Wind farm developers’ expert witness self-interest questioned in appeal

Christopher Ollson was paid $20,000 to review docs and appear at Gunn's Hill appeal. Trained in chemical toxicology, he admitted he has taken "one course" in epidemiology and "one lecture" in acoustics, but works for multiple wind power developers in Ontario as consultant, and expert witness

Christopher Ollson was paid $20,000 to review documents and appear as an expert witness in the Gunn’s Hill appeal, as he has for other wind power developers. Trained in chemical toxicology, Ollson admitted before the Tribunal that he has taken “one course” in epidemiology and “one lecture” in acoustics. He is not a health professional, is not licensed by any health professional regulatory body.

Woodstock Sentinel-Review, July 16, 2015

The fate of the proposed Gunn’s Hill wind farm is now in the hands of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), because as of Thursday the agency had heard from all witnesses from both sides scheduled to make testimony.

Representative on behalf the appellant, Ian Flett, said they had put their evidence before the tribunal and that it was now up to the tribunal what to do with that evidence.

Albert Engel, representative on behalf of the proponent, said they had brought a motion to dismiss the appellant’s case based on a lack of evidence, and that they were looking forward to see how the tribunal dealt with that.

“We put in our evidence, which we feel fully supports our position,” Engel said, “and at this point we’re required to prepare and submit our final written submissions.”

The appellant and director for the Ministry of the Environment are also expected to prepare and submit their final written submissions as well.

The tribunal wrapped early after hearing from three witnesses on behalf of the proponent.

The first to appear on the stand was Dr. Robert McCunney, a medical professional based out of Boston. Dr. McCunney appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the proponent, with specific expertise in occupational and environmental medicine.

During his testimony, Dr. McCunney said annoyance is not an adverse health effect.

“Annoyance is a term that’s used in outcome measures of various types of research studies,” he said. “It’s usually gleaned by completing a questionnaire. In the context of wind turbines, there have been questionnaires that asked people whether they’re annoyed, very annoyed or slightly annoyed. It’s the answers to those questions that are used as part of the studies.”

Dr. McCunney did say, though, that annoyance could lead to other adverse health effects, such as stress.

“It’s a theoretical proposition that if annoyance is protracted or continual without abatement, clearly some people can be stressed as a result of that. And then of course stress, in and of itself, if it’s chronic, can lead to certain health problems in some people.”

As for research, Dr. McCunney said he looked at research in other papers and tried to apply it to the situation here – notably in regards to estimated noise levels in the area near residents close to the turbines.

During his cross-examination, Flett asked Dr. McCunney about his research and if he has met patients who have complained about adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines.

“If he’s a medical doctor and the name of the game for him is meeting with patients, he did not suggest to us that he has met a single person who has complained about the adverse health impacts of an industrial wind turbine,” Flett said. “So why is a medical doctor drawing conclusions based merely on other people’s work when he’s perfectly qualified to ask those people who are complaining about these effects… and come to a conclusion on how they are being impacted.”

Also mentioned during Dr. McCunney’s cross-examination, as well as on Tuesday during Dr. Christopher Ollson’s cross-examination, Flett brought up that they were both being paid for their testimony as expert witnesses.

“The law in Canada… is that experts are expected to be there to assist the decision maker in making its decision,” Flett said. “They’re not there on my behalf or on the approval holder’s behalf to persuade the decision maker… So at the end the day you ask yourself, is this expert motivated in some way for more work based on the outcomes (they) can achieve in court or at tribunals.

“And sometimes we ask ourselves, well how much are you getting paid and is the payment such that we can question the weight and the veracity of your testimony,” he added.

Ultimately, the tribunal felt this was not relevant to its decision, which Flett said he respected. He added that when there is an expert who testifies for one side “time-and-time again,” while being paid for it, it needs to be asked what their interest is in the evidence they are giving.

Following Dr. McCunney was Rochelle Rumney, an environmental coordinator with Prowind who appeared as a fact witness on behalf of the proponent.

Rumney said during her testimony that no endangered species would be harmed as a result of this project.

