
Garth Manning
Mr Manning is a retired lawyer living in Prince Edward County.
This article is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.

Ontario’s Not a Willing Host communities meet today

20 Tuesday Aug 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Coalition of ‘Unwilling Host’ Municipalities

Press Advisory August 20, 2013, Ottawa

Representatives of the 62 municipalities that have declared themselves ‘unwilling hosts’ to wind turbines are coming together during the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) meeting currently underway in Ottawa to discuss ways to bring their concerns more forcefully to the government.

According to Kevin Marriott, Mayor of Enniskillen, ‘the government has not addressed the concerns of these communities’.  In the Throne Speech and other statements by the Premier, they talked about wanting to locate projects in willing host communities, but there has been no substance to these announcements in terms of municipal input will be incorporated in the process.  Meanwhile, the government continues to approve wind turbine projects without consideration of municipal concerns according to Marriott.

Some municipal officials represented at AMO have already experienced the impact of wind turbines on their communities.  Complaints start once when they become operational with people being forced from their homes by noise and low frequency noise vibrations.  These municipalities are looking for the MOE to actually start enforcing the noise standards that they have set and to follow up on the health complaints being filed with Medical Officers of Health.

Mayor April Jeffs of Wainfleet wants the government to start applying learning from these early projects and apply increased set-backs from people’s homes to new projects before they are approved.  Wainfleet adopted a 2 kilometer set-back by-law that was challenged in court by the wind developer.

Municipalities are looking for the government to return real local planning authority for wind turbines to local municipalities.  These powers were taken away by the Green Energy Act. Municipalities are better placed that a Queen’s Park civil servants to identify local issues that need to be addressed in reviewing wind turbine projects.  They also have processes in place to review and approve other complex or controversial projects building projects that take place in their municipalities.

The municipal representatives at AMO will be meeting Tuesday August 20 at 4:30 pm. in the Governor-General 1 on the 4th floor of the Westin Hotel in Ottawa.

For further details contact, Kevin Marriott at 519-383-9170 or April Jeffs at 905-658-7890.

Prowind: we want you to be “comfortable”

19 Friday Jul 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

In the article on the proposed wind power project for North Gower-Richmond appearing in today’s Ottawa Citizen (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Wind+power+projects+harmful+cancelled+plants+critic+contends/8678755/story.html), wind power developer Prowind (based in Germany) representative Rochelle Rumney says the project is “on hold” until the new application process is announced by the Government of Ontario.

Taking a cue from the province, which is making lots of noise about “community engagement” while still NOT returning local land-use planning powers removed by the Green Energy Act, Rumney told the Citizen writer that Prowind wants to work with the community to “try to have everybody be comfortable with the project.”

Comfortable.

Really.

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that Prowind has concealed the true locations of the turbines and to this date, does not depict the turbines just north-west of a housing subdivision on its website?

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that by conservative estimates (and this has been accepted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) property values could decline by 22-50% ?

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that, again by conservative estimates, if only 10% of the residents within 3 km of the turbines were to experience sleep disturbance and other health problems, that would mean over 100 people could be affected?

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that a few people who live here can do this to the rest of their community?

This community has options, none of them comfortable, but they will be pursued.

Just a reminder of who we’re dealing with, here again is the photo of Prowind’s stunning Head Office in Hamilton, Ontario.

Prowind HQ-Hamilton

Donations welcome to cover costs including legal fees: PO Box 3, North Gower ON   K0A 2T0

Ottawa Wind Concerns Inc. is a corporate member of Wind Concerns Ontario.

Wind power project siting process needs to be replaced, says Ottawa Wind Concerns

18 Thursday Jul 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Posted by the Ottawa Citizen:

Wind-power projects as harmful as cancelled gas plants, critic contends

By Elizabeth Payne, OTTAWA CITIZEN July 18, 2013 6:04 PM
 OTTAWA —The same process that led to Ontario’s “gas plant fiasco” is being used for wind-generation projects with disastrous results, says the head of a group concerned about a proposed wind farm in rural southern Ottawa.

“The gas plants got all the attention, but the wind-power projects are more widespread — and causing real problems for communities in terms of health problems, social disruption, lost property value and harm to the natural environment,” wrote Jane Wilson in a submission to the Ontario Power Generation and the Independent Energy System Operator as part of a “dialogue” about the way the province locates large power projects.

The consultation process stemmed from the political controversy around the location, and cancellation, of planned gas plants in southern Ontario. The Liberal government’s handling of the costly gas plant issue is the subject of an inquiry and a criminal investigation.

Ottawa Wind Concerns, which Wilson heads (in addition to Wind Concerns Ontario) wants a new system for planning and siting all large energy projects, including wind, that gives local communities more control. The Liberal government’s Green Energy Act gave the province control over location of wind energy projects. In May, the provincial government announced changes that will make developers work more closely with municipalities.

Ottawa Wind Concerns says, however, that the province needs to go further and give municipalities full control over projects as well as treating them the same way an industrial project would be treated. So far 60 municipalities across the province have declared themselves not willing hosts to wind power projects.

