• About
  • BRINSTON/SOUTH BRANCH/NORTH DUNDAS/NORTH STORMONT
  • Donate!
  • Ottawa’s “Energy Evolution”: wind turbines coming to rural communities
  • Wind Concerns Ontario

Ottawa Wind Concerns

~ A safe environment for everyone

Ottawa Wind Concerns

Tag Archives: WPD Canada

Pilots demand Transport Minister act on aviation safety and wind turbines

03 Saturday Sep 2016

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aviation safety, Canadian Owners and Pilots, Collingwood airport, COPA, Environmental Review Tribunal, Fairview Wind, Kevin Ellwood, Marc Garneau, Stayner Airport, wind farm, wind turbines, WPD Canada

Wind turbines may close busy airport: pilots launch political campaign

This is an excerpt from the August edition of COPA Flight, provided by a member of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association.

So ridiculous, pilots can't believe anyone would put turbines at an airport
So ridiculous, pilots can’t believe anyone would put turbines at an airport

Windmills may close airport

By Russ Niles

The owner of an Ontario airport that will be in the shadow of a proposed wind turbine project fears Transport Canada [TC] will close his strip if the windmills are built.

Kevin Elwood says he’s been told by a senior TC official that the department will not intervene to prevent construction of the windmills but it will act to ensure public safety after the fact by restricting or even stopping operations at the affected airport.

“He said that if [the province of Ontario] chooses to put green energy before airports, that’s their choice,” he said. “We will respond by restricting airport operations and we will go so far as to close airports,” he {Elwood] quoted the official as saying.

That would seem to fit with the scenario now playing out over the so-called Fairview Project, a group of eight, 152-metre turbines planned for farmland adjacent to Elwood’s Clearview Aerodrome (also known as Stayner Airport). The huge windmills will be directly in the flightpath of aircraft in the circuit for his airport and the nearby Collingwood Airport.

TC has declined to oppose the project and that means the only hope Elwood and other opponents of the windmills have is the rarely used power on the Minister of Transport to unilaterally stop the project on safety grounds.

Minister Marc Garneau has so far been silent on the issue and COPA is calling on its 17,000 members (and voters) to apply their significant political influence to nudge him out of that complacency.

COPA has launched a full-scale letter writing campaign to draw attention to the issue that Elwood is convinced is an immediate threat to both airports and will set a precedent that could affect airports across the country.

The turbines would be in blatant violation of Transport Canada’s airport obstacle guidelines and Garneau, a long-time pilot and COPA member, has the power to stop their construction. In fact, because of the protection afforded such projects by Ontario’s Green Energy Act, Garneau is probably one of the few who can stop them. He won’t even talk about the issue, however.

“We really have a good working relationship with Transport Canada, very open and collaborative,” [says COPA President Bernard Gervais]. “As part of our regular discussions I presented the situation and possible course of action,” Gervais said. “Section 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act authorizes the minister to make an interim order to deal with such threats to aviation. If the minister is of the opinion that the windmills are hazardous to aviation safety, he (or his deputy) has the authority to stop such construction. … the lack of feedback from TC and knowing this is a very sensitive political issue, drives me to think that our only course of action at this point is to go on the political front.”

ERT members unfamiliar with aviation safety

COPA appeared at the original [ERT] hearings in the approval* process along with many other opponents, and all of the arguments were essentially ignored. … Complicating that process is the fact that the two members hearing the health arguments have no aviation background at all and have had to be schooled on airport operations and aviation terminology.

… [Elwood] says that if it plays out as he thinks it might, TC will either close his airport or make it so difficult and inconvenient to use that it might as well be closed. The aerodrome is home bas to Elwood’s business, an aircraft management and business charter operation. Over the years he’s invested heavily in hangars and other infrastructure and if the windmills go ahead, a lifetime of work might go down the drain.

[The wind turbines] will prevent pilots from using the recently re-invigorated [Collingwood Airport]. Ironically, the federal government has spent millions on improvements to the field, including a new terminal and lots of new pavement.

“Even people who don’t fly, [says Collingwood based pilot Austin Boake], they realize it’s just common sense …It’s just so ridiculous I can’t even believe it.”

*The author means the “appeal process.”

For more information on the COPA appeal go to: http://www.copanational.org/FeedFeds.cfm

Advertisement

Counties and Town join forces to find wind farm danger

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Collingwood, environmental damage wind farms, legal fights wind farms, wind farm, wind farm aviation safety, WPD Canada

Simcoe and Clearview Counties have announced they are joining forces with the Town of Collingwood to fight a proposed (and approved) wind “farm” that will be near the Collingwood airport.

