South Shore Prince Edward County: how did a power plant get approved for this? [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]
This is a report from the appellant in the ongoing appeal of the 29-turbine White Pines project approved for Prince Edward County. Yesterday saw several avian experts testify, giving amazing testimony as to what damage could be done by turbines inside an Important Bird Area for migratory species.
Note the testimony about Wolfe Island (the turbines there are now relatively small compared to what is being built and planned) and how many birds are being killed; compare to the wind power developer’s consultant opinion. Not even close.
Report on Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing on White Pines Wind Project
December 1
by
Paula Peel, APPEC
On Day 15 three experts testified at the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) that the White Pines wind project will cause serious and irreversible harm to birds and bats. All had concerns with the project location on a migratory path on Lake Ontario’s shoreline.
Dr. Michael Hutchins, Director of the American Bird Conservancy’s Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign, was qualified as a biologist with specialization in animal behaviour and with expertise in the impact of wind energy projects on birds and bats. Hutchins told the ERT that one function of the Bird Smart Campaign is to educate decision-makers so turbines are properly sited. White Pines is in a high-risk location. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends three-mile setbacks from the Great Lakes.
Hutchins cited a recent U.S. study showing significant displacement of breeding grassland birds in mid-western states after turbine construction. White Pines will displace protected Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Eastern Whip-poor-will, and the impact could easily result in local extirpation.
Bill Evans has researched the impact of wind projects on birds and bats for 20 years. Evans was qualified as an expert in avian acoustic monitoring and nocturnal bird migration. He said that a number of species in Ontario, including the Purple Martin, have been in long-term decline, but Stantec did no surveys of Purple Martins during late summer when large numbers gather to roost. Evans noted that Purple Martin collision fatalities are increasing at Ontario wind facilities and made up 6.09% of all bird fatalities in 2014, higher than in 2012.
Dr. Shawn Smallwood was qualified as an ecologist with expertise in avian wildlife behaviour and conservation. In addition to 70 peer-reviewed publications Smallwood has done research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (WRA), a California wind project notorious for its high raptor mortality.
Smallwood told the ERT that impact monitoring at Wolfe Island indicates the highest avian fatality rates in North America other than at Altamont Pass WRA. Based on methods commonly used across the rest of North America, Smallwood estimates that Wolfe Island kills 21.9 birds per turbine per year. This is nearly twice the number reported by Stantec using searches only within a 50-foot radius, less than half of standard practice. Smallwood considers Wolfe Island one of the most dangerous wind projects on the American continent.
Smallwood predicts similar or higher fatality rates at the White Pines project because the peninsula is targeted by migrating birds as a stopover site and because the project is surrounded by wetlands and woodlands intensively used by birds. Moreover, many threatened and endangered species occur at the site. Stantec surveys for White Pines foster a high level of uncertainty because 19 hours of field work is so minimal that it’s impossible to know much about the large project area, and no surveys were done for migratory bats.
Smallwood recommends that serious and irreversible harm be assessed from a biological perspective, not from population analyses. Fatalities cause harm not only to the individuals killed but also to mates, dependent young, and social connections. Serious and irreversible harm should not be based only on body counts.
The ERT resumes Thursday, December 3, 10 a.m., at the Prince Edward Community Centre, 375 Main St., Picton.
Community Group Files Request for Judicial Review of Wind Farm Approval Process
<!– newsBody:PICTON, ON, Nov. 30, 2015 /CNW/ – CCSAGE Naturally Green (CCSAGE-NG) filed notice in Divisional Court at Ottawa today for a Judicial Review of the Renewable Energy Approval process for the White Pines wind power project in Prince Edward County.
The power project was approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in 2015. Part of that approval included a permit issued by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests to “kill, harm and harass” endangered or threatened wildlife species.
CCSAGE cited institutional bias, lack of evidence-based studies, disallowance of municipal input, and denial of natural justice in its court filing, which is supported by 1,500 pages of evidence showing that the government’s approval process violated the constitutional rights of citizens and communities as well as international treaties and agreements.
