Ontario government sees citizens as ‘enemies of the state’ says newspaper editor

Premier Wynne: fighting you ... with your own money
Premier Wynne: fighting you … with your own money

Rick Conroy, editor of the independent Wellington Times says the Ontario government has “turned against its people.” He cites the numerous examples of citizen groups forming and paying for legal actions to protect their communities against the government, and more recently, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne labeling Ontarians as “bad actors” when it comes to the environment.

In his editorial, he asks why, why it comes to huge wind power projects, “… What drives elected officials to use the state’s power and resources against those working to protect the natural world it has abandoned?”

We got a glimpse last week when Kathleen Wynne defended her government’s cap and trade emmissions scheme. She told a business audience in Niagara Falls that Ontarians are “very bad actors” in terms of per capita emissions of greenhouse gases. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue—or offhand remark. These words were part of a scripted speech.

Fortunately for the wretched folks in this province, we have a premier who understands good and bad—better than we do. She has unveiled the selfish and narrow view through which we see the world around us. Kathleen Wynne will be our better selves.

In this morality play your provincial government has decided it will not work in your interest— but rather what it believes your interest ought to be. It knows this better than you. Kathleen Wynne, and Dalton McGuinty before her, believe they know what is best, and cling to the hope that history will judge them better than Ontario’s weak and myopic voters do now.


But untethered by accountability to its voters and deaf to its ministries’ advice and counsel, provincial Liberals have made a terrible mess of the energy supply system in Ontario. It will take decades to fix. It has squandered billions of dollars chasing schemes unworthy of a Nigerian postmark. It has pushed manufacturing jobs out of the province. And it has rendered electricity bills that are unaffordable for many of its poorest rural residents. Meanwhile, it has made a select group of developers very, very wealthy.

In turn, they have dutifully filled her parties’ coffers— to arm her for the next election.

How is it that the most righteous tend to be the most susceptible to corruption and misdeeds? There is something distinctly Shakespearean in this tragedy.


Read the full article here.

Wind power’s ‘shocking double standard’

Wind power not held to the same rigorous standards for health and safety as other forms of development Jillian Melchior says, writing in Forbes. No health effects? “That wind power lobby claim isn’t honest,” she says

Even as Rhode Island makes history as the first U.S. state with an offshore wind farm, its people are not so fond of wind turbines sprouting up on land near where they live. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

Wind’s double standard

October 21, 2016, Jillian Melchior

In September, 11 Wisconsin residents living near the Shirley Wind Farm filed notarized statements describing how nearby wind farms have abjectly affected their health. They noticed a marked difference when the wind farm powered off for a few days.

“I could finally sleep in my own bed,” said one resident, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette. “I slept less and woke up earlier with more energy…it was as if a great weight was lifted off my shoulders.”

The wind farm’s neighbors have a simple request for the Brown County Board of Health: Simply do a bit more research to see if the science backs up what they’re saying they’ve experienced. Unfortunately, they face an uphill battle.

Welcome to the world of renewable energy, which has embraced a shocking double standard.

The environmental left has been unrelenting in its insistence that the federal government, states and academia exhaustively scrutinize all possible health risks from traditional energy extraction and generation. But when it comes to green energy, they don’t want the same standard of scientific inquiry.

“Wind energy enjoys considerable public support, but wind energy detractors have publicized their concerns that the sounds emitted from wind turbines cause adverse health effects,” says the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the trade group representing this largely subsidized industry. “These allegations of health-related impacts are not supported by science.”

That wind-lobby claim isn’t honest. The science examining wind energy and public health is still developing, yielding mixed, ambiguous evidence that merits further, unbiased inquiry. But the wind industry and its green allies are trying to shut down conversation and stagnate research by claiming the science is settled.

For instance, AWEA cites a report from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), claiming that it “refutes” claims of health consequences from wind turbines.

But that’s not an accurate characterization of the report, which actually found “no consistent evidence” of an adverse affect—and concluded that “given the limitations of existing evidence and continuing concerns expressed by some members of the community, NHMRC considers that further high-quality research on the possible health effects of wind farms is required.”

AWEA also points to a similar 2010 report by Ontario’s chief medical officer of health. But though that study says the research has not yet established a “direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health affects,” it also notes that “some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches and sleep disturbance.”

