Tag Archives: IESO

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 

Energy Minister Stephen Lecce speaks out on renewable power sources wind and solar; emphasizes cost, reliability

29 Thursday Jan 2026

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

“You can’t power a full-time economy on part-time power,” says Stephen Lecce in searing response to anti-nuclear, so-called “environmental” groups. “Reliability and system costs matter.”

IESO DATA FROM JANUARY 24, 2026: WIND NOT THERE WHEN NEEDED

January 25, 2026

With this weekend marking the coldest winter weather in years, and wind power not showing up in its characteristic avoidance of high-demand periods (summer and winter), it was a tough time for the pro-wind power crowd.

All the usual, “clean” “green” and especially “cheap” arguments for intermittent, unreliable, low-density power seemed not to matter as Ontario power demand went over 20,000 megawatts but wind power could contribute only 3 percent yesterday.

On Wind Concerns Ontario’s Facebook page, things were obviously so bad that some commenters accused WCO of making up the numbers—ahem, the stats came from the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO. So if things looked bad, they really were that bad. No emphasis needed.

But still, the pro-wind, anti-nuclear faction continued, and Friday and Yesterday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce had had enough with the winter fairy tales. Posting on both X and Facebook, he laid bare the nonsense that wind power is the lowest cost option. Today, he hit on the reliability of wind power (it doesn’t have any), and aimed in particular at the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) which is rabidly anti-nuclear.

Last week, the OCAA pitched its no nuclear, no natural gas power to Port Hope municipal council, and urged council to reject the Ontario government plans for new nuclear at Wesleyville. (OCAA leader Jack Gibbons also once again pitched his idea of covering the Great Lakes with wind turbines.)

That was too much for Stephen Lecce.

On Friday he posted this:

“Every critic claims renewables are “cheaper.” The facts say otherwise:

* Renewables last ~20 years; nuclear delivers ~80 years of clean power (including refurbishment)

* Renewables are intermittent (~30% capacity); nuclear provides 24/7 baseload reliability

* ~60% of solar and ~80% of wind tech is made in China; ~90–95% of nuclear supply is Canadian

Take Pickering B: 2,200 MW of always-on, clean power.

The IESO – Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator found that to match its reliability and output, Ontario would need 10× more wind, solar, and batteries — plus ~2,400 km² of land, nearly 4× the size of Toronto.

For SMRs, the story is the same.

To match 1,200 MW from SMRs, IESO estimates Ontario would need 4–8× more renewables — and up to 1,300 km² of land, 260× more than the SMR footprint at Darlington.

As Bruce Power advances ‘Bruce C’, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce report confirmed it will ADD $238 billion to the national economy and create 10K permanent jobs.

How many jobs will be created with the always romanticized alternative resource? Jobs in China, perhaps, but few here at home.

And the economics? The Ontario Energy Board consistently finds nuclear among the lowest-cost options per MWh.

We have to face the reality that Ontario needs at least 65% more power to grow our economy. The question is, what is the most reliable and affordable long-term resource to keep our economy strong?

Those who stand against this Canadian industrial success story are blinded by ideology. This can be one of Canada’s most consequential investments in our economic and industrial sovereignty, leveraging a mature nuclear supply chain that employs 80K Ontarians.

Under FordNation, Ontario is doubling down on made-in-Canada nuclear to keep the lights on — and bills down. We won’t repeat others’ mistakes.”

And today:

“You can’t power a full-time economy on part-time power.

On one of the coldest days of the year, Ontario families stayed warm because our system worked exactly as designed.

Nuclear operated 24/7, hydro delivered steady baseload, and natural gas stepped in to meet peak demand — the reliability backbone of a northern, industrial economy.

At the same time, wind delivered less than 3% of its installed capacity. That’s not ideology — that’s system data.

Ontario is technology agnostic. But reliability and system costs still matter. The Opposition and groups like the so-called “Clean Air Alliance” keep pushing the false claim that intermittent renewables alone can power a modern economy. They can’t.

Replacing firm nuclear and gas capacity with wind alone would require hundreds of thousands of MW of installed capacity, tens of thousands of turbines, massive transmission expansion, and system costs measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars — while still requiring backup for winter days like yesterday.

This approach would drive up hydro bills, decrease system reliability, forcing us to become more dependent on imports, and ultimately destroy Canada’s great industrial nuclear success story and the 80,000 jobs that come with it.