Ontario’s Green Energy Act permits appeals of wind power approvals only on grounds of serious harm to humans, or serious and irreversible harm to animal and/or plant life and to the natural environment, but not on other grounds such as a biased approval process, violation of constitutional rights, harm to local economies, harm to heritage features, diminution of property values, or violation of international treaties and agreements.
CCSAGE NG Chair Anne Dumbrille said that because the existing appeal process is biased in favour of the wind power developers, the group’s only choice was court: “The Environmental Review Tribunal is a government-appointed panel that follows government rules with the result that it allows destruction of environmentally sensitive areas. Our only recourse is to Canada’s courts, where rules of justice prevail,” she said.
CCSAGE NG was aided by research done by five students from the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.
CCSAGE NG is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation working to ensure that “Green Energy” initiatives of governments and industry are safe and appropriate for the citizens, wildlife and the natural and heritage environments of Prince Edward County.
All residents in White Pines project area will be affected by noise: top acoustician testimony
Report on Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing on White Pines Wind Project
November 20, 2015
by
Paula Peel, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC)
APPEC’s health appeal continued on Day 10 with expert witness Dr. Paul Schomer testifying before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project. The remainder of the day was spent making adjustments to the schedule following WPD’s abrupt announcement that it was dropping an appeal of the disallowance of two turbines (T7 and T11) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
Dr. Schomer, a former Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America with 48 years’ experience in noise measurement, was qualified by the ERT as an expert in acoustics. He told the Tribunal that all residents in the White Pines project area will be affected by audible and inaudible sound and a number of residents will be seriously affected. The effects reported by people living near wind projects are similar in nature to the effects experienced by participants in a 1985 University of Toronto study on infrasound. At lower levels and at higher levels of pure tone some participants experienced nausea and dizziness. However, when overtones were added at higher levels, participants experienced headaches and fatigue.
Dr. Schomer considers that internationally-accepted noise standards and protocols are being flouted in Ontario. For example, A-weighting is not supposed to be relied on when sounds have low-frequency content such as those emitted by industrial wind turbines. Canada is one of the countries that voted for this rule. He also calls for changes in current Ontario regulations to adjust up to 10 db(A) for wind turbine noise in rural areas. Other suggested adjustments include up to 3 db(A) for weather conditions and 3 to 4 db(A) for locations downwind of turbines. Dr. Schomer is highly critical of WPD’s current predicted average sound as it merely indicates that 50% of the time 50% of the residents will be exposed to sound above or below the limit. The wind industry should be held to a higher level of accountability: db(A) limits should be met 95% of the time.
Dr. Schomer pointed to a very important figure in the Health Canada Report. Only 1% of people are shown to be highly annoyed at 30 – 35 db(A) sound levels. However, at 35 – 40 db(A) the number jumps to 40%. Dr. Schomer sees this as evidence of a community response to wind turbine noise, and that what Health Canada says, what independent acoustic experts say, and what communities say should carry weight in Ontario.
Through experience Dr. Schomer has found that when community responses disagree with the physics, the physics is usually wrong. This has been confirmed by his involvement in six studies of wind farms, including the 8-turbine Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin where three families abandoned their homes and about 60 other people reported adverse health effects.
Listen to experts on turbine noise to protect health: Wind Concerns Ontario to MOECC
November 24, 2015
Wind Concerns Ontario has written to the Green Energy Approvals section of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, following testimony from acoustics experts at the appeal of the White Pines wind power project last week. We demanded that the MOECC review the testimony of the witnesses, specifically that Ontario’s noise regulations are inadequate to protect health, and apply the information to the current review of noise regulations for wind turbines in Ontario.
The letter has been received and acknowledged.
The letter follows.
Stephanie Liu
Senior Program Advisor
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Programs Division, Modernization of Approvals Branch, Green Energy Approvals,
135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto Ontario M4V 1P5
November 20, 2015
RE: NOISE GUIDELINES FOR WIND POWER PROJECTS
We are aware that the comment period for the proposed amendments to current noise guidelines for wind power projects has closed; however, there is testimony being given at the appeal of the White Pines project in Prince Edward County that is germane to your review, and should not be overlooked.