Three years after the AWEA-cited Canadian report’s publication, an Ontario-based study, published in the official publication of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, documented how many residents near wind turbines “experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression and cognitive dysfunction.” …

Read the full article here.


Power developer to hold open house for 100-megawatt project

South Dundas councillors and staff, spokesmen from EDP Renewables and local residents chat about the proposed South Branch Wind Farm II project during an open house Aug. 5, 2015 at Matilda Hall in Dixons Corners. (Cornwall Newswatch/Bill Kingston)

North Stormont is an unwilling host community … but a foreign power developer got a contract anyway [Photo Cornwall NewsWatch]

October 21, 2016

Portugal-based power developer EDP Renewables has scheduled an Open House in Finch, Ontario, for its 100-megawatt,  “Nation Rise” wind power project in the Township of North Stormont.

The power project could have as many as 30 industrial-scale wind turbines; it will cost the people of Ontario more than $436 million over the 20-year contract period.

The contract was one of five awarded earlier this year through the Large Renewable Procurement process by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). The IESO has since suspended the contract process planned for 2017 saying Ontario has a surplus of power and more is not needed.

North Stormont is officially an unwilling host or Not A Willing Host community, one of almost 100 in Ontario.

Community members have formed a group, Concerned Citizens of North Stormont and have vowed to fight the power project which they say is not appropriate for their community, will raise Ontarians’ electricity bills (the fastest rising in North America) even higher, and will result in no appreciable benefit to the environment.


Road Map for Finch Community Centre (North Stormont Arena)



Aviation safety, endangered wildlife win Fairview appeal

In January 2014, John Terry, the lawyer for the well-funded wind power development lobbyist the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) told the panel of judges in an Ontario court at the appeal of a decision at Ostrander Point, that their decision was very important for the future of wind power development in Ontario because, he said, “This [a successful appeal] was never supposed to happen.”

One might think that he meant the approval process was so rigorous that wind power projects should pose no danger to the environment or to people and that’s why “this,” the successful Ostrander appeal shouldn’t have happened. But no, what he meant was, the rules and procedures attached to wind power development were supposed to be so iron-clad that mere citizens acting on behalf of the environment, wildlife and their own health, could have no hope of success. Lawyers acting for appellants have said, the test set up by Regulation 359-09 to prove serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to wildlife was impossible to meet.

Except, now, that test has been met.

Four times.

The successful appeals at Ostrander Point, White Pines, Settlers Landing and yesterday, Clearview, show that when proper attention is paid to the requirements to preserve the environment and actually balance development against potential harm, the wind power developments can be demonstrated to be in the complete wrong place.

But the wind power development industry, coached and encouraged by their huge lobbyist and the very compliant Ontario government, felt entitled to propose wind power projects wherever they found willing landowners. Such was the case at Clearview where the eight, 500-foot turbines were to be located near not one, but two aerodromes, the Collingwood Regional Airport and a private airstrip. WPD Canada felt so entitled to success and money that it believed it could locate huge turbines even where pilots’ safety would be in danger and where wildlife would almost certainly be killed.

The Environmental Review Tribunal decision was released Friday, October 7: yes, there would be serious harm to human health because of the risk to aviation safety and yes, there would be serious and irreversible harm to the endangered Little Brown Bat.

Paragraphs [149-151] are interesting: the appellants’ expert witness arguments were “informed and reasoned” the panel wrote, finding they had established “the evidentiary base to support their qualitative assessments.”

Although a remedy hearing is possible, the Tribunal expressed doubts as to the effectiveness of any measures proposed.

The Tribunal used very strong language in places in the decision, saying “it would be trite to say …” or “it is obvious …” and they noted the federal Ministry of Transport’s carefully crafted opinion letter on aviation safety at the airport.

The people of Ontario have despaired at times as wind power projects have been put in fragile environments, too close to people’s homes and workplaces, without any real demonstration of environmental benefit. Millions have been spent by ordinary citizens as they took on corporate Big Wind to defend—what? The environment against their own Ministry of the Environment.

One lawyer for the Ministry has often been heard to say “wind trumps everything.” She is wrong, as this latest decision demonstrates.

Actions taken in the name of preserving the environment must really do that, and not rely on ideology-based trite statements for justification. Ontario has still never done a cost-benefit analysis on its wind power program even though clearly, wind power has a high impact on the natural environment, on communities, and on the economy, without actual demonstrated benefits.