This type of dogma, embraced by the Wynne and Trudeau governments, was firmly rejected by the people who pay the bills.

There is a reason industrial economies and democracies are turning back to 24/7 nuclear power: Germany, Italy, Belgium, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the list goes on and on.

Energy policy must be rooted in reliability, affordability, and economic sovereignty — not ideological delusion.”

Mr Lecce referred to the work of economist Edgardo Sepulveda in that post, who earlier today posted an analysis of yesterday’s dismal numbers for wind power on his own Facebook page.

All we can say is “Wow.” And, “finally.”

Vindication for Ontario rural communities that in 2025 stood up against new wind power proposals and said, Why? Wind isn’t worth the sacrifice we would have to make. Which is why, perhaps, only two out of 20 proposals made ton the IESO LT2-RFP in 2025 are going forward to consideration, and why 159 Ontario municipalities are Unwilling Hosts to new wind power projects.

Bravo to the Minister!

Note that Ottawa’s $57B Energy Evolution plan, which is still city policy to this day, calls for 3,200 megawatts of intermittent, expensive, unreliable, land-gobbling wind turbines.

You may contact Minister Lecce at MinisterEnergy@ontario.ca

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

#ottcity #EnergyEvolution

What does wind ‘farm’ construction really look like?

10 Friday Jan 2025

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Destruction of woodlands, loss of farmland, disruption of rural community life for an unsupportable, intermittent source of power

View of trucks and oversize turbine parts from Green Madness

A documentary film made in Upper New York State provides much needed insight into what really happens during construction of an industrial wind power site.

Green Madness: the waste and destruction of one wind turbine project follows the two-year period during which 37 gigantic industrial-scale or grid-scale wind turbines were erected at the Cassadaga wind power project.

It’s one thing to read about the environmental destruction that results from the construction of these industrial sites, but it’s another to actually see see the horrific damage day by day, as filmed by the crew.

A well written voice over details the reality of wind power: it is supported by subsidies, it is intermittent and out of phase with demand in New York as in Ontario (in fact, Ontario energy economist Edgardo Sepulveda says Ontario is bad for unreliable wind power—New York is worse), and it is simply a tool to make money for investors.

“Wind power is a charade sponsored by investment banks,” is one comment. “Somebody’s making money but it’s not the little guy.”

Promises of jobs are also false, as the film makers demonstrate by filming the license plates on cars and trucks owned by workers on the project: Texas, Arizona, California…anywhere but upper New York State.

Likewise, promises of increased revenues for the municipality are not accurate—expenses incurred outweigh any pittance revenues from the huge multi-national wind power developers.

It’s important for the people of Ottawa to see this film and to understand the reality of wind power construction and development.

Local “environmental” or “climate” groups promote tree planting and wildflower gardens while also hypocritically pushing for industrial wind power in rural Ottawa. The loss of good farmland and woodlands, plus the danger to wildlife and the environment will be horrendous.

The IESO will be launching its Long Term 2 Request For Proposals early in 2025. Wind power is included in the RFP.

If wind power proposals come forward, everyone needs to know what is really involved: it’s not “clean” “green” innocent “windmills,” it’s industrialization of our rural communities and farmland.

To join our mailing list, email ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and be sure to subscribe to this page.

A documentary film follows the construction of a 37-turbine industrial wind power project in upper New York State, and is a chilling portrayal of the destruction that comes with these industrial power projects.

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

 

 

Local investor consortium plans bids for power contracts

05 Monday Aug 2024

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Just “another form of farming” investor group claims, says it will bid in next IESO round

Industrial wind turbine just south of Ottawa: industrial land use

Following a web event held by the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO a few weeks ago, Ottawa-based investor consortium Ottawa Renewable Energy Cooperative filed a comment in which it stated the group plans to bid for renewable energy projects, when the IESO releases its next Request For Proposals.

OREC already has invested in 24 renewable energy projects in Ontario, mostly solar, but also two small wind turbines, in the Kincardine and Bluewater areas of western Ontario (Huron County).

OREC’s comments to the IESO include the claim that it intends to bid for contracts. It acknowledges community opposition to some types of renewable energy development but claims it can avoid that by building smaller projects that will not attract opposition. The group correctly states that opposition to the Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS was aided by the inability of developers to provide answers to citizen concerns.