Several experts in acoustics, who have technical experience measuring the noise and low frequency noise emissions from wind power projects, have testified over the last few days to the following key points:
The Ontario regulations are inadequate to protect health
The Ontario regulations rely heavily on A-weighted measurement which is not adequate or appropriate (this fact was already mentioned in the federal government funded report from the Council of Canadian Academies)
Wind power developers’ predictions for noise are not always accurate and again, seek to conform to the inadequate regulations of the Ontario government
The Health Canada study of wind turbine noise and health clearly shows there are problems after 35 dB
What follows is a citizen report of testimony given by Dr Paul Schomer, an eminent acoustics professional.
APPEC’s health appeal continued on Day 10 with expert witness Dr. Paul Schomer testifying before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project. The remainder of the day was spent making adjustments to the schedule following WPD’s abrupt announcement that it was dropping an appeal of the disallowance of two turbines (T7 and T11) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
Dr. Schomer, a former Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America with 48 years’ experience in noise measurement, was qualified by the ERT as an expert in acoustics. He told the Tribunal that all residents in the White Pines project area will be affected by audible and inaudible sound and a number of residents will be seriously affected. The effects reported by people living near wind projects are similar in nature to the effects experienced by participants in a 1985 University of Toronto study on infrasound.
At lower levels and at higher levels of pure tone some participants experienced nausea and dizziness. However, when overtones were added at higher levels, participants experienced headaches and fatigue. Dr. Schomer considers that internationally-accepted noise standards and protocols are being flouted in Ontario. For example, A-weighting is not supposed to be relied on when sounds have low-frequency content such as those emitted by industrial wind turbines.
Canada is one of the countries that voted for this rule. He also calls for changes in current Ontario regulations to adjust up to 10 db(A) for wind turbine noise in rural areas. Other suggested adjustments include up to 3 db(A) for weather conditions and 3 to 4 db(A) for locations downwind of turbines.
Dr. Schomer is highly critical of WPD’s current predicted average sound as it merely indicates that 50% of the time 50% of the residents will be exposed to sound above or below the limit. The wind industry should be held to a higher level of accountability: db(A) limits should be met 95% of the time.
Dr. Schomer pointed to a very important figure in the Health Canada Report. Only 1% of people are shown to be highly annoyed at 30 – 35 db(A) sound levels. However, at 35 – 40 db(A) the number jumps to 40%. Dr. Schomer sees this as evidence of a community response to wind turbine noise, and that what Health Canada says, what independent acoustic experts say, and what communities say should carry weight in Ontario.
Through experience Dr. Schomer has found that when community responses disagree with the physics, the physics is usually wrong. This has been confirmed by his involvement in six studies of wind farms, including the 8-turbine Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin where three families abandoned their homes and about 60 other people reported adverse health effects.
We would ask that the Ministry be certain to review and consider this important evidence in its review of the noise guidelines for wind power projects, which are in no way “farms.”
Just this past week, Wind Concerns Ontario has learned of seven families forced to leave their homes in the area of the Goshen project; another half-dozen families are leaving their homes behind in West Grey. This is all due to the noise experienced.
This is a matter of grave concern, and we hope the government is sincere when it says its mission is to “protect the environment” which also means, the environment people live in.
CanWEA’s Hornung: his definition of ‘reliable’ is a bit off
Wind power: unreliable, and costly
Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario, with permission
Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), frequently uses the word “reliable” when expounding on the purported benefits of generating power from wind. Here are a couple of them: “Wind energy is meeting Canada’s demand for new electricity in a clean,reliable and cost-competitive way,” says Hornung. And this one: “Wind energy provides reliable power”.
Hornung’s use of the word “reliable” is not the same as Webster’s defines it: “to be relied on” and “giving the same result on repeated trials”. His use of the term “cost-competitive” fails the same test!
Some recent events offer contradicting evidence on the issue of wind’s “reliability” as a power source.