“We did a field survey to determine if there was any risk to species habitat or the species themselves,” she said. “And the (ministry) confirmed that there was no risk with this project.”

In addition, Rumney said they prepared a confidential study regarding endangered species as well, which was also submitted to the ministry.

“It was mentioned in one of the witness statements that we hadn’t looked at species at risk,” Rumney said, referencing concerns raised by John Eacott in his witness statement. “But we had, and I think it… just wasn’t available for them to review.”

Rumney also mentioned the little brown bat, an endangered species that was found to be located near one of the proposed turbine sites, which she said will not be harmed during construction.

During her cross-examination, Flett asked whether or not Rumney would rely on an electrician or welder to identify any species at risk found during turbine construction.

“If there is an obligation to report the presence of a species at risk during construction… you’ve got to know if that bird or that bat is the actual species,” Flett said. “If the concern is that we need to protect endangered species, we need to know where they are. And with all due respect to all of the electricians, welders, lawyers and reporters out there, none of those people have the qualification to say one species is exactly what one says it is.”

The final witness to appear before the tribunal was vice president of Prowind Juan Anderson, who appeared as a fact witness on behalf of the proponent.

During his testimony, it was brought out that Anderson has been with Prowind since 2009 and became vice president in 2012. To date he has worked on 10 wind turbine projects – both completed and in construction – across Canada.*

Anderson also described the turbine layout during his testimony and how it was changed with regards to Curries Aerodrome.

“We deliberately position turbines in a manner that would still allow our land owners to host turbines on their property, but allow for space for the aerodrome to operate,” he said. “Our intention was to strike a balance between those two.”

In addition to placement, Anderson also described the type of turbines that would be implemented in the proposed wind farm. The Senvion MM92 have a 92.5 metre rotor with a 100-metre hub height and 102.0 DBA maximum sound power level, according to Anderson.

He added that they are predicted to generate sound 1.6 DB before the maximum limit of 40 DB at 38.4 DB.

Anderson also indicated that Senvion has said there have been no fully developed fires in its fleet of turbines.

A decision is expected from the tribunal sometime next month.

*WCO Editor’s note: we’d like to know where these 10 projects are supposed to be. Prowind has never actually built anything in Canada. The closest the company got was the South Branch project which was sold to EDP Renewables.

Osage Nation Chief: you can’t live among wind turbines

“Devouring our history and culture” Chief says during prayer ceremony

Tulsa World, July 13, 2015


By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer | Posted

BURBANK — With a dense fog draped across the Osage prairie, the wind turbines first came into view as twinkling red stars low on the horizon — two or three to begin with, then dozens, hovering above the grassy hilltops.

 The giant blades, each as big as an airliner’s wing, can usually be seen for miles. But as several citizens of the Osage Nation drove toward them from all across the county, some coming from as far away as Tulsa, only the blinking lights on top were visible Friday morning until the turbines suddenly leaped out of the fog at close range.

Joe Conner called them “wind monsters.”

“They’re eating up the landscape,” he said. “They’re devouring our history and culture.”

The fog lifted and dawn began to spread an orange glow across the eastern sky as Conner stretched a blue tarp on the ground at a public right-of-way just north of U.S. 60 and Oklahoma 18, in the middle of the Osage Wind development, 15 minutes west of Pawhuska. At precisely 6:09 a.m., with the first tiny arc of the sun peeking above the horizon, a traditional prayer leader stepped onto the tarp and raised an eagle feather to bless the crowd. Two dozen Osage Indians, including the chief and at least three members of the tribal Congress, wrapped colorfully striped blankets around their shoulders and bowed their heads.

“We are pitiful and humble people, asking for your help,” Cameron Pratt prayed out loud, first in the Osage language and then in English, his voice nearly drowned out by the constant drone of the whirling blades. They sound like an aircraft passing high overhead, except the aircraft never flies away.

“Things keep being taken away from us,” Pratt continued to pray. “And it’s always under the guise of improvements, and yet it always seems to be at our expense.”

The tribe has been fighting wind development in Osage County for years, and by now the legal arguments are well known. Turbine construction requires digging a large pit for the foundation, disturbing limestone and other rocks that the tribe claims as part of its mineral estate. And the U.S. government, on behalf of the tribe, has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the developers should have obtained a minerals permit — a permit the tribe likely would have denied.

But Conner and Pratt didn’t organize this sunrise prayer service to rehash the court case, which is still pending. Conner wanted to emphasize another aspect of the tribe’s grievance against the developers — what he calls “the spiritual and cultural side” of the argument.

Driven away from their ancestral homelands in Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, the Osage bought this land — 1.4 million acres, or nearly twice the size of Rhode Island — and moved here in the early 1870s, some say after a tribal holy man had a vision of the rolling hills and sweeping plains.

“We are a praying people and put our faith in God,” said tribal Congressman John Maker. “God gave us this land and it was beautiful when we came here.”

The tribe owned the Osage Reservation collectively and resisted pressure to divide the land among individual citizens, even delaying Oklahoma statehood until Congress forced allotment in 1906. But the mineral estate remained collective property — a compromise that proved to be fortuitous after the oil boom.

Roughly 14,000 active wells still dot the landscape. And no, they aren’t exactly beautiful, said Principal Chief Geoffrey StandingBear. And yes, they have undoubtedly caused some pollution. But nothing compares to the “scenic blight” of nearly 100 gigantic wind turbines towering above the prairie, he said.

Developers say they hope to add as many as 68 more turbines on nearby properties, some of which would be visible from the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve. And the tribe suspects that developers are negotiating additional leases across a wider patch of the county. StandingBear not only wants to stop more turbines from being built, but also hopes to see the existing ones taken down.

“This is driving out all our families; you can’t live among these things,” the chief said. “It’s a harsh form of pollution, and it should go away.”

Enel Green Power, an Italian company that owns Osage Wind, did not comment on the prayer service. It has denied the need for a minerals permit from the tribe and argues that it met all legal requirements before building the first turbines last November.


Study says wind farms can harm health


“Further research urgently needed”

Consumer Affairs, July 13,m 2015

by James R. Hood

[Pictured: Activation of auditory cortex during stimulation of the ear by low-frequency sound and infrasound Credit: Max Planck Institut für Bildungsforschung]

Some people think high-voltage power lines cause cancer while others are convinced that wi-fi is a threat to human health. Others worry about cell phones. And don’t even think mention non-stick skillets.

But wind farms? Oh sure, the giant blades may slice through a buzzard now and then but how would a wind farm be harmful to humans?

Well, a new German study suggests that the very-low-frequency sounds generated by the windmill’s rotor blades and windflow may be detected by the human brain, contradicting the assumption that the sounds are below the threshold of human hearing.

Researchers at the European Meteorology Research Program (EMRP) found that humans can hear sounds lower than previously thought. Also, the mechanisms of sound perception are much more complex than expected, the researchers said.

People living in the vicinity of wind farms have reported experiencing sleep disturbances, a decline in performance, and other negative effects, apparently from the “infrasound” generated by the turbines. Infrasound refers to very low sounds, around 16 hertz, generally thought to be below the limit of hearing.

Earlier studies have come to similar conclusions. In 2014, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that the low-frequency sounds could cause panic, sleep disturbances, stress and elevated blood pressure.

The wind power industry dismisses such complaints, saying that the sounds generated by the wind farms are too low and too faint to be detected by humans. But Christian Koch, the lead researcher in a study conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, says it’s not that clear-cut.

“Neither scaremongering nor refuting everything is of any help in this situation. Instead, we must try to find out more about how sounds in the limit range of hearing are perceived,” Koch said.

Koch and his team used brain imaging to tell when test subjects were aware of very low sounds and found that humans hear sounds as low as 8 hertz — a full octave lower than previously thought. The test subjects confirmed that they heard something and MRI-type devices showed a reaction in parts of the brain that play a role in emotion.