Clearview was a victory for all Ontario, and the environment.

Jane Wilson

(Volunteer) President

Wind Concerns Ontario

More action needed on hydro bills, say Ontario mayors

The Mayor of North Frontenac has written to Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault on behalf of all the 115 municipalities demanding change to the Large Renewable Procurement process. While relieved the next round of bids is “suspended,” he says, the municipalities say more can be done to stop the dramatic rise of Ontario electricity bills.


October 5, 2016

Mayors across Ontario who united together as  a result of a resolution being supported to have municipal support mandatory for industrial wind turbines are relieved that procurement of future wind power has been cancelled for now. The Mayors still feel however that the government needs to take very aggressive actions to address the ongoing crisis caused by high electricity costs in this province. Taking steps to not add $2.45 per month in 2020 does not address the real hardship being felt by our residents now.  It is also not clear that the other measures announced by the government will even offset the ongoing increases in hydro rates that can be expected in the short term unless additional changes are made.

It was important that the Minster of Energy’s statement confirmed that the province has a “robust” supply of electricity and the procurement process could be cancelled without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.  This provides room for more aggressive actions that will address increasing costs. Our tracking of wind turbine contracts shows that there are still many wind turbine projects in the pipeline that will add at least another $7.9 billion to electricity generating costs.  This is equivalent to another $82 per annum for each Ontario electricity user. Seven of these projects are under construction but will not be connected to the grid until sometime this fall or in 2017.  Another five have not been issued ‘Notices to Proceed’ as they are, or have been until recently, involved in Environmental Review Tribunal proceedings or other legal appeals of Renewable Energy Approvals. The final six projects are in the pre-MOECC submission stage.  These include the five contracts issued in early 2016 plus one outstanding project from earlier FIT offers.

In all of these cases, the IESO has the option of terminating the agreement for any reason with very limited cost liabilities relative to the 20 year commitment to electricity that is not required.  We respectfully ask that all industrial and solar wind projects be cancelled to avoid ongoing costs to our residents.

Ron Higgins

Mayor, North Frontenac

Councillor, County of Frontenac

Phone 613-884-9736

Email ron.higgins@xplornet.com

Twitter @HigginsRon



See the letter sent to the Energy Minister, here. lettertoenergyminister-oct52016


Mayor Higgins (Photo CBC)
Mayor Higgins (Photo CBC)

Acoustic emissions from wind turbines adversely affect substantial number of people, say scientists

Hearing Health & Technology Matters


October 5, 2016 — A new paper from acoustician Richard James and audiologist and professor emeritus Jerry Punch, just published in the journal Hearing Health Matters, confirms support for the idea that “acoustic emissions from IWTs [industrial wind turbines] is a leading cause of AHEs [adverse health effects] in a substantial segment of the population.”

The authors deal with 12 commonly held beliefs about wind power and health effects, promoted by the global wind power development industry, that do not support a connection between wind turbine noise and health problems. They conducted a comprehensive literature review, and review the findings of the most up-to-date studies, including the Cape Bridgewater study by acoustician Steven Cooper, which changed the language of wind turbine noise research.

A paper by Paul Schomer of the U.S. is quoted for example, and the authors conclude “some people affected by WTN [wind turbine noise] may be responding directly to acoustic factors, rather than to non-acoustic factors, as argued by Leventhall.” (page 21)

Canada figures in the paper with references to work done by Dr Roy Jeffery, Dr Robert McMurtry, and researcher Carmen Krogh, among others.

The authors wrote a ccovering letter for windaction.org in which they said,

Finally, let it not be said that either of us believes in making any less than the best possible effort to develop clean and efficient sources of energy. Rather, we hope that our article will be instrumental in promoting public health through a better understanding of the issues underlying the potentially harmful effects of audible and inaudible noise from industrial wind turbines when the turbines are sited too close to where people live and work.

Jerry Punch

Richard James

Read the paper here.


Wynne government reverses on airport wind turbines

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has insisted that there is no danger to two Collingwood airports from a wind power project, despite expert testimony at an appeal that danger was certain. Suddenly, the government has reversed its position. Is it enough?

The owners and pilots association can't believe anyone would put turbines at an airport
The owners and pilots association can’t believe anyone would put turbines at an airport

Simcoe.com, October 3, 2016

Wasaga Sun

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change is pulling its support for two turbine locations at the Fairview Wind project because of safety concerns at the Clearview Aerodrome.

Dr. Raymond Cox, a risk assessment expert in public safety, energy, and transport, as well as fluid dynamics and turbulence, testified during the hearing in June the two locations were without a five-rotor-diameter distance from the Clearview Aerodrome approach centreline.

“As it was the opinion of all expert witnesses, who opined on turbine wake … that there was an unacceptable safety risk where turbines are located within five rotor diameters from the centreline approach, the director can no longer support the locations of turbines 3 and 7 as currently approved,” wrote MOECC counsel Sylvia Davis and Andrea Huckins in their closing submission to the tribunal in August.

Clearview Aerodrome owner Kevin Elwood, who is one of the appellants to the MOECC’s  decision to approve WPD Canada’s renewable energy application, said it calls to question all eight turbines.

Elwood said in his correspondence with the ministry prior to the project’s approval, he was assured that Transport Canada and Nav Canada were being consulted, and a thorough technical review would be conducted to ensure there were no risks to human health through aviation.

“That’s what they always said, over and over. Now, they can no longer support two locations due to the risk to human health through an aviation accident; what assurances does the public have the remaining six turbines are not also a safety risk,” Elwood questioned. “If two were missed through that comprehensive review by the director, the other six were assessed the same way, in my mind, I question whether the ministry did a risk analysis of all eight turbine locations respecting Clearview Aerodrome and the Collingwood Regional Airport.

“All eight impact my airport; they just went for the two closest.”

As to the other turbine locations, Davis and Huckins wrote there was no risk to human health.

“The appellants have argued that the turbines combined with bad weather, poor visibility, a distracted or inexperienced pilot, and\or mechanical difficulties, will combine into a tragic confluence of events,” the lawyers stated. “However they have not provided any quantitative analysis of the probability of each of these events occurring during the lifetime of the project, either separately or together.”

Otherwise, the province stated in its closing argument, the appellants have failed to meet the test the turbines pose a health or environmental risk.

“The appellants have offered nothing more than a series of concerns and hypothetical situations which, if a number of variables align, may result in a collision or crash. That is not the test,” wrote Davis and Huckins. “Evidence which merely speculates rather than providing a quantitative risk analysis does not meet the burden of proof facing the appellants.”

WPD Canada has not yet responded to Simcoe.com for a request for comment.

A decision by the tribunal is expected in October.

Cancel the contracts, Minister Thibeault

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault: more power we don't need soon to come to the grid ... and your hydro bill
Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault: more power we don’t need soon to come to the grid … and your hydro bill

September 30, 2016

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault was busy this past week dancing around issues plaguing his portfolio. The issues are: rising electricity bills, energy poverty and polls showing falling voter approval of the Ontario Liberal Party. In an effort to stem the bad news Minister Thibeault announced the suspension of his predecessor’s directive to IESO ordering up another 600 megawatts (MW) of wind and 300 MW of solar.

Minister Thibeault issued a news release, delivered a speech to the Ontario Electricity Association, and held a press conference. He looked somewhat embarrassed to be claiming that, because the Large Renewable Procurement or LRP II was not proceeding, the average electricity ratepayer will not have to pay an additional $2.45 per month in the future. About 4 million of those average ratepayers, however, will have to pay from $6-$8.00 more per month if they use gas as a source of warmth (gas furnace) or hot water to cover the costs of the cap and trade tax starting January 1, 2017. Those same ratepayers will also see the benefits of the removal of the 8% provincial sales tax and a drop of $6-8.00 in their monthly electricity bill meaning they shouldn’t see an increase in their energy costs. Or will they?

Let’s examine the ministerial pronouncements about “suspending” LRP II to see if the actions will really stop rate increases.

First, put the suspension of 600 MW of wind and 300 MW of solar in context. A look at the 2016 Ontario Power Generation (OPG) 2nd Quarter report helps. If wind operated at 30% of capacity and solar at 15% they could have produced 986,000 MWh of intermittent electricity or enough to supply about 220,000 average Ontario households for the six months in that report. That in itself is interesting but it doesn’t highlight what else was happening with existing generation facilities.   For example, “During the six months ended June 30, 2016, OPG lost 3.4 TWh of hydroelectric generation due to SBG [surplus baseload generation] conditions, compared to 1.5 TWh during the same period in 2015.”

