Health researcher Carmen Krogh was a guest speaker at this year’s ideacity event in Toronto. No matter where in the world industrial-scale wind turbines have been installed, she said, the constellation of symptoms is the same.
This has become a world public health concern.
Take 20 minutes, please, to view this presentation, and ask yourself about the role of the Government of Canada in this, as the wind power industry leads the government down the renewable energy “roadmap” using taxpayer dollars. It is time the government sponsor proper, independent research that really wants to find an answer, not promote the industry on the untested promise of green energy and jobs.
As you may know, the Senate in Australia (which is an elected body) has been conducting a review of wind turbines and problems associated with wind power generation in that country for several months.
Although the final report is not due out until August, the Committee felt it necessary to release an interim report and the “headline recommendations.”
They are very interesting…and refreshing in that here is a body that has listened to both sides, and has concluded there is cause for concern.
Of particular interest are these three paragraphs from the report.
Why are there so many people who live in close proximity to wind turbines complaining of similar physiological and psychological symptoms? As with previous Senate inquiries, this committee has gathered evidence from many submitters attributing symptoms of dizziness, nausea, migraines, high blood pressure, tinnitus, chronic sleep deprivation and depression to the operation of nearby wind turbines. The committee invites the public to read and consider the evidence of people who have experienced these symptoms and who attribute their anxiety and ill health to the operation of turbines.2
1.13 These health affects should not be trivialised or ignored. The committee was particularly distressed by renewable energy advocates, wind farm developers and operators, public officials and academics who publicly derided and sometimes lampooned local residents who were genuinely attempting to make known the adverse health effects they were suffering.
1.14 The committee is aware of people complaining of these impacts who have since left their family home. Some now live a nomadic and uncertain existence. In one case, the now deserted home had been in the family for five generations—since the 1840s. These are not decisions taken lightly. Having left the turbine vicinity, several witnesses noted that the symptoms had faded if not disappeared.3
The Committee quite rightly observed that the decision to leave the family home, and often hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment, to say nothing of farm operations and property, because they HAD TO.
The recommendations listed by the Senate Committee include the need for independent clinical research, and continuous independent monitoring of wind power project noise and infrasound (oh, and we need standards and regulations for infrasound–Ontario doesn’t have these and is dragging its feet on this issue)—the Committee also vindicated the effort and methodology of acoustician Stephen Cooper whose Cape Bridgeport study and finding of unique “sensation” resulting from the turbine emissions.
Several months ago, Ottawa Wind Concerns was subjected to a barrage of insulting Tweets one evening from Australia from a pro-wind power physician, and acolytes of sociologist Simon Chapman. Mr Chapman is mentioned specifically in the Senate Committee report, presumably as one of the disappointing “academics.” (Mr Chapman also functions as a paid consultant for the wind power industry.)
The commentators that evening included one Chris Young of Ottawa who works in the renewable energy field (former Board member of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, and former employee of NorSun Energy). Mr Young, at the end of a trail of increasingly insulting posts claiming that people who reported health effects from turbine audible noise and infrasound were essentially nuts, said that Ottawa Wind Concerns, people like us, and specifically me, were “irrelevant.”
Now that we have a government body stating that there is cause for concern, that the wind power industry’s behaviour has been lamentable, and that the way forward is research that is actually intended to find out what’s going on, we ask, who is “irrelevant” now?
Jane Wilson, RN
Chair, Ottawa Wind Concerns
ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
P.S. The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association is supported significantly by taxpayers. See funding information here.
P.P.S. Mr Young now enjoys the position of being the only person blocked from our Twitter feed.
Addington Highlands’ Council voted this week to survey residents on the proposed wind power development that could see 100 or more industrial-scale, or utility-scale wind turbines throughout the area.
If you own property in Addington Highlands, you are eligible to participate and should do so immediately.
For general information on the wind power proposals in the Land O Lakes area, you may wish to join the email list at Bon Echo Area Residents Against Turbines at www.bearat.org
Not the photo the Standard-Freeholder used, of a turbine alone in a field. THIS is reality: a house and turbine near KIncardine, Ont.
U.S.-based Invenergy is trying to persuade South Dundas to reverse its unwilling host resolution and put its stamp of approval on a proposal for more wind turbines for the area.
South Dundas remains a magnet for wind power developers, despite an earlier proclamation the municipality is “not a willing host” for the controversial turbines.
Just on the heels of a presentation made by the township’s only resident turbine developer, EDP Renewables, a second firm wants in on the action. South Dundas council heard last Tuesday from James Murphy and Ryan Ralph, who were representing Invenergy, reputed to be the continent’s sixth-largest green energy entity.
Invenergy is proposing its Nine Mile Project, which would be considerably more ambitious the current South Branch project that is now operating in the Brinston area. It would also spill into North Dundas.
If developed, Nine Mile would produce between 50-90 megawatts/hr. South Branch delivers 30 megawatts, but EDP is hoping to expand its operations in the township.
Invenergy needs council’s blessing in order to arm itself with a best-case argument to get provincial approval as it competes with some 40 other companies. One of the requirements that South Dundas wants projects to satisfy is to show there is a demand for more electricity.
Invenergy has indicated by 2019, more energy will need to be produced in Ontario, reversing a current trend of selling power at loss to other jurisdictions.
Mayor Evonne Delegarde said the new council welcomes new presentations in order to analyze their individual worth.
One of the social spinoffs for hosting a turbine project is the community donations the township receives annually – $1,000 for every megawatt produced, so Nine Mile would provide $50,000 to $90,000 per year for 20 years.
As for her opinion, the mayor said the community investment would not be a factor in view of whether to accept the proposal. Several property owners have already signed up to receive $500,000 in lease payments if the project goes ahead.
NOTE: Ottawa Wind Concerns has learned that a community group opposed to the wind power project may be forming in North Stormont–we will keep you informed.
Land owners need to be socially responsible when deciding to sign leases for wind turbines, Wind Concerns Ontario tells Ontario Federation of Agriculture president
The following is a letter sent by Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson to OFA president Don McCabe, in response to remarks made by Mr. McCabe at a wind farm information meeting in Finch, Ontario. Several of Mr. McCabe’s comments to the audience, such as that there is no surplus of power in Ontario, were not correct, WCO said in the letter.
As well, while Mr. McCabe’s advice to landowners to “get a lawyer” is sound, Wilson said, the attitude that landowners need to concentrate only on getting everything they want in a lease is isolationist and archaic, and is helping to divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.
“Not one word was said about responsibility to community, and neighbours. This [attitude] does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others,” Wilson said.
The letter was sent to Mr. McCabe, and the Board of Directors for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Dear Mr. McCabe:
It was interesting to meet you last week in Finch, Ontario at the Lions’ Club event, where we both spoke, along with Mr. Levy of CanWEA.
I was relieved to hear your strong advice to those attending and contemplating signing a lease with a wind power developer, to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.” This is excellent advice: as you know, these contracts typically contain dozens of pages of various clauses outlining requirements and limitations…many people do not understand what they are being asked to sign.
I was disappointed, however, in other aspects of your presentation. First, there were a couple of statements made that are not correct and may even be misleading.
Power surplus in Ontario: in my presentation I had suggested that more wind power projects were not necessary, especially not for a form of power generation that is intermittent, produced out-of-phase with demand and is expensive, causing Ontario electricity rates to rise. You countered by saying that Ontario has no surplus of power. This is not correct: the Ontario Energy Minister himself admits that Ontario has surplus power and also says that the province will have a surplus for years to come. See his quotes and the forecast for power rates in a Globe and Mail article here.
“Net metering”: you told the audience that they should arrange in their lease to share in the wind power produced by any turbines on their land. This is not correct—it is unlikely one could get power from the wind turbine on a farm, and moreover, it would be in violation of the contract the wind power developer has with the Ontario government to obtain the Feed In Tariff to do that.
Turbine noise: you suggested to the audience that if the noise from turbines were to bother them, they could make sure that there is a clause in the lease so that the power developer would have to address that. This is extremely unlikely; at present, there are thousands of noise complaints in Ontario that go unresolved by either the developer or the Ministry of the Environment.
Community input to power projects: In response to several questions from the floor, you did advise people to go to the government website on the new Large Renewable Power Request for Proposal process, but you also suggested to at least one audience member that there is nothing communities can do, if a power proposal comes forward. That is not correct: people can work with their municipal governments, members of their community, and also choose not to sign the agreement required of adjacent property owners.
Contracts: I believe you also suggested to a farm owner who had signed a contract/option and was now having second thoughts that there was nothing he could do. This also is not correct, and would have been another opportunity for you to advise him to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.”
That brings me to the second area of disappointment in your presentation: the overarching theme of your remarks was that if people are going to sign a lease for a wind turbine project they should make certain that they get concessions from the power developer that benefit them. There was not a single mention in your remarks of the need for responsible consideration of other members of one’s community, including fellow farm operators, and neighbours.
This was a very narrow view that demonstrates no balance and instead indicates an archaic, “I can do whatever I want on my land” view. This does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others.
Our concern with this isolationist view of farm ownership is that it will further divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.
OFA needs to clarify its position on this matter, and further, consider advising your membership that when it comes to deciding whether to participate in a wind power project, the responsible course of action is to balance their financial opportunities with the economic, health and social needs of others around them.
We would be pleased to meet with the OFA Board to discuss our concerns.
More than 100 bird species will be at risk from wind turbines
When multi-national wind power developer EDP Renewables revealed the project map at its Open House in Crysler last week, many attending were surprised to note that the project area covers and includes the Reveler Conservation Area.
The conservation area shelters more than 100 species of birds and offers a place for them to rest on their migrations twice a year. The spot is popular with bird enthusiasts and others who enjoy Nature.
Wind turbines are known for killing birds and bats, both of which are necessary parts of the eco-system. The wind “farm” at Wolfe Island is responsible for “shockingly high” numbers of bird deaths, said a report in the Globe and Mail.
The wetlands and woodlands of the South Nation watershed attract many species of wildlife.
EDP plans to erect 30-50 wind turbines in Stormont Dundas and Glengarry.
Wind developers typically claim that cats kill more birds than wind turbines, but the fact is that wind turbines are responsible for the death of many raptor species such as hawks and eagles, who are unlikely to be preyed upon by cats.
LOS ANGELES (CN) – Wind energy companies bulldozed a black family’s house because they were the sole holdouts who refused to sell out to a huge wind farm, the family claims in court.
Darlene Dotson and her sons David and Daniel sued EDP Renewables North America, Horizon Wind Energy Co., Rising Tree Wind Farm, CVE Contracting Group, and Renewable Land LLC, on May 7 in Superior Court.
The family wastes no time in getting down to specifics. “Plaintiffs in this action are the victims of a multinational energy developer who refused to accept ‘No’ for an answer,” the 32-page complaint begins.
“The heart of the issue is that the Dotsons own property in Mojave that is sought after by EDP Renewables for windmills, and they refuse to sell,” the family’s attorney Morgan Stewart told Courthouse News.
Mojave, pop. 4,300, is 50 miles east of Bakersfield, below the Tehachapi Mountains, on the edge of the immense Mojave Desert.
“The home on the property was a family home they used for family vacations and gatherings. EDP pressured them to sell, but they still refused,” Stewart said.
“The house was damaged several times when they were away. And then one time when they went back to the house they found that it had been demolished, scraped to the foundations, along with all of their belongings. The companies did it.
“We see it as intentional because EDP needed the property for the wind farm, but the Dotsons wouldn’t sell,” Stewart said.
EDP Renewables is building the Rising Tree Wind Farm about 3 miles west of Mojave in Kern County.
Project leaders estimate the wind farm will generate 199 megawatts of electricity when it goes online sometime this year – enough to power around 60,000 homes and take 33,000 cars off the road.
The Dotsons say the defendants first approached them about the wind farm in 2009, claiming they needed to buy the surrounding parcels of land, including the Dotsons’ land, for the wind farm.
The Tehachapi Mountains, which top out at 7,992 feet, generate nearly constant winds, as the cool air on top and the Pacific Ocean to the west suck the superheated desert air through the mountain passes.
“Like the infamous Daniel Plainview from Paul Thomas Anderson’s Film, ‘There Will Be Blood,’ defendants held themselves out as friends to the local community and a source of prosperity for its residents. Among other things, defendants promised Mrs. Dotson and her neighbors that the wind farm would stimulate the local economy and generate energy revenue for cooperating landowners. All that Mrs. Dotson and her neighbors had to do was to sign over the rights to their homes,” the complaint states.
But Darlene Dotson says she resisted the sales pitch, telling the companies she was not interested in selling because her family “cherished” their home and its underlying history more than the companies’ offers of money.
“The house had been in their family for 20 years, and was one of the original homesteads built by African Americans in the early 20th century,” attorney Stewart said.
The Dotsons used the home for family gatherings, vacations, barbeques and birthday parties. Daniel and David Dotson grew up playing in the house and then took their own children to play there. It was “hallowed ground” to the family, according to the complaint.
In addition to memories, the house contained the Dotsons’ family mementos, including photographs of deceased family members, family heirlooms and antiques.
Though all of their neighbors agreed to sell or lease their land, the Dotsons held out and “respectfully declined” the companies’ numerous offers, according to the complaint.
When the companies realized the family was adamant about keeping their home, they became aggressive and hostile, the Dotsons say. Mrs. Dotson claims the companies’ agents insulted her and spoke to her disrespectfully, and told her that “the home was worthless and that the Dotsons should take the money because it was the best they would ever get for the land.”
They harassed her sons and tried to bully them into persuading her to sell the house by threatening to “surround the home on all sides with the wind farm, restricting the Dotson’s access to the home and causing the home’s property value to plummet,” the complaint states.
Stewart said the companies wanted the property so badly they approached the Dotsons’ neighbors and asked them how to persuade the Dotsons to sell.
Then the defendants vandalized the house, breaking windows and patio furniture, the Dotsons claim. “In essence, the Dotsons were being terrorized in their home,” the complaint states.
In February this year the defendants started demolishing the surrounding homes to develop the land for the wind farm.
When David Dotson went up to the family home in late March to do some maintenance, he discovered that the home was “literally wiped off the face of the Earth,” that all the furnishings and family belongings “were simply eviscerated,” the complaint states.
Stewart said the family is not sure exactly when the house was demolished, but suspects it was around the time the companies started knocking down the other homes.
The Dotsons say several people from the companies called and left messages admitting that they had demolished the Dotson’s home and insisting that it was a mistake.
But the Dotsons claim it was a deliberate ploy to make them sell their land.
“The pressure to sell from EDP, the strong-arm tactics leading up to the demolition, and coming along afterward and trying to buy again, all indicate that this was not an accident,” Stewart said. “This was an intentional act by a company that thought it could strong-arm these people.”
Though there is no direct evidence of racism, Stewart thinks the Dotsons’ race had something to do with it.
“They are the only African American family in the area, the only ones pressured very hard by the companies, and the only ones who had their house demolished when they refused to sell,” he said.
Stewart said it takes a deliberate effort to destroy a house because the gas and water must be turned off, among other things.
“It’s especially sad because they described how they built parts of the house with their own hands. It’s ugly,” he said.
Representatives with the companies did not reply to requests for comment.
The Dotsons seek punitive damages for trespass to land, violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, nuisance, unfair business practices and negligence.
Attorney Stewart is with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, of Irvine.
[NOTE: EDP Renewables is the power developer proposing a 150-megawatt, 50-turbine wind power project in Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, and currently operates the South Branch wind “farm” in Brinston, Ontario]
Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn, together with several associates, have now published a peer-reviewed article based on their literature review of studies on wind turbine noise and health impacts.
Their conclusion: we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association.
The wind power development lobby insists there is not relationship between wind turbine noise, inaudible noise/low-frequency noise/infrasound, and often implies that people who claim such effects are actually ill-informed or not receiving money. A spokesperson for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture told an audience at this year’s Rural Ontario Municipalities Association meeting that anyone claiming to experience health impacts from turbine noise had questionable mental health stability and that the listener should “just cough on them.” His remarks were withdrawn by the OFA with an apology shortly thereafter.
Wind developers can use farm leases as security for financing the power project
Ontario Farmer, May 5, 2015
by Garth Manning and Jane Wilson
It came as a surprise to many in Ontario when it was revealed that the multi-national power developers behind the K2 wind power generation project near Goderich had secured $1 B in financing, and that this arrangement is now registered on title for the 100 farm properties involved as lessors.
The arrangement is between K2 Wind Ontario Inc. and Mizuho Bank Ltd. Canada Branch. It secures a revolving credit facility of up to $1 billion at 25% on a number of items, including the contracts between landowners and K2 for land and road agreements with municipalities.
Another, smaller example has also come to light: a wind power project south of Ottawa in Eastern Ontario, where the five landowners leasing land for a 30-megawatt, 10-turbine project now have charges on their properties for $70 million.
Immediately, questions arise as to what would happen if the power developers were to default on their loans: would the lender then own the farm properties? How would that affect road use agreements with municipalities?
The fact is, this is a common practice. Property owners can refer to the leases imposed by the developers to review this potential situation, and many others that may affect operation and ownership of their land while leasing land for the power projects.
In an Invenergy standard contract, for example, is this clause: “In connection with the Lessee’s financing of the Project, the Lessee….is hereby given the right by the Lessor…to mortgage its interests in the Lease…and to assign this Lease, or any part of parts thereof, and any subleases as collateral security…”
The proper term for this is a “Charge of Lease” but may also be referred to as a “Demand Debenture.” What it means is, the present value of the wind power contract (i.e., the Feed In Tariff or FIT contract with the Ontario government) is greater than the present value of the lease amount. The difference between those two amounts is security for the loan to the power developer. It is a charge against all contracts favourable to the wind power developer, which may also include road use agreements.
It is like a line of credit for the developer and typically, advances against the amount are tied to certain milestones such as stages of construction.
The critical factor, however, is what it means for the lessors, in other words the farm owners who have leased their land for wind turbines, access roads, substations, transmission lines, etc. The importance lies not so much that the farmer lessors might on default lose their land (the farm land itself is not mortgaged, just the turbine contract on that land) but the damage it does to that property owner if he/she wants to sell, or to renew an existing mortgage, or place a new one, or in any way borrow money for which the lender would want security on his/her land.
Let’s assume a farm owner wants financing for farm operations or improvements. That might now pose difficulty: lenders do not like to be second in line, as they would be where a charge of lease is in place.
If the farm owner wishes to sell, similar difficulties arise: the lawyer for a purchaser in the case of an agreement to purchase will do a title search and discover the Charge of Lease on title, then immediately advise his or her client that the client is entitled to get out of the deal unless the registration of the Charge is removed from title. A purchaser is not expected to assume any risk of this nature.
In the case of renewing an existing mortgage or placing a new one, the lawyer for the bank or other lending institution would take the same position — no renewal or new mortgage unless the customer sees that the Charge disappears from title.
This is one of several important characteristics of signing a lease to have wind turbines, and needs to be thoroughly considered. Other legal issues to be carefully considered may include potential liability for the substantial cost of “decommissioning” turbines at the end of the lease, difficulty obtaining insurance on property with wind turbines, loss of autonomy over building on the property and carrying out regular farming practices, and, last, the potential for nuisance suits from neighbours affected by noise or property value loss.
Property owners should consult with a lawyer before signing any agreement.
Garth Manning is a retired lawyer and former president of the Ontario Bar Association, who lives in Prince Edward County. Jane Wilson is president of Wind Concerns Ontario; she lives in North Gower.
Construction of one of the 3-MW turbines at Brinston, now operating–30-50 more proposed by EDP Renewables
Ottawa Wind Concerns has learned that a “Charge of Lease” has been placed on the South Branch wind “farm” in the amount of $70 million. The charge is on the leasehold interest in five properties, where property owners have leased land for wind turbines, access roads, substations, and other parts of the wind power generation project.
Earlier this month, details came to light on the 140-turbine K-2 project near Goderich, Ontario, where a charge of lease has been filed on the title for 100 farm properties, in the amount of $1 billion.
The Charge of Lease is basically a financing agreement between a lender (who may represent investors in the wind power project) and the wind power developer, that can function as a line of credit. The basis for the Charge, as we understand it, is that the present value of the contract for the turbines, i.e., the Feed In Tariff contract for power with the Province of Ontario is greater than the present value of the lease agreements with the landowners; the difference between those two values is the security for the loan.
The South Branch contract with the Ontario government runs for 20 years and is worth millions to the developer, who bought the project from Germany-based Prowind.
The importance of the existence of these agreements is the effect they have for the landowner leasing land for the wind turbines. In the opinion of a lawyer advising us (who prefers the term “Demand Debenture” for this arrangement:
It’s not so much that the farmer lessors might on default lose their land (the land itself is not mortgaged, just the turbine contract on that land) but the damage it does to that farmer if he/she wants to sell or to renew an existing mortgage, or place a new one or in any way borrow money for which the lender would want security on his/her land.
Assume a binding Agreement of Purchase and Sale. The lawyer for the purchaser does a title search and discovers the Demand Debenture. The lawyer would immediately tell his/her client that the client is entitled to get out of the deal unless the registration of the Demand Debenture is removed from title, and would also insist to the farmer’s lawyer that this be done otherwise the deal cannot close. A purchaser is not expected to assume any risk of this nature nor to be in the position of “buying a law suit”.
in the case of renewing an existing mortgage or placing a new one, the lawyer for the Bank or other lending institution would take the same position – no renewal or new mortgage unless the customer sees to it that the Demand Debenture disappears from title. Period. End of story.
This is another example of the very serious questions that need to be asked by anyone considering leasing their land for a wind power generation project. There are many serious and long-lasting effects to signing these agreements that need to be properly understood.
In 2013, the Not A Willing Host group of municipalities met in Ottawa at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario convention. At that meeting, one Ontario mayor said, What people need to understand is that basically, they sold their property for the amount of the lease agreement.
** Please see also, the article from the May 5th edition of Ontario Farmer on the charge of lease issue, here.
LOS ANGELES (CN) – Wind energy companies bulldozed a black family’s house because they were the sole holdouts who refused to sell out to a huge wind farm, the family claims in court.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 