Collingwood already had a consulting firm examine the economic impacts of the wind power project, which concluded the power development would “serve a narrow range of private interests,” not the public. Now, the counties and Town are concerned about the danger to pilots and passengers from the proximity of the turbines to the local airport.

See a CTV News report http://barrie.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=816331

Wolfe Island “most dangerous” wind farm in North America for birds, experts testify at appeal hearing

02 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

birds Ontario, endangered species Ontario, environmental damage wind farms, green energy, Ontario wildlife, wind farm, wind power, Wolfe Island, WPD Canada

South Shore Prince Edward County: how did a power plant get approved for this? [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]

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.

Power developer records citizens at community event

29 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alliance to protect Prince Edward County, community opposition wind farms, prince Edward County, White Pines wind farm, wind developer intimidation, wind farm, wind power, windmills, WPD Canada

Reposted from WindConcernsOntario.ca

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.”

 

Contact APPEC and read more here.

Hundreds protest wind power projects in The County

28 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

environment Ontario, Hastings Prince Edward Land Trust, Milford Ontario, Ontario government, Ontario Ministry of NAtural Resources, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ostrander Point, Point2Point Foundation, power project, prince Edward County, South Shore Conservancy, wildlife Ontario, wind farm, wind power, wind power plants, WPD Canada

A few of the 300 people in Milford Ontario yesterday: not the right place for a power project

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.

All this time, various community groups such as the Point2Point Foundation, the Hastings Prince Edward Land Trust, and the South Shore Conservancy have been working with the federal and provincial governments to have the entire south shore declared off-limits to development like wind power plants.

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?

These groups could use your help.

Ostrander Point: www.saveostranderpoint.org

White Pines: Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County https://appec.wordpress.com/

ToughonNature-smaller

Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario

Fixing a bad law: lawyers collaborate to fight Green Energy Act

24 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Environmental Review Tribunal, Green Energy Act, legal action wind farms, opposition to wind farms, prince Edward County, Renewable Energy Approvals Ontario, wind farms, wind power, wind power developer profits, windmills, WPD Canada

 

Wellington Times, September 23, 2015

Legal minds collaborate to restore rights and safeguards diminished by the Green Energy Act

The Green Energy Act (GEA) is the target of a proposed judicial review to be launched this fall. CCSAGE Naturally Green, a not-for-profit public interest corporation led by its directors Anne Dumbrille, Alison Walker and Garth Manning, believe the GEA is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. They argue the GEA tramples rights and freedoms, punishes rural Ontarians, contravenes statutes and conventions the province is bound to uphold, and, at its core, is fundamentally unjust.

One example: Currently, wind developer wpd Canada is appealing a decision, made under the provisions of the GEA, permitting it to build 27 of 29 industrial wind turbines it proposes in South Marysburgh. In making this appeal, the developer is allowed to make a wide range of arguments and present evidence in its favour. It will certainly argue that the decision will impair its ability to make money from the project. It may argue that the heritage value of the nearby properties has been overstated. It is likely to argue many things. Because it can.

Meanwhile, opponents of the project are permitted only to object on the basis that the project will cause serious harm to humans or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.

The developer is granted unlimited scope to argue in favour of its profit, while residents are restricted to just two near-impossible tests. The province designed the GEA this way.

Alan Whiteley, a lawyer acting for CCSAGE, considers the GEA a fundamental assault on the rights, freedoms and statutes that have been constructed to protect citizens and the environment from this kind of overreach by government. It is something, he argues, we must all resist.

Specifically he is asking the courts to examine the process by which the province reviewed and ultimately granted the renewable energy approval (REA) to wpd Canada for its White Pines project in South Marysburgh.

“We believe there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the process,” said Whiteley. “The GEA has created a minority—residents of rural Ontario—and has taken away our right to object except for the narrowest of grounds.”

He argues that the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), as the sole appeal mechanism of an REA is a product of this bias.

He explains that under administrative law, the Ministry of Environment’s director plays a quasijudicial role—examining and weighing evidence and reaching a decision, for example, to grant a wind developer an approval, which could include a permit to “harm, harass and kill” an endangered species. But as citizens, we are precluded from knowing how that decision was reached— or whether it was fair.

To assist CCSAGE scale this legal mountain, the group has enlisted the assistance of York University professor Stepan Wood and five of his law students at Osgoode Hall Law School. Together, they are working to accumulate evidence and legal arguments to buttress the group’s claim that the GEA violates natural justice, prevailing statutes and individual rights in at least two dozen ways.

PREJUDICIAL AND UNFAIR
Whiteley returns to the inequity of the ERT appeal mechanism that enables the developer a wide scope of arguments, but restricts opponents to just two—human health and animals, plants and habitat destruction.

“Only the proponent may argue matters of heritage, economics or property rights,” explained Whiteley. “We are precluded by the act from showing how this project will impact heritage, the local tourism economy or property values. The ERT is part of the unfairness.”

He points to the divide created by the GEA in Ontario between rural and urban communities.

“In Toronto, you can rely on your official plan to protect you from industrial wind turbines from diminishing the value of your property,” said Whiteley. “In rural Ontario, local decisionmaking has been taken away. Our mayor has said clearly that this community is not a willing host to these projects. Yet the GEA permits it over the objections of the community.

“The GEA has created a minority in rural Ontario and taken away our right to object to development that fundamentally alters our landscape, economic prospects and heritage value—with no recourse,” said Whiteley. “This is prejudicial and unfair.”

He says the province is signatory to statutes and memorandums of understanding with other governments to protect endangered species and species at risk. Yet it grants wind and solar developers permits to ‘harm, harass and kill’ these animals and destroy habitat— without knowing how, or on what evidence, the province reached its conclusion.

This is a particularly acute question since a ministry expert on turtles testified earlier this month in an ERT hearing in Demorestville that he recommended against granting a developer the permit to ‘harm, harass and kill’ the Blanding’s turtle.

The group hopes to commence court proceedings shortly after Thanksgiving. They expect muscular response from the Ontario government and from the developer and the Canadian wind industry. If successful, they expect, the decision will be appealed—likely landing at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another measure of the significance of the challenge is the participation by the Osgoode Law School’s Wood and students Stephen Gray, Sabrina Molinari, Timon Sisic, Amanda Spitzig and Imelda Lo.

“Each of them comes to the project with a remarkable CV,” noted Garth Manning. “They have taken to this challenge like ducks to water. It is such an important issue, with a great many powerful adversaries. We are fortunate to have them working with us.”

Manning notes that a judicial review is being funded initially by the group internally. Much of the legal work will be done on a pro bono basis by Whiteley and the law school students, with research and evidence-gathering assisted by Anne Dumbrille and Allison Walker among others. He notes as well that this effort is not meant to conflict or compete with other appeals— but rather it is a parallel examination of the impact the GEA has had in upending justice, diminishing basic rights and contravening statutes the province is obligated to uphold.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT
The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) is hosting a major rally in Milford on Sunday, which they hope will be a large and impressive statement about the prospect of as many as 29 50-storey industrial wind turbines erected around that community.

From 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Milford Fairground, there will be music, food and inspiring words. Participants are encouraged to don their anti-wind turbine kit. At 12:30 p.m. participants will be asked to join hands to form a protective circle around Mount Tabor.

“We encourage everyone from across the County to join together to say that this is the wrong place for industrial wind turbines,” said Gord Gibbins, APPEC chair.

Legal actions against wind farms continue

18 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

City of Kawarth Lakes, environmental appeal, Environmental Review Tribunal, Eric Gillespie, Health Canada, Health Canada noise study, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Canada, Julian Falconer, legal action, Manvers Wind Concerns, Mothers Against Wind Turbines, North Gower, Ottawa wind concerns, Plympton-Wyoming, Renewable power projects, Sunco, wind farm, wind power, wind power generation, wind power project, wind turbine, WPD Canada

This is a heavy duty week as Ontario communities fight back against the unwanted incursion of huge wind power generation facilities. As you know, the Green Energy Act removed local land-use planning powers for renewable power projects, so the environmental appeal process and ultimately the courts, along with a noise nuisance bylaw, is the only way communities can act to protect their residents.

(The new procurement process for large-scale renewable power projects still does not allow for a return of municipal planning powers; communities can have a say, as long as it’s not “no” and in fact, the regional energy plans are pre-designed by the province—in other words, if the province decides you’re getting a wind “farm” then you are. But we digress…)

This week:

Manvers/Pontypool: last few days of the appeal of the Sumac Ridge wind power project, part of which is on the Oak Ridges Moraine, a fragile and (formerly) protected environment. The Green Energy Act over-rode the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, along with 20 other pieces of legislation.) The City of Kawartha Lakes is involved.

