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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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]
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
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.
“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?
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.
And whether it will work. The Ottawa area has four active Battery Energy Storage proposals. But nobody knows whether BESS will do what the proponents say it will
November 14, 2023
The idea of Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS has hit so fast, people don’t know what to make of it…and that’s the problem for proponents. (Most of whom are current and former wind power developers.)
There simply are not enough details about these projects from the technology used, to the risk of fire and other environmental hazards, noise, and impact on communities. That’s what proponents are hearing at the mandatory “community engagement” meetings held in rural Ottawa.
A big question is the cost, and whether these multi-million-dollar projects will be worth the price to Ontario’s electricity consumers. Proponents are currently vying for contracts with the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO. Submissions are due December 12.
When wind and solar were being marketed as the solution to climate change, two Ontario Auditors General recommended to the McGuinty-Wynne governments that cost-benefit analyses should be done.
But it never was.
And now, here we go again.
Ottawa energy economist Robert Lyman says figures from the U.S. show that battery storage will be expensive, no question.
How much?
And at the moment, batteries can only provide power for a few hours at most. So, do they even work?
Here’s his comment:
Any plan to power an electrical grid with wind and solar generation and to eliminate the backup security of supply provided by fossil fuels like coal and natural gas must address the cost and feasibility of the battery storage needed.
The only battery storage technology that is widely available for grid scale storage is lithium-ion. The US federal government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory produces periodic reports on the current and projected costs of utility-scale batteries of the lithium-ion type. The most recent edition, from June 2021, gives the current average cost as approximately US $350 per kilowatt-hour. It projects declining costs over time, but those projections are speculative and do not recognize the actual trends in recent battery costs. For example, in 2020-2021, the average costs for lithium ion battery installations in New York state was US$464/kwh and in 2022, the price for contracts actually awarded increased to US$567/kwh.
Storage is extremely expensive and if generally used will drive up electricity costs significantly. They are by far the largest part of the costs of an electricity system that relies upon wind and solar generation for essential supplies. They also give rise to the need for much more transmission facilities, which also adds to the costs, although these costs are rarely if ever made public in advance.
Lithium-ion batteries provide backup capacity for relatively short periods, usually measured in hours. However, variations in the demand for and supply of electricity due to weather or other events can occur over periods of days, weeks or even whole seasons. Lithium-ion batteries are incapable of providing such service yet, “long duration” battery technologies do not yet exist and are still at the research or pilot project stage.
The system-wide addition of lithium-ion batteries could increase electricity bills by up to 20 times depending on how much storage is needed. Research on possible long-duration batteries is at the earliest stages, and nobody has any idea what, if any, technology might work or how much it might cost.
Before the province of Ontario starts building several battery-storage plants, it might be a good idea to build one pilot to find out if the darn thing works and is affordable.
Overhead view of 8-megawatt battery storage facility in Tehachapi, USA-Wikipedia image
March 1, 2023
Green energy’s newest fad is Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS, which is being promoted as an add-on to existing renewable power generation facilities to counteract intermittency and unreliability.
Lobbyist the former Canadian Wind Energy Association, now the Canadian Renewable Energy Association or CanREA is actively pushing BESS, and has even gone so far as to add storage to its corporate banner as in, Wind- Solar- Storage.
CanREA is pushing for TEN TIMES the amount of wind and solar we already have in Canada (won’t that look pretty? And cost us all, too) which they say will work with storage.
However, even the influential lobbyist points to concerns. First, there is a need to develop technical requirements for connecting and operating battery storage facilities CanREA says in its document, Laying the Foundation:
“In many jurisdictions, the technical details may be included in the operating documents of the crownowned utility. However, there are other elements, such as the scope of safety and environmental reviews, that will need legislated descriptions or will need to be included in the regulatory documents of the relevant ministry or government department.” (Page 10)
And, CanREA says, regulating authorities may need to get ready for BESS and develop new competencies:
“In most jurisdictions, the mandate and/or rules of the regulating authority (for example the Alberta Utilities Commission) may need to be enhanced. Regulatory authorities will need sufficient expertise to fairly evaluate proposed energy-storage installations.”