“Local land use planning needs to be returned to communities as a start and power projects should be treated as any other sort of infrastructure, with residents having full input to decisions that will affect their community, their financial futures and their health.”

Although many people living near wind turbines complain about health effects, research into the issue is limited. Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, in a 2010 report, concluded that “the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.” It also concluded that sound from wind turbines with common setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing problems, although people might find it annoying. It also said there is no scientific evidence that vibrations from low-frequency wind turbine noise causes health issues. The report also said that “community engagement at the outset of planning for wind turbines is important and may alleviate health concerns.”

Health Canada has launched a major study into the effect of wind turbines on health. Meanwhile, federal cabinet minister Pierre Poilievre and Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod, both of whom represent the riding where the project is planned, are calling for a moratorium on the North Gower project until the Health Canada study is completed.

A spokesman for the company that is proposing to build the project, Prowind Canada Inc., said it is temporarily on hold until the province determines what the new process for awarding wind power contracts will look like.

Rochelle Rumney, environmental co-ordinator with the company, said — environmental coordinator said Prowind would “like to work with the community and try to have everybody be comfortable with the project.”

Meanwhile, during an ongoing July heat wave that has strained the power grid, wind power contributed less than one per cent to Ontario’s power needs this week, something that Wilson says underlines the need for a cost-benefit analysis of wind-power projects.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
OWC notes: despite community opposition, and opposition from elected representatives, despite clear evidence this project will cost taxpayers/ratepayers $4.8 million a year for power we don’t need, it looks like Prowind is still prepared to proceed with the North Gower-Richmond project…or sell it to someone who is. That means, we need even more help and especially funds for legal counsel. Donations welcome at PO Box 3, North Gower ON   K0A 2T0 Email us at 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

Time for the Chief Medical Officer of Health to step up

18 Tuesday Jun 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

Wind Concerns Ontario announced today that it has formally requested the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr Arlene King, to follow up on the numerous complaints of excessive noise and ill health, coming from people who are living near or among large-scale wind turbines in Ontario.

Dr King produced a report, which was a simple literature review, in 2010 which found no “direct” link between turbine noise and health problems. That report was widely criticized as being inadequate and based on industry-selected literature, but it has served the wind power development lobby very well, serving as a rubber stamp on health from the Ontario government.

A lot of water has passed under a lot of bridges since: the 2011 Environmental Review Tribunal decision noted that the government ought to keep pace with research on the health impacts, and review and revise regulations as needed—it hasn’t done that.

Dr King herself recommended more research, specifically on the noise. It hasn’t done that either and in fact while acknowledging that infrasound (vibration, sound pressure) could be a problem, it won’t even have guidelines for infrasound until 2015.

By that time, with the government continuing to approve two or three wind power projects a month, everything that is planned or proposed will be built.

Wind Concerns says the government has a duty to investigate the complaints coming from residents under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. With the current Environmental Tribunal concluding this week, after hearing from expert witnesses and actual wind turbine noise victims, it would be appropriate for the government to act.

It is especially important for the people of North Gower and Richmond, where a wind power project would expose hundreds of people–including the property owners leasing land for turbines themselves– to environmental noise and vibration, for the regulations to be revised based on the on-the-ground experiences.

See the news story and actual letter here: http://www.freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/06/wco-demands-investigation-of-noise.html

Toronto Star’s Walkom: matters just keep getting worse

06 Thursday Jun 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

In yesterday’s Toronto Star, veteran commentator Thomas Walkom passed judgment on the Wynne government’s recent fixes to the Green Energy and Green Economy Act: “Its efforts may be too little. They are definitely late.”

Walkom noted that distasteful projects get the heave-ho in Toronto, but the huge wind power projects are located in rural Ontario and the government has been “unbending” and refused to “accept persistent claims from local residents that wind farms put their health at risk….in virtually all cases, the Liberals sided with the big, private generating companies seeking to establish these profitable wind farms.”

The announcement of changes last week by Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, Walkom said, is no big change at all: “in a CBC radio interview following his announcement, Chiarelli made it clear:Queen’s Park still reserves the right to authorize more large-scale, private wind farms, even if local residents and councils are opposed.

“Ironically,” he adds, “the government continues to defend its green energy policy at a time when, in one important regard, it is no longer relevant…” and he goes on to say that coal is shut down and the WTO decision on Ontario’s 60-% content rule will affect the government’s plans for a manufacturing boost in Ontario.

“[F]for a government trying to present itself and its wind turbine allies as sensitive to the needs of ordinary people, matters just keep getting worse.”

See the whole article here: http://www.freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/06/wind-turbine-reforms-fail-to-quell.html

 

The Ostrander Point power project appeal: winnable!

28 Sunday Apr 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

As you know, two community groups have appeal the Ministry of the Environment’s approval of a wind power project on the South Shore of Prince Edward County at Ostrander Point. The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) have both filed appeals, PECFN’s on the basis that the project will cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and APPEC on the basis of harm to human health. Wind Concerns Ontario was granted status as a participant and presented evidence on the potential harm to bats, and the resulting economic effects if this expensive and unnecessary power development were to be built. County Coalition for Safe Affordable Green Energy (CCSAGE)  is also assisting with fund-raising and other activities.

The Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) is continuing in the County and a great deal of evidence on the environment has already been presented.

Last week, the community groups hosted a fund-raiser Town Hall, which featured excellent speakers. Local humourist Steve Campbell was the MC for the event, a packed hall at the venerable Regent Theatre in Picton, said he regularly reads of strife for city dwellers in the form of crime, and gang wars, etc. “Here in the County,” he said, “we only have two enemies: the provincial government, and the federal government.”

For more details on the event, please read the story here (and note the new mascot Angry Bird!):  http://www.freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/04/ccsages-town-hall-event-on-wind-turbine.html

One of the most stunning pieces of information presented that evening was from business owner Carlyn Moulton who noted that the arts and services sectors bring in $400 million in revenue annually to the County while the proposed wind power development will bring–get this–$1-2 million in tax revenue. “Huh?” she said. “How does that make any sense?” Tourism to the County will be drastically affected by the Ostrander Point project, and another proposed wind power project the “White Pines.” A study done recently in the U.K., Moulton said, showed that 75% of the visitors to an area where wind turbines had been installed said they would “never come back.”

Among the handouts that evening (we were there) was a flyer on why the Ostrander Point ERT is “winnable.” The environmental testimony has been damning—botanist Paul Catling said the damage to the rare alvar environment will be irreversible and he scoffed at developer Gilead Power’s claim to be able to re-create the environment elsewhere—but this ERT is the first opportunity for a Tribunal to hear actual testimony from people already living with wind turbines and the environmental noise and infrasound they produce.

“APPEC’s appeal is the first in which Ontario wind victims will present evidence demonstrating that wind turbines cause serious harm.This proof meets the test required in order to WIN  and ERT appeal,” APPEC wrote in the flyer. “By invalidating 550-m setbacks the appeal will set a precedent that applies to every proposed industrial wind project. The Ministry of the Environment would have to determine a new standard to protect the health of Ontarians, and it could not continue to rubber-stamp projects in Ontario.”

Worth supporting, wouldn’t you say?

Go to www.appec.ca to donate or send a cheque to

APPEC Legal Fund

PO Box 173

Milford ON   K0K 2P0

If the government actually approves this wind power project in a “globally significant” important bird area, and where the destruction of a rare environment is assured, there is no hope of using the government’s process for any project.

FIGHT IT.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

p-o-bird-gb-pt-pec(A grey-blue gnat-catcher, photographed by a Prince Edward County resident)

Court decision: you can sue a wind power developer!

23 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

A decision came down from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice last evening, which at first seems like a defeat for communities and people who suddenly find themselves predated upon by huge, subsidy-seeking wind power developers. The decision read that the plaintiffs in a legal action based on lost property values would not be able to proceed with their action.

Right now.

But if the project is approved by the Ontario government, that would be another story.

Also in the decision were remarks that the Court accepted evidence on property value loss–in the area of 22-50%– and also evidence from Dr Robert McMurtry on the potential for health effects.

This is a very significant event and marks a sea change for people and communities wishing to have some say in what goes on around them. As you know, local land use planning powers were removed for renewable energy projects by the Green Energy Act. What’s worse, as municipalities seek ways to get some form of control back, wind power developers are responding with punitive lawsuits (Thunder Bay, Wainfleet, Bluewater).

The news release on the court decision is here. As soon as we find a link to the full decision, we’ll get that for you too.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1151369/ontario-court-allows-lawsuits-against-wind-company-and-landowners-just-a-matter-of-time

Donations welcome to cover legal fees (yes, we have one on retainer and yes, we’re thinking ahead) and other expenses: PO Box 3, North Gower On  K0A 2T0

 

Prowind’s North American corporate headquarters

18 Thursday Apr 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

We have a treat for you today, a photo of Prowind’s Head Office in Hamilton. You may recall the original office was inside a building in Kemptville Ontario, where there was also a make-your-own-wine-and beer business. Well, now that Prowind (really headquartered in Germany) is consorting with the likes of EDP, GE and Boralex, they have come up in the world, and need to be closer to their huge projects in the Woodstock area.

The Hamilton office suite is also more convenient for President Jeffrey Segal. Mr Segal, by the way, once claimed that he lives near a turbine; on further questioning, it was revealed that he meant he lives in Toronto and has seen the Exhibition Place demonstration (joke) turbine. But he is experiencing no health effects or property value loss, and so far, all the non-participating receptors (they used to be called ‘neighbours’) are OK, too.

But we digress.

Here for your viewing pleasure, is a photo of the Prowind office location. Bear in mind that this is a company that is supposed to be preparing high-level engineering reports to attest to compliance with noise regulations and safety requirements, that will be assuring no impact on human health or the natural environment, and that assures municipalities there will be economic benefits.

They do it all from here:

Prowind HQ-Hamilton

Yup.

No sign of the dumpster into which all the letters from concerned citizens must go, but it’s probably there somewhere.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and Follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind