Tag Archives: Prowind

At-risk Golden Eagles to die if Prince Edward Cty wind farm built

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

A Prince Edward County community group has received documents via Freedom of Information that show Golden Eagles, an at-risk species of bird, would almost certainly die in significant numbers, if a 49-turbine wind “farm” is built as planned in Prince Edward County. The County is about two hours south-west of Ottawa, near Kingston, and is in the North American eastern flyway for migratory birds.

The County Coalition for Safe Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE) says the documents it obtained show that even with the limited number of days the wind power developer wpd Canada surveyed for the birds (just three days), substantial numbers of the birds would fly through at the height of the turbine blades, and die.

CCSAGE is also deeply concerned that this information was not made available to the public by either the developer or the Ontario government and, in addition, their request for this specific information was answered only AFTER the comment period closed. This information calls for questions about the scientific veracity of the so-called “technical review” done by the government of developer documentation.

See the posting on the Wind Concerns Ontario website here. Wind Concerns Ontario has filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario regarding the technical review process. Ottawa Wind Concerns followed suit with a letter to the Ombudsman with details on the lack of openness and transparency regarding the Prowind proposal for North Gower and Richmond.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Gunn’s Hill wind farm proposal incomplete, should be denied: community group

02 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The proposal by Germany-based Prowind to build a wind “farm” near Woodstock Ontario is the subject of a complaint to the Ministry of the Environment, and the Office of the Ombudsman. While the application process is supposed to be “transparent” and open to the public, the truth is, documentation is not complete, and the Ministry and the proponent engage in correspondence that is not available to the public.

Joan Morris, Chair of the group East Oxford Community Alliance, wrote a letter to the Ministry of the Environment, both to the Minister and staff, demanding that approval not be granted to Prowind for the project, due to the failure to follow process. The letter follows:

Dear Minister,
I am writing to draw to your attention serious process issues at the Ministry of Environment with respect to renewable energy project reviews.  The public is being denied the opportunity to receive complete and accurate information regarding a project, and also to participate in the “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE reportedly occurring following the EBR comment period.
I trust you will investigate these issues in which Ontario citizens’ rights are being denied.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
From: Joan Morris
Sent: June-23-14 11:15 AM
To: Garcia-Wright, Agatha (ENE)
Cc: ‘Eric Gillespie’
Subject: Environmental Approval Process – Gunn’s Hill Wind Project – “Iterative Process”
Dear Ms. Garcia-Wright,
In your letter dated April 25, 2014 you have indicated the following:
·         The MOE may require “additional information or clarification from the proponent”
·         The review process may be an “iterative process”
These points raise significant concern for reasons as follows:
·         The proponent has reportedly already deemed its application for the project to be complete and accurate (although our FOI request of April 13, 2014 has not yet been fulfilled to confirm this information)
·         MOE staff have deemed the application to be complete (again, results of FOI request pending at this time)
·         The iterative process conducted solely between the MOE and the proponent (without public disclosure or participation) is an admission that the application did not contain sufficient and accurate information for approval and therefore should not have been deemed complete and accurate by the proponent nor by the MOE.  This is also an admission that the information available for public review during the EBR comment period was not complete and accurate.
If the MOE has adopted practices such that the proponent’s REA documents are no longer required to be complete and accurate, and an “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE is accepted practice, then posting to the EBR is a sham and is misleading and deceptive to Ontario citizens.
In your letter of April 15, 2014, you state that projects are planned in a transparent manner, yet, the public appears to have no timely access to the ongoing communication between the MOE, proponent and other ministries.  It appears the only manner in which the public may obtain information is to submit FOI requests on an ongoing basis, to obtain information retrospectively and to incur costs.  Despite my submission of three FOI requests to the Ministry of Environment April 13, April 15 and May 27, 2014 with all applicable fees, as of June 23, I have received no documents whatsoever.  My rights as a citizen to obtain information regarding a project that directly impacts me are being violated due to your ministry’s failure to provide disclosure via either direct request to your agency or via the FOI process.  This, coupled with the “iterative process” between proponent and MOE leads me to reject your claim that projects are planned in a transparent manner, and in fact is reflective of a process designed to facilitate and “remove barriers” for the proponent to gain approval,  rather than to involve and protect the public.
Any iterative process should require that the public be involved at each stage and have the opportunity to participate in a transparent manner. I am not aware that the MOE has disclosed that the process is iterative until now.
I request that the MOE disclose:
·         The date when the iterative process was established between MOE and the proponent and its consultants. In particular please clarify whether the iterative process between MOE and the proponent and its consultants been in effect in the past; AND
·         The process by which the public will be advised of the iterative process;  AND
·         The process by which the public will be full participants in the iterative process;  AND
·         Whether the iterative process will replace the FOI process for obtaining disclosure.
I request that your agency deny the application of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm until such time as your Ministry discloses complete and accurate information to the public regarding all communication relating to this project, and the public has adequate opportunity to participate fully in the “iterative process” in an open and transparent manner.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
Copy:    Eric Gillespie (lawyer)

 

See related story here.

Wind power to be election issue in October?

27 Friday Jun 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Turbine and home in Ontario

Turbine and home in Ontario

We would say, yes.

Mayoral candidate Mike Maguire had his formal launch last evening and after saying that hydro bills were his number one issue (and the number one concern for citizens), Mr Maguire mentioned the proposed wind power project in North Gower. He said, I will stand with the citizens there and fight against this “not environmental, fiscally irresponsible” project.

He went on to say that the “monstrous” turbines would change the community forever, for no benefit.

Residents of North Gower and Richmond already sent a petition (as a form of referendum) to Ottawa City Hall last fall, stating that the community is Not A Willing Host; the petition was accepted by Council and a motion passed unanimously noting the community’s declaration, and demanding that the province return local land use planning powers to the municipalities.

It is looking like wind power is going to be a critical issue in this year’s municipal election, to be held October 27th.

There are currently 84 communities in Ontario that have passed a resolution at Council to declare they are an unwilling host or Not A Willing Host, out of a probable 100 or so that could be vulnerable to wind power generation projects.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Letter: ask questions about Gunn’s Hill (and Prowind)

06 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a letter to the Editor from the current edition of the Norwich Gazette. This community is the location of Prowind’s ONLY active wind power development.

Letters to the Editor

Norwich Gazette

May 5, 2014

The public should be asking questions about the Gunn’s Hill wind project, and asking about the organization called The Oxford Community Energy Co-operative.

If the “community” in the project area wanted a co-operative why wouldn’t they create their own? Why are Prowind Canada, Ontario Sustainability Services (OSS), “Friends of Wind” (presumably funded by Canadian Wind Energy Association) and IPC Energy trying to push it into the community? Doesn’t this appear more like a mechanism for the developer to apply for the “co-operative” adder from the Ontario Power Authority (to make more money for the developer) rather than a true community initiative?

What is IPC Energy’s interest in this project? Will the project be changing ownership? Why would the Oxford Community Energy Co-operative’s (OCEC) corporate office address have been registered as the IPC Energy address in Mississauga, with IPC’s president being a director of the OCEC?

While Prowind stated in its Renewable Energy application documents its plans to be a “long-term presence and neighbour”, it already tried unsuccessfully to sell the Gunn’s Hill project to Boralex in 2013. Given that Prowind Canada has still not begun operating any projects in Canada, and their staff has been dwindling in number each year, why would there be any assurance that Prowind will be involved long-term? At what point will the project ownership change?

Ask about the provider, Prowind.

Why does Prowind claim employment opportunities will be offered to Six Nations workers in one section of their REA documents, while stating preference will be given to local community residents in another?

Why did Prowind claim the Talbot Wind Farm near Ridgetown was a “well planned project” without researching the impact on residents? Why have they not admitted that residents have had significant adverse impacts in this “well planned project”, including having to vacate their homes or sleep in their basements?

Take a look at a website we’ve been observing – http://www.windontario.ca. You already know the Norwich Township council has declared themselves to be an “unwilling host”.

Do you truly believe the Gunn’s Hill project will benefit the environment? Ontario’s coal-fired generating stations have already been shut down and we are exporting surplus electricity at a loss to other jurisdictions on a regular basis, with manufacturing industries closing down in Ontario.

The public should be asking the hard questions.

Gerald and Carol Engberts. RR4 Woodstock

Prowind's Head Office in Hamilton until 2013
Prowind’s Head Office in Hamilton until 2013

 

Editor note: Prowind is the Germany-based company that has proposed a wind power development for North Gower-Richmond until the Feed In Tariff subsidy process was put on hold in 2013; a new procurement process is slated to begin in the summer of 2014.

Wind Concerns Ontario asks Ombudsman to look at wind power approval process

15 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Wind Concerns Ontario has sent a letter to the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, asking that aspects of the approval process for wind power projects be looked at. The Ombudsman’s office has now had its role expanded to be able to look at issues of municipal concern, which may allow it to address the request of many municipalities throughout Ontario facing wind power developments and who are without any say in the siting of these projects. The Green Energy and Green Economy Act passed in 2009, over-rode 21 others Acts in Ontario, and removed local land use planning powers for Ontario municipalities with regard to renewable power projects. In the wake of municipal objections ever since, the Ontario government now says it will offer municipalities more “say” but still no veto.

That’s unacceptable says Wind Concerns Ontario, which refers to important issues:

  • documentation provided to the Ministry of the Environment is being “deemed complete” and then going to public comment; community groups performing audits on this documentation are finding, however, that the documents are often not complete and sometimes absent altogether—not acceptable
  • land leases are signed between the power developers and landowners, which means municipalities and residents can have no idea where turbines are going to be located until too late; this has the effect of halting real estate sales and “sterilizing” development
  • wind power developers (e.g., Samsung in Southgate) are now offering significant sums of money in return for municipal approval and other items such a building permits, road use, etc.
  • landowners are not being provided with the full range of information on the potential negative effects of having wind turbines on their properties

See the news release and link to the letter to the Ombudsman here.

In other news, the community near Woodstock Ontario, facing an 18-MW Prowind wind power project, has also filed a letter of complaint with the Ombudsman, citing deficiencies in documentation, and changes being made to documents AFTER the public comment period has closed. See the East Oxford Community Alliance story here. Prowind is the Germany-based developer that proposed a wind power project for the North Gower-Richmond area of Ottawa, which would have placed 10 turbines on local farm properties within 3 km of more than 1,000 families. The project is now on hold, waiting for the new large-scale renewable power procurement process to begin.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

North Gower readers write: “no qualms about suing”

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Many area residents wrote to Farmers Forum after last month’s edition in which North Gower resident and wind power proponent Ed Schouten made remarks about wind “farms.”

Four were published; we reproduce them here.

Will sue for property loss

I intend to get my house appraised now and re-appraised if wind turbines are erected. I will have no qualms about suing both the property owner and Prowind for loss of property value at the very least. I hope others will be prepared to do the same.*

Julian Hughson, North Gower

*Blog editor note, Oh, they are, they are. Ottawa Wind Concerns has legal counsel on retainer and we have already notified Prowind of the intent to take any and all legal actions available.

Need more wind power studies

It sounds to me like a match made in heaven. Companies offer always cash-starved farms substantial funds to be allowed to build windmills on their farms. They sell the power to Ontario Hydro for enormous amounts of taxpayer money. The farmer is happy with his steady income, the windmill company is happy with its profits. But there are a lot of questions that still need answers about the effects of these monsters. In Europe and the United States, most of them are offshore or in isolated areas. Let’s get some reports from other countries of wind farms located near homes, schools and farms.

J.A. Fournier, North Gower

Blog editor: first of all, the wind power developer had a contract with the Ontario Power Authority or OPA to sell power under the Feed In Tariff subsidy program (which is now halted–a new program begins this year). Second, the farm owners, many unwittingly, gave away many rights to their land as part of the contracts including first right of refusal. An Ontario mayor noted at the August AMO conference that in effect, farmers sold their land for the lease amount. The contracts also contain “gag” clauses so that if the farm owners experience health problems or are disturbed by the noise and vibration, they are not allowed to speak of it. Last, there are problems the world over with wind turbine noise. Denmark alone has 170 community groups, and citizens are opposed in the UK, Germany, France, and the US. The global wind lobby has gone to great lengths to discredit these groups, and currently has a campaign which is based on the idea that the activities of community groups themselves are causing symptoms among turbine neighbours.

My retirement affected by wind turbines

As a resident of the proposed wind farm in North Gower, I will be adversely affected as we will be one of the homes closest to the turbines (the minimum distance is 550 meters). I will no longer be able to enjoy my back deck as the turbines will be far closer to my home than the home of the farm planning on erecting the turbines. Along with the health issues associated with turbines, so will our planned retirement of selling our property be adversely affected. The farmer from this area who said keeping the wind farm small will have no negative effects is, oh, so wrong.

Turbines in Europe a dismal failure

I would never have purchased this home if we had known there would be a turbine so close. Never, never, never. Being of European background, I have kept up-to-date on the fall of turbine desire there. They are a dismal failure. Germany, a country on the front line of energy efficiency, has decided not to erect (more) turbines but is instead returning to coal-fired generation.

What more need I say?

Gerry Courtney, North Gower

North Gower wind project is too big

Farmer Ed Schouten’s comment that the Brinston wind power project (it’s not a “farm”) could be a test case for others is interesting: with 6,700 megawatts of wind power already contracted for in Ontario, I think we have quite enough “test cases.”

What we do have is people sick from the environmental noise near wind power projects at Kincardine, Amaranth and Ridgetown, to name a few. It’s really quite simple: if the noise is so loud people can’t sleep, they become ill.

1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, that was accepted by Ottawa

I disagree with Mr Schouten’s claim that keeping a wind power project small avoids problems. The one proposed by the  Germany-based developer for his farm was a 20-megawatt power plant with eight turbines close to 1,000 families. That’s not “small” in my books. It’s also the reason why over 1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, which was accepted by Ottawa City Council.

With lawsuits over property values on the rise, and concerns about the health of livestock exposed to the turbine noise and vibration, Mr. Schouten must have a few concerns he hopes the Brinston project will allay.

The question that remains, however, is why is Ontario doing this? Why are we paying millions for wind power projects that have such a high impact on Ontario communities, for power we don’t need?

Ontario never did a cost-benefit analysis on wind power, the Auditor General complained in 2011. That was the real “test case” we needed.

Jane Wilson, North Gower

Brinston not a test case, community not lab rats

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

You may recall that in last month’s edition of Farmers Forum, North Gower-Richmond farm owner Ed Schouten (the proponent in the North Gower wind power project) said he looked forward to the start-up on the project at Brinston, as it would serve as a “test case” for people who had doubts about how great wind power is.

Lots of letters flew in to the Editor, and we will reproduce them all. First though, the letter from Brinston resident Leslie Disheau who wants to put Mr Schouten straight on a few issues.

Brinston divided on wind turbines

Letter, Farmers Forum March 2014

I am going to begin with setting the record straight on the use of the term “wind farm.” This term is a skewed way of making the industrialization of farming practices more palatable to the general public by international wind development companies.

Farming practices and the farming industry have quietly moved into industrial practices while still enjoying the government subsidy/benefit programs to help sustain their bottom line, and keep their competitive edge with fluctuating world markets.

These healthy government subsidy/benefit programs are not available to any other sector of industry in Ontario. If you are going to industrialize then you should have to play by the same industry standards and requirements which currently govern all industry in Ontario.

Farm lands are now being used to host electricity producing machines, not growing food to feed cities. So let us term these industrial electricity projects correctly and allow this industry to be taxed accordingly, and without lucrative FIT contracts for 20 years.

We, the people in Brinston, Dixon’s Corners and Hulbert, directly affected by the siting of 10 30-megawatt industrial wind turbines, have every right to be upset and speak out. The Green Energy Act has stripped us of our rights to say “no” and our right to protect the well-being of our families; allowed for the devaluation of our homes; permits wildlife to be killed, harmed and harrassed; and takes top qality farmland out of food production. The rural community of Brinston is very much living with and feeling divided by this South Branch wind project.

“I am not a test animal, and my community is not a ‘test case,’ Mr Schouten”

I personally take great offence to Mr. Schouten’s comment that the “Brinston turbines will be a good test case for the rest of the area.” I am not a test animal. I am a person and my community should not be referred to as a “test case,” like a lab study.

As for Mr. Winslow’s statement about “negative publicity” and “far too much emotion,” I speak up with passion because I value my family’s health and well-being, take pride in my home and property, and understand what stewardship of the land and animals really means. I get emotional when someone makes a decision, without my consent, which directly changes life for my family and the community.

I have spent three years reading and looking at the research for both sides of this issue, from around the world, and can say I sit on the negative side of the fence–I made an educated decision to do so.

Leslie Disheau

Brinston, Ontario

The writer has one 3-MW turbine 836 meters from the front of her family home, and another 900 meters from the rear.The South Branch project, initiated by Germany-based Prowind,and purchased by US-based EDP, began operations March 4.

BrinstonTurbine BaseAerial shot of base for one of the Brinston turbines, prior to construction last year. Brinston is 30 minutes south of Ottawa, Ontario

 

Amherst Island community groups files lawsuit

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently.<br /> IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently. IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