On October 5, 2015 wind production for the full 24 hours was 2,636 megawatts (MW) averaging 110 MW per hour—that represented just 0.5% of Ontario’s average demand of 16,394 MW per hour. Now measured against Ontario’s average hourly demand of October 19, 2015 at 14,997 MW is an interesting contrast. Ontario’s industrial wind turbines (IWTs), with an IESO1. reported capacity of 3,427 MW, were producing an average of 2,474 MW per hour, and in 24 hours cranked out 59,389 MWh, representing 16.5% of the average hourly demand. The lower demand day of October 19th (9.4% less than October 5th) saw those IWTs producing power at very high levels, which coincidentally resulted in average hourly exports 760 MW higher per hour.
The connection to high wind power generation and higher exports is obvious, as is the lower average of the hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP). October 5th that was $30.99 per MWh, but only $21.62 (30% lower) on October 19th.
What does it mean? Ontario’s ratepayers subsidized wind on the higher demand day by picking up the cost of $252K (2,626 X $127/MWh2. = $333K – $81K [2,626 X $30.99/MWh] = $252K). Compared to the subsidy picked up by Ontario’s ratepayers on October 19th , however, that was a bargain. On the latter day the cost was considerably more at $6.2 million (59,389 MWh X $127= $7.5 million – $1.3 million [59,389 MWh X $21.62/MWh] = $6.2 million).
Mr. Hornung and CanWEA may consider “reliable” to mean Ontario’s ability to supply our neighbours in New York, Michigan and elsewhere with power that is “cost-competitive.” It’s just not in his best interest to express it that way.
CanWEA needs to find new talking points that deal with the facts: power generation from wind is totally unreliable and anything but cost-competitive!
IESO do not report the full capacity until the IWT are commissioned by them, whereas the full capacity may be considerably higher.
The OEB estimates the average cost of wind generation at $127/MWh.
P.S.: Hour 18 on October 24, 2015 saw a new record for wind generation in Ontario with 3,123 MWh meaning IWT were operating at over 91% of capacity, and the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) was $13.36— subsidies were $350K for just that hour.
It’s a high-stakes legal battle over London-area wind farms that pits a self-proclaimed, Canada-loving, Texas oil tycoon against the federal government.
Mesa Power Group LLC vs. Government of Canada, a case that could leave taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, is expected to be ruled on within weeks, four years after the claim was launched by T. Boone Pickens under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Though the federal government is the defendant, Pickens’ real quarrel is with Ontario.
In submissions and testimony before the NAFTA panel hearing the arbitration case, Pickens’ company claims it failed to win contracts for four massive wind farms in Huron and Bruce counties in Southwestern Ontario because of political interference at the highest level.
“This whole process was not carried out in good faith. This was not honesty. This was not fairness. This process was infused with raw politics, arbitrariness, and an egregious abuse of authority,” Mesa lawyer Barry Appleton said in his closing submission to the panel’s three arbitrators at a hearing in Toronto in October 2014.
The claim contains allegations that have not been proven.
In his own testimony before the NAFTA arbitrators, Pickens described how he was a big fan of Canada because of its rule of law.
“My experiences were so good that I enjoyed telling people about it,” he said, relating how he came to Canada with less than $100,000 in 1959 and sold out 20 years later for $610 million.
But his experience in Ontario left him disappointed, he said.
“You always feel bad when you lose, and then you look to see why you lost, and here we lost because we didn’t have a level playing field,” Pickens testified.
Home to Ontario’s largest wind farms with its largest number of the highrise-sized turbines, Southwestern Ontario is no stranger to the controversies generated by the power-producing windmills. Critics have decried them as a threat to human health, divisive to rural communities and a financial blow to a province that signed up producers with early sweetheart deals paying them far more to generate power than consumers pay.
Details of this latest dust-up are found on a federal government website containing submissions by Mesa, the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and transcripts of the claim heard before a NAFTA tribunal last fall.
Mesa argued that other wind farm companies, Florida-based NextEra Energy and Korean-based Samsung — both, industry giants — were given illegal, preferential treatment and inside information that doomed Mesa’s projects.
“It was a cesspool. It was shameful. I feel very badly after seeing what went on here for my fellow Ontarians and the ratepayers of Ontario. They are having to bear the burden of the shameful behaviour,” Appleton said in a transcript from the hearing.
Responding to Mesa’s arguments, also at the hearing, Canada’s lawyers rejected Mesa’s assertions and said the company’s failures were self-inflicted.