OREC’s comments follow. Emphasis in italics is ours.

Concern 1: We previously noted a qualification bias in LT2 material in favour of indigenous engagement, including indigenous participation as co-proponents. We wish again to request that community-based investment entities such as OREC will be granted equivalency to indigenous participation in terms of rated criteria points as well as set-asides, particularly if such set-asides will be structured to incentivise partnership with indigenous communities. Our question is, “why not community groups too?”

Concern 2: Rural Ottawa is still reverberating from the process of approving large BESS contracts in LT1. Much negative feeling has grown since November 2023 when a plethora of Open House events were held in Ottawa’s rural areas and developers were not ready with adequate answers about appropriate project scale and risks to communities. OREC is monitoring continuing conversations among opponents and their municipal representatives, and we anticipate greater opposition to LT2 projects. OREC believes a development model involving multiple small projects on distribution lines, funded by community investors, will attract significant interest within municipalities. This approach will attract municipal councils to the benefits of local economic activity, and the virtuous loop of generating energy locally, thereby relying less on large energy sources from outside community boundaries. OREC believes that scaling generation and BESS units such as OREC is proposing, meaning smaller, more widely distributed locally owned projects will attract positive attitudes, especially within rural areas, to what is effectively another form of farming. OREC recommends to the IESO that future energy procurements accommodate smaller scale projects, particularly clusters of small projects that have commonality of ownership and regional proximity. Clustered projects on different but proximate distribution feeder lines could be considered as single projects. OREC further recommends that the IESO include rating criteria that reward developers who partner with community-based organizations, similar to indigenous engagement criteria.

Our comments:

Community support: OREC is requesting that community groups supposedly representing local residents should get the same consideration as Indigenous peoples. First, although OREC claims to be “local” its membership is unknown, and in fact the consortium actively reached out to residents in Huron County to invest, as well as Ottawa area residents. So, what is “local”? But more important, OREC misses the point of the IESO’s initiatives regarding Indigenous communities. The goal is to assist these communities with a “clean, reliable and affordable” energy, such as, for example, reducing communities’ reliance of diesel generators for power supply.

Community opposition: After acknowledging the problems of the BESS proposals in the fall of 2023 (a rushed process with little information available), OREC says it anticipates more community opposition. Instead of acknowledging citizen concerns about loss of farmland, industrialization of rural communities, and the significant environmental impact that industrial wind turbines can have, OREC says it has the answer — “multiple small projects.”

OREC has demonstrated grid illiteracy in the past and this is more of the same. Former energy minister Todd Smith commented in February of this year that the addition of renewables (wind and solar) under the McGuinty-Wynne governments created “a lot of instability” on the power grid. The answer, Minister Smith said, was to build a supply of “clean, reliable, baseload power” and the best way to do that was to use Canada’s proven nuclear technology to build large power sites.

Creating multiple small sources of intermittent power generation will not provide reliable power for Ottawa, and it may add to grid instability. That’s not good for anyone.

Citing a “virtuous loop” of local power generation, OREC seems to imply that cute little windmills operating in the area will be like locally grown food. It is not.

Local benefits: OREC claims there are “local benefits” to renewable energy projects. What are they? There are no jobs after the construction phase (and few of those unless you drive trucks), and few if any jobs afterward. Wind turbine maintenance and monitoring is done from remote centres, with a few highly trained technicians on the ground. As the president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy Dr Chris Keefer commented, There are no employee parking lots for wind farms. There are plenty of problems with wind turbines, which is why in Ontario there are currently 157 municipalities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves to be Unwilling Hosts to industrial wind power sites. Most of the Unwilling Hosts either have wind turbines already or are nearby jurisdictions that dothey know the problems, such as noise pollution, risk to wildlife, and irreversible damage to aquifers.

Farming: While possibly drawing analogies to local food production OREC purposely ignores a very big question about wind and solar power development—they use up a lot of land. Good land. Wind and solar are both “low density” forms of power generation because they require so much land for very little power generation. Ottawa’s Official Plan states that renewables cannot be sited on prime farmland, but in truth, all classes of farmland have value. This goes against the public’s wish to encourage local food production. OREC counters with the preposterous claim that operating industrial wind and solar power sites is ”another form of farming.” No, it isn’t. It’s industrialization.*

While OREC promotes itself as a “green” organization, interested in “sustainability,” the fact is, it is an investor group, interested in making money. They have shown little concern, even disdain for citizen concerns (see note below) about the environment and community well-being.