Plympton-Wyoming: again, the municipality is involved with the appeal of the Suncor Cedar Point wind power generation project. Today, the Environmental Review Tribunal hears a motion for a stay of proceedings, until experts can review the raw data from the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study. (No report or article has yet been published from this study; there is only a brief summary and PowerPoint presentation.) The Health Canada study showed that 16.5% of people living within 2 km of a wind turbine were experiencing distress.

Niagara Region: Mothers Against Wind Turbines is a appealing the 77, 3-megawatt turbine Niagara Region wind power project, which will affect over 4,000 homes. Preliminary hearing is tomorrow in Wellandport.

Other appeals have been filed and several judicial reviews are in various stages, as well as private legal actions on property value loss and nuisance. Decisions are expected on the Ostrander Point appeal (lawyer Eric Gillespie), and the Drennan/Dixon appeal (the Constitutional challenge, lawyer Julian Falconer).

Ottawa Wind Concerns has retained a legal firm and is prepared to enact legal actions should another proposal come forward for a wind power project.

Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com Donations welcome at PO Box 3, North Gower K0A 2T0

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

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CCSAGE, Golden Eagles, Important Bird Area, migratory birds, Ontario Ministry of NAtural Resources, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, prince Edward County, Prowind, wind farm, wind farm birds, wind power, wind turbines, WPD Canada

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

The Wiggins decision: what it means for leaseholders (You’re about to get sued)

28 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Cornerview Farms, legal action wind farms, Ottawa wind concerns, property value loss North Gower, property value loss Richmond, Prowind, sue for property value loss, Wiggins decision, Wiggins et al, wind farms and property values, wind turbines and property values, WPD Canada

Last year, a group of property owners in the Collingwood area, decided to sue both the wind power developer (wpd, from Germany) and the landowners who, together, had put forward a proposal for a wind power generation project.

The landowners, led by a Mr and Mrs Wiggins, maintained that they had already suffered property value loss and that if the project was approved, those losses would continue and escalate. The Wiggins own an equestrian facility worth over $1.5 million and had listed it for sale; once the wind power project was announced, interest in the property evaporated.

The wind power developer asked the court to determine whether their action had any merit and asked for a summary judgement on the legal action.

Things didn’t go quite as planned.

Yes, the judge decided in her decision*, this is not the appropriate time to proceed with this action and it was denied. BUT, she said, if the project does receive approval from the government to proceed, THEN the plaintiffs were free to pursue their legal action.

While there was “no genuine issue for trial” at this time, she ruled, [Section 13], “It is possible however that they may be wronged by one or more of the defendants committing a tort in the future when and if the Fairview Wind Project is either given approval and/or constructed. [sic: it can’t be constructed without approval, but we digress] For that reason the claims are being dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ rights to advance the same and other claims in the future in relation to this venture. [Section 37]

The evidence showed, the judge said, that “they [the plaintiffs] have already suffered harm through loss in property values and the corresponding interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties.” [Section 9]

The judge also accepted evidence from Dr Robert McMurtry on the potential for negative health impacts.

What this means for the owners of properties neighbouring land where wind turbines have been proposed is that the minute a project is approved by the Ministry of the Environment, you can file a claim.

The leaseholders (i.e., people leasing land for turbines to a wind power developer) ought to be forewarned that claims will be filed in Ontario. In the North Gower-Richmond area, a conservative estimate of the property value loss within 3 km is $67 million. The wind power project is proposed by Germany-based Prowind for two area farms, Cornerview and Gowerdale. More than 300 homes are within 3 km of the project.

Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and please donate for our legal advice which helps us all at PO Box 3 North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

* Superior Court of Justice-Ontario, Case CV-12-0344 Wiggins et al vs WPD Canada and Beattie Brothers Farms Ltd

Recent Posts

  • Prince Edward County rejects battery storage proposal
  • Ontario to launch request for new power projects next week
  • Pleas for protective bylaws for noisy wind turbines get nowhere with Ottawa councillor
  • Is the $57B Energy Evolution plan dead?
  • Ward 21 council candidates pledge review of Ottawa Energy Evolution plan

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Tags

Bob Chiarelli electricity bills Ontario Green Energy Act IESO Ontario Ottawa wind concerns wind farm wind farms wind power wind turbines

Contact us

PO Box 3 North Gower ON K0A 2T0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Ottawa Wind Concerns
    • Join 369 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ottawa Wind Concerns
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...