“This is a case which is, as the expression goes, about sour grapes. It is a case about an investor who took a business risk and is unwilling to accept that that risk did not pay off,” government of Canada lawyer Shane Spelliscy said.
Spelliscy said Mesa’s applications for contracts with the Ontario Power Corp. were “sloppy” and “poorly done.”
When contracts were handed out, Mesa didn’t get one because its proposals weren’t highly ranked in a process monitored by an independent third party, Spelliscy said.
If they had put together better applications, they may have been successful, the federal lawyer said.
“There was no discrimination,” he said.
According to Mesa’s submissions, it decided to develop wind farms in Ontario — one, a 200-megawatt proposal in Bruce County would have been the largest in Ontario — after learning the province was offering 20-year contracts at a fixed price of 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
“Make no doubt about this, this was a highly attractive rate,” said Appleton.
The rate meant there was no shortage of competing applications. A critical factor for companies became whether there would be enough transmission capacity for wind energy in the areas where they’d selected to build.
Appleton said Mesa had no idea that Ontario had cut a separate deal to allocate transmission capacity to Samsung, a Korean industrial giant, which promised to build manufacturing plants in Ontario.
And Mesa, unlike some of its competitors, was never informed about rule changes, a chance to switch its transmission points in order to increase its chances, he said.
Part of Mesa’s case was based on e-mails from Bob Lopinski, a registered lobbyist for NextEra, to Energy Ministry officials during the allocation process.
Lopinksi, a principal at Counsel Public Affairs, had previously served as director of issues management and legislative affairs to then-premier Dalton McGuinty and advised the Liberal leader on selecting cabinet ministers.
Appleton said though Lopinski and NextEra executives were communicating with Ontario government and Hydro One officials, Mesa understood no such communication was allowed.
Canada’s response filed with the NAFTA panel was there isn’t any evidence NextEra was ever provided with non-public information.
Mesa has asked for damages of $653 million plus interest.
The company claims it already invested $160 million on preliminary work for four proposed wind farms in western Ontario and would have spent $1.2 billion-plus on construction:
F or the first time in Ontario’s electricity history the early morning hours of October 3 saw industrial wind turbines outproduce hydroelectricity. Hours 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. showed wind turbines generated 12,481 megawatts (MWh) versus 11,736 MWh of hydroelectricity. Generation from wind turbines represented over 21 per cent of Ontario’s total demand for those five hours.
The advocates of renewable energy will presumably tout this as proof of the wonders of industrial wind power but before they do they should consider the facts related to those five hours and the resulting costs!
Ontario’s total demand averaged 11,663 MW during the time frame, meaning base-load power supplied by nuclear and hydro could have easily coped with the province’s needs, making wind’s production surplus. During those five hours Ontario exported 11,718 MWh at an average price of $3.43 MWh, meaning revenue generated was about $43,000 (less than half a cent per kilowatt hour) whereas the cost for their production (if we attribute all exports to wind) was $1.5 million (at an average price of $123.50/MWh) or 12.4 cents/kWh!
Ontario was probably also spilling clean hydro and perhaps even curtailing wind generation and ratepayers were forced to pick up the cost for those manoeuvres.
Conclusion: Wind continues to whip Ontario’s ratepayers!
Ontario ratepayer fatigue: covering the costs of bargain basement sale of surplus power from wind and solar
When will it end?
Another month goes by and another $168 million from Ontario ratepayer’s pockets went to subsidize surplus electricity exports to our neighbours in New York, Michigan and Quebec. The month of August saw another 1,759,000 megawatts (MWh) or 1.76 terawatts of excess electricity generation exported. That cost Ontario’s electricity ratepayers $209 million—the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) sold it for $41 million.
The 1.76 terawatts (TWh) sold at the big discount was enough to supply 183 thousand “average” Ontario households with power for a full year. That sale brings our exports to 15.09 TWh for the first 8 months of 2015, enough to supply almost 1.6 million “average” households with power for a full year!