While OREC presents dreamy ideas about “local” power generation as if it were sweet corn, we are ready with the facts: wind power is ineffective, intermittent, unreliable, and expensive —it doesn’t make sense for Ottawa.

OTTAWA WIND CONCERNS

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

*OREC founder and Board member Dick Bakker spoke at an Ottawa IESO web event several years ago and when citizen concerns about the environment were raised, he angrily snapped that people who objected to industrialization of their communities were just “NIMBYs.” Industrialization. Acknowledged.

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

Wind power lobbyist opposes protection of prime agricultural land

12 Friday Apr 2024

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Farmland Trust warns that current use of prime agricultural land is “unsustainable” while wind power developers make threats if they don’t get access to it for power generation. And money. (Don’t forget the money.)

Berwick area farm: 29 huge industrial wind turbines now operate, despite community opposition [Photo D. Larsen]

The Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO is preparing to launch a new Request for Proposals in 2025, and is gearing up now with consultations for municipalities and stakeholders, prior to releasing final documents.

At issue is the policy of the Ontario government —and the City of Ottawa —that prime agricultural land must be protected.

The wind power industry sees this policy as an obstacle and is fighting back. With some success. In a recent IESO web event, a spokesperson said the question of protecting prime ag land is a topic of “active discussion” in government.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, which is not an environmental organization but a trade association and lobbyist, had this to say in a comment to the IESO. (The emphasis is ours.)

“CanREA recommends that Ontario consider orienting agricultural land use policy in a manner similar
to Alberta’s recently announced ‘agriculture first’ approach for renewable energy project approvals.
This approach allows wind and solar generation on Class 1 and 2 lands if they can demonstrate that
they can co-exist with agriculture.


“We believe that this is a sensible approach. CanREA’s law firm members who represent Ontario
farmers in negotiations with renewable energy developers describe numerous cases where siting of
renewable energy projects on agricultural lands has provided additional income to allow farmers to
stay on the land – making farming careers sustainable for them and their families.


“Should additional restrictions be imposed, renewable energy development would be forced into less
desirable areas with lower wind and solar potential, located further away from load centres. This
would result in system inefficiency, reduced levels of project investment and higher cost solutions for
Ontario ratepayers.”

Very clever wording on their part and not without active threats to the Ontario government, even going so far as to mention the association’s “law firm members.” Phrases like “additional restrictions” are meant to foreshadow legal action if CanREA doesn’t get what it wants, which is unfettered access to Ontario’s farmland for profit.

People want farm land protected

The lobbyist is out of step with Ontario’s citizens and the primacy of protecting our food supply. At a time when “eat local” echoes throughout the province, and the COVID experience of interrupted food supply is fresh in everyone’s mind, the protection of Ontario’s cropland is important.

The Ontario Farmland Trust has this warning for us:

“Every day in Ontario, we lose 319 acres of farmland to non-agricultural land uses like urban development and aggregate extraction; this rate of farmland loss is unsustainable and cannot be allowed to continue. Everyone in Ontario relies on agriculture, from the food we eat, to the jobs in our communities.Without strong protections in place for our farmland, we may not be able to provide enough food to feed our growing population.”

Wind power developers: we want the money

Several wind power developers lined up to file comments with the IESO too—any resemblance to the comments from CanREA are not accidental. Here is Capital Power.

“Broad, overarching limitations or restrictions for specific classifications of agricultural land or
technology types will likely limit the development of cost-effective projects in locations near existing
energy infrastructure. It will also result in a loss of potential non-agricultural income for farmers.
Capital Power submits that the appropriate use of land and potential impacts on agricultural use is
most effectively determined between landowners, developers, and through current project approval
processes. No further limitations, rated criteria, or other considerations needs to be considered for
LT-2 or potential projects.”

Translation: hands off our negotiations with farm owners.

Similarly, U.S.-based Invenergy commented:

“We would work with the landowners to minimize impact to
the land and form an agreement to return land to its
original state. Some projects may be able to allow for the
same productivity levels of the agricultural land like a wind
facility.”