WIND TURBINES

Amherst Island group files lawsuit 22

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:20:44 EST PM

AMHERST ISLAND – The group opposed to a wind energy development on Amherst Island is going to court to challenge a recent government ruling that permitted the project to move ahead.
In an application filed Thursday with the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, the Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) asked for a judicial review of the Jan. 2 decision by the Ministry of the Environment to declare complete the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) submitted by Windlectric Inc., the company seeking to build the Amherst Island wind project.
Windlectric plans to build a 75-megawatt wind energy project on the 70-square-kilometre Amherst Island, involving up to 36 turbines.
The January ruling meant the project was entering the technical review stage, during which the different reports filed by the company in support of the development are reviewed.
An REA deemed complete also allowed the project to proceed into 65 days of public comment, a phase set to conclude March 8.
In its application, which named Windlectric, the director of environmental approvals and the provincial ministries of the environment, natural resources and tourism, culture and sport, APAI stated the REA did not contain key components.
“The decision to deem the project application complete surprised the Association as substantial evidence as to why the project should not proceed to the technical review stage of the process,” the association stated in a release Thursday.
The association stated the application for the review is “consistent” with the position of Loyalist Township.
In October, Loyalist Township council passed a motion that called for the rejection of “incomplete” project applications.
APAI said the technical details of the Windlectric REA were far from complete.
The items missing included…

Read the full story here.

Our note: errors are not uncommon in these applications. The application Prowind filed for the South Branch project south of Ottawa originally had the project in the wrong county! Communities are taking a hard look at these documents, and consulting with lawyers.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

The simple genius of a noise nuisance bylaw

28 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Here from last week’s Wellington Times in Prince Edward County, is Rick Conroy’s account of the presentation to Council by Warren Howard, member of the Wainfleet group of municipalities (who started the Not A Willing Host campaign). The goal is to take what powers municipalities have left after the democracy-destroying Green Energy Act, and still take steps to protect citizens from the environmental noise produced by wind turbines.*

Quiet nights

Wolfe-Island-Small

Industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island.
PHOTO: HENRI GARAND

Coalition of municipalities seek to protect health and safety of residents near industrial wind turbines

It’s a simple plan. But it may be just the thing to slow down the epidemic of industrial wind turbines spreading across rural Ontario. Warren Howard is a councillor in the municipality of North Perth and lives in Listowel. He is a retired banker and understands bureaucratic processes better than most. He thinks he has come up with a way to thwart the provinces heavy handed Green Energy Act (GEA).

Howard’s plan is to create a bulletproof municipal bylaw that prohibits industrial noise in a rural area at night. That’s it. It sounds simple—and it is—but Howard has done his homework.

He has been working with municipal lawyer Kristi Ross. Together they have discovered that while the Green Energy Act took away virtually all the municipality’s tools to manage, control and oversee the construction of these massive structures in its community—it left intact provisions municipalities use to govern nuisance noise.

Howard believes any municipality may be able use these provisions to stop industrial wind development in its jurisdiction. He is looking to form a coalition of like-minded municipalities to jointly fund the crafting of a noise bylaw that will be enforceable and effective in discouraging industrial wind energy development, but won’t capture and impede other activities that may generate noise—such as agricultural operations.

It’s a fine line. Howard knows it. But he believes it can work.

Municipal bylaws can’t overtly defy or block provincial initiatives. So the Quiet Nights plan doesn’t seek to prevent turbines from making noise—it wouldn’t withstand a legal challenge. Instead the bylaw would only prohibit the machines from making noise at night. Further, the Municipal Act states that such a bylaw, if enacted in good faith by council, is not subject to a review by a court.

Warren-Howard

Warren Howard Municipal councillor in North Perth in Southwest Ontario

Howard points to a decision in Wainfleet in the Niagara region. There, the municipality was seeking two kilometre setbacks rather than the 500-metre setbacks prescribed in the GEA.

The wind energy developer had argued that the municipality’s efforts to protect the health and safety of residents should have no force because they frustrate the purpose of the province’s GEA. But while the Superior Court justice disallowed Wainfleet’s desired setbacks, it confirmed that municipalities retain the right to regulate noise nuisance in the Municipal Act.

It is through this narrow opening that Howard is hoping to lead municipalities seeking to control or limit the industrialization of their rural communities.

Read the full story here.

*NOTE: Back in 2010, journalist Mark Sutcliffe asked Prowind sales representative Bart Geleynse on his Ottawa Rogers TV talk show whether the wind turbines make noise. “Of course they do,” Geleynse replied. “They’re power plants.”

Prowind’s Woodstock area project closer to approval

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

In the never-ending stream of approvals of wind power projects, yet another is posted for approval: the Gunn’s Hill project in Oxford County. The developer is Germany-based Prowind.
The company moved recently but until a few months ago, this was the site of their corporate offices in Canada, an upstairs office suite in Hamilton, Ontario.

Comments on the Gunn’s Hill project are due March 24th here

The community group in the area is the East Oxford Community Alliance, which has already retained legal counsel.