The costs of those export losses fall to all ratepayers; for the eight months ended August 31st, that means a “green energy tax” of $1.4 billion, or about $300 per average household. Quick math will disclose that the average monthly cost is $177 million meaning the total cost for Ontario’s ratepayers in 2015 may reach $2.1 billion or roughly $460 per ratepayer. The 23 TWh we will probably export would have provided 2.4 million ratepayers with their average annual power needs.
What about wind power in all this? In August, wind produced 3.5% (459.3 gigawatts or GWh) of total generation (13.05 TWh) and just over 26% of our exports; solar produced about 29 GWh (not including “embedded generation”). Combined, they represented 27.7% of our exports which begs the question—what benefit do they provide and why do we keep adding more generation at subsidized rates, if we lose money because we must export our surplus generation?
That question is unfortunately not going to be answered any time soon, if we look at the recently released IESO 18 month outlook (Oct 2015 to March 2017). The IESO report notes:
“About 1,900 MW of new supply – mostly wind and solar generation – will be added to the province’s transmission grid over the Outlook period. By the end of the period, the amount of grid-connected wind generation is expected to increase by 1,300 MW to about 4,500 MW. The total distribution-connected wind generation over the same period is expected to be about 700 MW. Meanwhile, grid-connected solar generation is expected to increase to 380 MW, complementing the embedded solar generation capacity of about 2,200 MW located within distribution networks by the end of the Outlook.”
According to the IESO report, Ontario will add 1,700 MW of generation from wind and solar generation over the next 15 months, which brings wind turbine capacity to 5,200 MW and solar to almost 2,600 MW. This is clearly not needed or dependable.
The IESO report also highlights what we have been told by various business associations that have expressed concern about the effects of rising electricity costs: “For the three months, wholesale customers’ consumption posted a 5.9% decrease over the same months a year prior with Pulp & Paper, Iron & Steel and Petroleum Products accounting for most of the reductions.”
That’s evidence that our primary processors are exiting Ontario, in large part because of high electricity prices, taking jobs with them.
The Ontario Wynne government is bent on ensuring Ontario leads the way to the highest prices of electricity in all of North America; they have only a couple of jurisdictions to overtake.
Wind power developer records protesters in Prince Edward County
WPD’s slogan: “Wind has no limits.” Apparently, greed doesn’t either.
MILFORD Ont., September 28, 2015—
As more than 300 residents of Prince Edward County gathered on Sunday to protest the assault on their community and the environment by two wind power projects (Ostrander Point and White Pines, both being appealed) Germany-based wind power developer wpd Canada recorded the event, including speeches given by various presenters.
“Shame on them,” says Paula Peel, secretary for the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC).
If the power developer’s presence recording people was meant as an intimidation tactic, it didn’t work, Peel says.
The organizers did a brisk business selling T-shirts and protest signs, she says. “If you didn’t come to the rally with a T-shirt or sign, it’s likely you left with one.”
“The one thing wpd will take away from our rally is that the fight is only just beginning.”
A few of the 300 people in Milford Ontario yesterday: not the right place for a power project (Photo: MPP Todd Smith)
HGTV host of Income Property Scott McGillivray once described Prince Edward County as “it is to Toronto what the Hamptons are to New York.”
For now.
Despite the fact that Prince Edward County is classified as an Important Bird Area for migrating birds in North America, despite the fact that taxpayer dollars have gone to promote its tourism and wine industries, and despite the fact that The County is steeped in Canadian Loyalist history, the Ontario government has approved not one but two wind power projects for the area.
People don’t think that’s right.
And they said so yesterday, as more than 300 people gathered at the Mount Tabor Community Hall in Milford to protest.
The Ostrander Point project has already been under appeal for years, and recently heard shocking testimony that a species at risk expert working for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommended a permit NOT be granted for the project. The province gave the permit to kill wildlife, and approved the project. Hearings resume October 27th as the Ministry has been directed to produce more documentation on that process.
The community has also appealed the “White Pines” project by Germany-based wpd Canada, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for early November.
How does the Ontario government justify its wind power program which is supposed to “save” the environment, while it is despoiling fragile environments and killing wildlife?
![South Shore Prince Edward County: how did a power plant get approved for this? [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]](https://ottawawindconcerns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/southshorepec.jpg)
–>
Ottawa Wind Concerns 