Invenergy also said restricting prime agricultural land mean that municipalities would lose out on tax revenues from wind power projects. That is true but with the tax rates currently capped, the amount paid is a pittance in comparison to wind power operator profits, and would need to be assessed along with municipal costs such as the need for fire services, inspections, etc. It is not possible to return land fully to its “original state”—wind turbines require massive concrete and rebar foundations that cannot be removed.

Wind power developers also under-represent the amount of land used for wind turbines. At least one developer currently claims a turbine uses only 0.2 of an acre but obviously, this does not take into account access roads and other infrastructure.

You can read more industry comments here but make no mistake: they want that prime farm land and will do anything, and say anything to get it.

IESO announces intent to attract more wind power for Ontario

13 Wednesday Dec 2023

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

New procurement announced, but difference from Green Energy Act is that municipalities now have final say in approvals of siting for projects, and can create bylaws for siting

Turbines and transformer station at Nation Rise wind power plant [submitted photo]

December 12, 2023

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO has announced that it plans another round of procurement for new power generation, which will include “non-emitting” generation such as wind, solar, hydro and bioenergy.

The announcement also states that IESO will look at “options options to re-acquire, upgrade, or expand existing facilities”.

The news release came on the eve of the deadline for the most recent procurement initiative which, the IESO says, was intended to increase capacity. The next round will attract  “new supply will help meet the province’s overall energy needs, according to IESO CEO Lesley Gallinger.

A report in the Toronto Star framed the announcement as the Ford government doing an “about-face” on earlier policies about wind and solar. The Star said that Minister of Energy Todd Smith stated in a speech earlier this week that the Ford government approach would be different.

“Smith was quick to contrast this new round of renewable energy from the previous build out that took place under Liberal governments,” the Star said.

Wind and Green Energy Act was ‘fiasco’

“When we talk about this much renewables, many minds are immediately going to turn to the absolute fiasco that was the Liberal’s Green Energy Act … when wind and solar projects were forced on unwilling host communities,” he said, according to the Star.

“We’re doing it differently by competitively procuring these resources. Based on system need, we can deliver these projects for much lower costs. In fact, the IESO’s report today confirmed that we could get wind and solar for far less than the Liberals (did).”

The Star said “Smith highlighted how the Progressive Conservative approach of competitive procurement has already resulted in recontracting existing generation at 30 per cent below what was being paid before. The IESO estimates the next round of wind contracts will go for less than half of what the province paid in the mid 2000s.”

Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson* expressed concern over the announcement.

“Everyone knows there has been nothing but problems with Ontario’s wind power fleet,” she explains. “Not only is wind an intermittent, unreliable source of power but it has also caused problems for many of the communities that were forced to ‘host’ these industrial power installations. They produce noise and vibration, and have had other environmental impacts such as disturbing local aquifers and affecting water supply. We know from tracking internal government documents created since 2006 that there are literally thousands of files of noise complaints. And, unfortunately, there are still, after all these years, wind power projects that do not have final audits completed verifying their compliance with regulations. That’s not acceptable.”

Any effects from wind turbines are regulated by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Regulations which include setbacks between wind turbines and homes as well as noise limits, have not been revised since they were created after the Green Energy Act in 2009.

Wind Concerns Ontario says experiences with wind turbines around the world indicate it is past time to review and revise the regulations.

Power is in municipalities’ hands

A critical difference between the current PC government and the previous Green Energy program, Wind Concerns says, is that support from the local municipality is required for renewable energy projects.  Municipalities also have been given back the power to pass zoning by-laws that regulate how turbines are sited in their communities.

These energy policies place Ontario’s municipal Councils at the centre of energy policy debates moving forward.

“At the end of the day, as citizens, taxpayers and ratepayers, we question the value of wind as a reliable source of power,” Wilson says. “Everyone wants to do the right thing for the climate and the environment—intermittent, invasive wind power that effectively industrializes communities, isn’t it.”

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

*Jane Wilson is also Chair of Ottawa Wind Concerns

What’s your reaction?

Community discussions marred by NIMBY insults in Ottawa

05 Tuesday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

December 5, 2023

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

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

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

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

Using the NIMBY insult says a lot about you

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

Environmental lawyer McRoberts:

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

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

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

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

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

Battery storage: myth or solution?

What are the battery installations supposed to do, anyway?

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

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

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

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

NIMBY? or objection to a flawed process?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

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

17 Friday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

November 17, 2023

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

An excerpt:

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) 

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

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

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

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

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

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