In other words, 3.4 terawatts hours of electrical power was dumped because we had too much.

$150 mil wasted

If it hadn’t been “spilled,” (the technical term) that steady reliable hydroelectric power could have supplied 750,000 average households with power for six months. And even though the power was “spilled,” ratepayers were charged for it at a rate of 4.4 cents per kilowatt hour — at a cost of $150 million for the 3.4 TWh! Ontario’s 4.5 million ratepayers picked up an annual cost of $33 for spilled power, while Minister Thibeault was suggesting those same ratepayers would “save” future rate increases of about $30 annually!

What about even more spilled hydro, increasing amounts of curtailed wind, and steamed off power coming from Bruce Nuclear?

As we ratepayers continue our conservation efforts and demand for power remains flat, or falling, wind and solar generation contracted but not yet constructed will enter service producing more surpluses. The spilled, curtailed and steamed off power will be added to our bills once again driving rates higher.

Minister Thibeault should cancel any unbuilt wind and solar projects, and complete a cost-benefit study before launching the revision of the long-term energy plan (LTEP) as Premier Wynne has instructed him in her recent Mandate Letter.

Ratepayers would be delighted to experience a year or even six months without a rate increase.

(C) Parker Gallant

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Ontario suspends Large Renewable procurement

September 27, 2016

Moments ago, the Wynne government announced it is suspending its controversial Large Renewable Procurement program for sources of power such as wind and solar.

“Ontario will immediately suspend the second round of its Large Renewable Procurement (LRP II) process and the Energy-from-Waste Standard Offer Program, halting procurement of over 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar, wind, hydroelectric, bioenergy and energy from waste projects. …

On September 1, 2016, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) provided the Minister of Energy with the Ontario Planning Outlook, an independent report analyzing a variety of planning scenarios for the future of Ontario’s energy system. The IESO has advised that Ontario will benefit from a robust supply of electricity over the coming decade to meet projected demand.”

Wind Concerns Ontario (and two Auditors General for Ontario) has been saying for years that a cost-benefit analysis of the renewable energy program was never done, and should have been.

“Now, the impacts of this program are clear,” says President Jane Wilson.”We have unsustainable and punishing rises in electricity bills for the people of Ontario, with a corresponding rise in rates of energy poverty, while there is no evidence of any environmental benefit. In fact, there are widespread concerns about the damage being done to the environment from this high-impact form of power generation.”

Wind Concerns Ontario says that in addition to suspending the Large Renewable Procurement program, contracts for power projects not yet under construction need to be cancelled immediately.

“The government admits it has adequate power,” Wilson says. “There is no need to continue this assault on Ontario citizens, on our economy, and on the natural environment for little or no benefit.”



Wind turbine leases need detailed legal review, lawyer says

3-MW wind turbine and house near Brinston, south of Ottawa. Lawyers need to review every word of contracts for their clients. [Photo: Ray Pilon, Ottawa]
3-MW wind turbine and house near Brinston, south of Ottawa. Lawyers need to review every word of contracts for their clients. [Photo: Ray Pilon, Ottawa]
Lawyer Garth Manning, a retired Queen’s Counsel, advises lawyers that their help is needed by clients considering signing wind turbine leases or options to lease. In an opinion piece in the current Law Times, Manning says that landowners may focus only on the amount of money they can receive by signing the document, and overlook many important features of the agreement.

“Typically, the wind power proponent incorporates a subsidiary for each individual project. Its agents obtain turbine sites from farmers who have limited understanding of what they’re being asked to do, which is to sign an Option to Lease many pages long; in this option may be a ‘further assurances’ clause that obligates them, if the option is exercised, to sign a form of lease.

“That document, many more pages long, is by far the most lessee-friendly imaginable to any real property lawyer, experienced or otherwise.

“Those farmers badly need legal advice; local law associations should emphasize this to their members,” Manning advises.

Manning emphasizes the impact of the agreement on farming practices, and on communities. Neighbours may not be too happy with the noise and effect on property value, he adds.

“Many of us went to law school in the belief that lawyers help people in trouble,” he concludes for the Law Times readers. “Here is a golden opportunity for lawyers to step up and provide the advice that is so badly needed.”

Read the full article here.