Most people don’t know what they are
In response to inquiries from members and the public, and because BESS is being proposed as an add-on to existing wind power installations, Wind Concerns Ontario undertook a review of experiences with BESS around the world, and reports of citizen concerns, as well as the current regulatory environment.
As one Ontario mayor said, most people don’t even know what they are.
Wind Concerns Ontario prepared a report, with the following conclusions:
Standards needed for emergencies – As BESS technology is relatively new, standards are rapidly changing in response to emergency situations encountered. Even projects developed by companies with extensive battery experience have experienced serious emergency situations.
Not enough information – The requirements for submissions to the IESO and to municipalities when requesting support for the project include few, if any, details on the actual project. The process appears to assume that once a company is awarded an IESO contract based largely on price, it will then proceed to develop the real proposal which will be submitted into an undefined permitting process or processes. Based on information submitted, it is not clear how the IESO will be able to distinguish between proposals with higher prices because they meet high standards for development and those with lower prices because the proposal includes the minimal safety standards.
Renewable energy or not? – BESS systems are neither defined as a Renewable Energy project by Regulation 359/09, nor are they included in the list of excluded projects. The intention may be to omit further provincial review of these projects and to proceed directly to the municipal permitting process but this would be a recipe for substantial delay as the building officials in each host municipality (many of which are small rural municipalities) individually develop the expertise needed to assess and approve these projects.
Safety regulations? – While Ontario Hydro has defined setbacks from BESS installations to protect their infrastructure, there are no setbacks for BESS installations established in Regulation 359/09 to protect other buildings and activities. Similarly, there are no noise standards for these systems which could create a new enforcement challenge for Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks field staff.
Potential for support to be withdrawn – As the submissions to municipalities have included minimal information, there is potential for municipalities to rescind their support resolution once they learn the risks associated with these projects and the municipal resources that will be potentially required to deal with emergency situations.
Clearly, there are significant issues to be addressed.
Ottawa area BESS
Here in Ottawa, a BESS facility was proposed for the recent Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Request for Proposals for new power generation. Located on Upper Dwyer Hill Road in the West Carleton-March ward of the city, the project is unheard of for most people. The company proposing the project held a public meeting in December but no one showed up. The IESO allows proponents to simply post a notice on their project website. If you don’t even know about the project, how do you know to check for announcements?
Here are the minutes for the “public” meeting:
MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT City of Ottawa Public Meeting Location: Alexander Community Centre, 960 Silver St, Ottawa, ON K1Z 6H5 Time: 6-7 pm, January 12th, 2023
Long-Term Reliability Project Name: 548
Site Address: 650 Upper Dwyer Hill Road, Ottawa, ON K0A 1A0
Facility: Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
Size: 4.99-megawatt/19.96-megawatt hour
Proponents Name: 1000234763 Ontario Inc.
Attendance: • 0 community members •
Proponent – 1000234763 Ontario Inc., representative: o John Kozak, COO • Proponent’s Contractor, SolarBank Corporation (previously, Abundant Solar Energy Inc.) o Tracy Zheng, CAO o Mila Simon, Project Coordinator 6ii
6:00 PM: meeting called to order. Proponent and SolarBank waited for 45 minutes for attendees. No community members showed.
6:45 PM: Meeting adjourned.
Another BESS proposal is in development in Cumberland, that would be ten times the capacity of the Upper Dwyer Hill Rd facility. In response an email inquiry, developer Evolugen (a division of huge power developer Brookfield) replied:
We are still in the process of assessing potential sites for a battery storage energy system in the Cumberland area to respond to two announced procurements (expedited and long-term RFP).The two public meetings were held to gauge at a high level the type of reaction that this type of project would receive in this area. We don’t record public meetings because they are drop-in format rather than a presentation with a Q and A. But we are always available for one-on-one meetings.The IESO released the final RFP document in early December, but had released a series of documents (including a draft RFP) in preceding months to provide project proponents with a general idea of what public outreach requirements were required.
Another inquiry, this time to the Cumberland Community Association, revealed the association knew nothing about the proposal. Or the public meetings that were held.
Time to ask questions
Doubtless, still more BESS proposals are coming with the IESO set to open up yet another RFP later this year, this time for almost twice as much new power generation.
We need to learn more to be able to ask questions about the impact of these installations on our communities, the environment, and our economy.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 