“This means that a human being has a rather diffuse perception, saying that something is there and that this might involve danger,” Koch said. “But we’re actually at the very beginning of our investigations. Further research is urgently needed.”

The truth about saving electricity

Ottawa energy economist Robert Lyman has responded to an advertising campaign in that city about how conservation efforts are paying off for consumers.

Not so, he says. “How about some truth in advertising?

” When the Ontario government advertises about “saving energy,” it is not talking about saving consumers money. It is talking about— in theory— reducing the costs associated with generating and transporting electrical energy to consumers. Reducing demand usually refers to two things: reducing the overall average use of electricity and switching the use of electricity from the peak periods of day and season to other times. Reducing the average use over time reduces the amount of generating capacity of all kinds that the electrical utilities need to build. Reducing the peak uses can, in theory, cut the amount of peaking capacity (electrical energy generation capacity that stands idle to be used when needed) that has to be built.

So, in theory, Ontario wants us all to use less electricity so that its utilities won’t have to build more expensive generating plants and transmissions lines. This is where things start to get bizarre…”

Read the full article courtesy Ottawa Wind Concerns, here.

Ontario’s environmental hypocrisy

Nature is a curiosity best seen at the zoo in the Liberals' Ontario
Nature is a curiosity best seen at the zoo in the Liberals’ Ontario

Wind “farms” will kill wildlife and scar the natural environment, but the government teaches children to protect it

Wellington Times, July 10, 2015

With school children arrayed at his feet, Ontario’s environment minister, Glenn Murray, announced last week his government was giving $1 million to an organization dedicated to educating children aged five to 11, about how to help protect animals and their habitats.

His advice to the children assembled at the ROM for the press event was predictable, if somewhat ham-handed: Go home and tell your parents and grandparents to use less carbon.

Murray isn’t the first to employ children to market his wares. Cereal makers, burger sellers and dictators have all used children to influence decision-makers. The Ontario government isn’t above using an effective marketing technique to sell its message, even when the moral and ethical turf is a bit squishy.

Earth Rangers formed in 2001. The funding from the province will help the organization expand its school assembly program and develop a new Grade 6 class visit program.

For Murray, this is an investment in the minds of young and impressionable children— a recruiting drive for foot soldiers in his campaign to restore his government’s credibility on environmental matters.

“The most thoughtful discussions that move people to change are discussions between children and their parents, and children and each other,” noted Murray to the children before him.

Eventually, however, Murray will be challenged to square his government’s words with its actions. Rather than educate children about nature, he risks teaching them about the nature of government.

Earth Rangers is indeed a well-respected education and conservancy organization— very much in tune with the sensitivity of the animals and plants around us, particularly those species that are struggling to survive.

Among these is the Blanding’s turtle. Last year, Earth Rangers launched a project and mission to enhance awareness of the plight of this endangered turtle species. Its Protect the Blanding’s Turtle program brought schoolchildren from across the province to the Toronto Zoo to incubate dozens of Blanding’s turtle eggs.

“Together we will watch as our turtles grow in our nursery and, as Earth Rangers, we are working together to respect wetlands and honour the ancient creatures that live there,” writes researcher Bob Johnson on the Blanding’s turtle page of the Earth Rangers website.

Later the project released 21 turtles into the creeks and marsh in the Rouge Valley.

For those who have invested time, money and heartache in protecting the Blanding’s turtle in Prince Edward County, the irony is particularly cruel.

From one desk the Ministry of Environment is paving the way for the destruction of the Blanding’s turtle. From another it is funding education programs urging our children to protect it.

Since the advent of the Green Energy Act, the province has methodically removed protections and regulatory hurdles that safeguard the environment and species at risk like the Blanding’s turtle. They have lowered, and in some cases eliminated, regulatory protections in order to streamline the path enabling wind and solar developers to transform pastoral lands into vast industrial tracts of electricity production. Almost all of which is sold at discount prices to Michigan and New York.

In Prince Edward County, the province granted a developer a permit to “harm, harass and kill” the Blanding’s turtle. Let us ponder this a moment: A provincial permit granting a developer the right to kill an endangered species. Let that sink in.

Of course, the developer has promised it will take steps to minimize the destruction of turtles and its habitat ,and that its actions will result in a benefit to the species. But a provincially appointed review panel didn’t believe it. The found the developer’s plans to protect the species simply weren’t credible. After 40 days of hearings, the review panel concluded the project would cause “serious and irreversible harm” to the endangered species.

How did the Ministry of Environment respond? It fought back with all its legal might, striving to reverse the decision and repudiate its environmental guardians.

So twisted has this ministry become, it is seeking to simultaneously save and destroy the Blanding’s turtle.

Meanwhile, the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists have waged an expensive, multi-year battle to prevent the destruction of the turtle’s vulnerable habitat at Ostrander Point. Their efforts and successes have been funded by donations and from their own pockets. No big Ontario cheques have come their way.

With fresh new funding, Earth Rangers will fan out to schools across Ontario this fall urging children to protect the Blanding’s turtle, the bobolink and other endangered species. Meanwhile, PECFN will be back in a courtroom trying to stop the same government and its agents from bulldozing the turtle’s dwindling habitat.

Listen up children, there is a lesson in this.

The best way to protect Blanding’s turtle is to give generously to the Save Ostrander Point project at

Ontario’s job killer: high electricity rates

Ontario's propaganda campaign on green energy is costing jobs
Ontario’s propaganda campaign on green energy is costing jobs

Financial Post Comment, July 10, 2015

In today’s Financial Post is a comment piece by economic professor Ross McKitrick and energy analyst Tom Adams called “Ontario’s job killer.”

“Perhaps Ontario’s business leaders are finally realizing that moving their deck chairs to the high side of a sinking ship is not a long-term solution,” Adams and McKitrick write.

“With the Ontario Liberal government this week preening on the global climate stage at the Climate Summit of the Americas in Toronto, doubling down on its costly green agenda, the business community needs to face up to the bigger picture.”

The two authors present more data on the real sources of air pollution (transportation, building and industry) and comment that the “coal death toll claim is absurd but it illustrates the government’s warped propaganda campaign that derailed sensible power planning discussions.”

Read the entire article here.

WCO president chastises OFA president for “archaic” isolationist view on wind power

AgriNews - Etcetera Publications (Chesterville) Inc.

Eastern Agri-Business News, July 2015

FINCH — Wind Concerns Ontario President Jane Wilson has penned an open letter to OFA President Don McCabe chastising his “isolationism” during a public presentation on wind energy in Finch, May 6. The activist has also requested a meeting with the OFA board to discuss her organization’s concerns.

While praising the OFA president for repeatedly advising prospective wind farm participants to consult with a lawyer, Wilson challenges McCabe on a number of points made at the session, including his assertion that Ontario has no surplus of power and his suggestion that farmers make arrangements to draw power directly from the wind turbines on their land — in order to save on rising hydro rates OFA itself has complained about. (On the last point, Wilson says that sort of that “net metering” is not permitted on projects built under the Feed-In Tariff program.) She also counters some of his advice on thoughts related to turbine noise, community input, and farmers not happy with turbine contracts on their land.

She also expresses disappointment at the “overarching theme” of the OFA president’s remarks, “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.”

She alleges of his comments “a very narrow view that demonstrates no balance and instead indicates an archaic, I can do whatever I want on my land’ view.” Contemporary and socially responsible farm operators don’t share that viewpoint, she also writes.

“Our concern with this isolationist view of farm ownership is that it will further divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.”

The Canadian Wind Energy Assocation’s Director of Technical and Utility Affairs, Tom Levy, also spoke at the public event organized by the Finch Lions Club in the Township of North Stormont. Although officially not a willing host to wind projects, the township is the proposed site for two similarly sized developments currently competing for the next allotment of renewable energy contracts.


Editor’s note: the OFA has not responded to Wind Concerns Ontario’s offer to meet.

Wind power developers using ‘cosmic math’ says engineer

"You tell 'em Dave, it's all good." EDF exec is former McGuinty staffer
“You tell ’em Dave, it’s all good.” EDF exec is former McGuinty staffer

Eastern Ontario Open Houses for power developers attempt to win over residents

Ottawa Wind Concerns has posted a story from a recent edition of Ontario Farmer, reporting on Open Houses held by wind power developers as the multi-national corporations proceed on the “green light” for Eastern Ontario, for the 2015 round of wind power contracts.

But, based on comments made to the reporter, many residents of Prescott-Russell and Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry are not fooled by the maps and save-the-world chat. “This is going to end badly,” said a farmer who refused to sign a lease for wind turbines.

Note that the executive for power developer EDF is David Thornton, former staffer in Dalton McGuinty’s office, and who also served as a senior policy advisor on renewable energy. (Guess he figured out where the rainbow ends…)

Read the story at Ottawa Wind Concerns, here.



Electricity rates killing Ontario business says Chamber of Commerce

Ontario has a huge surplus of power so it gives away electricity

Globe and Mail, July 8, 2015

Soaring electricity rates in Ontario are threatening industries and businesses across the province, with one in 20 reporting they expect to shut down in the next five years, according to a major study by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC).

Businesses can’t grow, make improvements or investments or even hire new workers because of the increasing rates, which are among the highest in the country and expected to continue to rise over the next 20 years, says the report, Empowering Ontario: Constraining Costs & Staying Competitive in the Electricity Sector, released Wednesday.

It paints a grim picture of a convoluted, complicated electricity pricing system, and warns that to keep business in the province or attract new businesses, government and energy authorities must act now.

A Leger poll, accompanying the report, shows that 81 per cent of Ontarians are concerned that rising electricity rates will “impact the health of the Ontario economy.” In addition, the same percentage of Ontarians are concerned that the increases will “impact their disposable income.”

“Call it the canary in the mine,” says Allan O’Dette, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which represents 60,000 businesses employing more than two million people in the province. “We have just completed this Leger poll and when 81 per cent of Ontarians are concerned that rising electricity prices are going to impact the health of the economy, you’ve got to be paying attention to that.”

The poll of 1,000 Ontarians was conducted between June 22 and 25; it has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Premier Kathleen Wynne and her government have been on the defensive about electricity prices. There was a rate hike in May, which raised consumers’ hydro bills by nearly $6 a month. Ms. Wynne’s government also announced in its spring budget that it is selling 60 per cent of Hydro One to help pay for new transit and infrastructure. This has raised fears that private ownership will cause prices to go even higher.

Jamey Heaton employs 21 people at his North Bay business, Bavarian Link Meat Products Ltd., which he has owned for three years. They produce and sell premium deli meats, sausages, smoked items, specialty bacon and meat snacks.

His electricity costs are more than $110,000 a year – the second-largest cost after salaries. He calls the high electricity prices a “huge burden.”

He says the rates have “slowed our expansion.” “If we spent 50 per cent less, I would invest the $50,000 in new equipment, which would lead to new jobs,” he says. “We have already grown by 25 per cent a year every year over the last three years and could grow more if there were additional funds.”

To keep costs down, he says, they cook mostly with natural gas, but he still has to rely on electricity as the 15,000-square-foot plant is refrigerated.

“We also, as industrial consumers, don’t benefit from time-of-day usage, whereas, if you’re a consumer, you get that time-of-day usage,” he says. “I can switch some of my production to do things at nighttime but there is no advantage for me to do it.”

He wonders why he can’t take advantage of the lower costs.

In fact, the OCC report notes that medium-sized businesses are “bearing the brunt of costs” because, like Mr. Heaton’s business, they can’t take advantage of lower costs during those time periods.

“What we need to do is flatten the rising costs,” says OCC president Mr. O’Dette, who adds that there is “not much we can do at the moment to bend the cost curve on electricity rates.”

The chamber hopes to compel the government to start laying the groundwork for the future in order to keep Ontario competitive.

Increasing transparency about how electricity costs are calculated is the report’s main recommendation. Businesses don’t know how their rates were arrived at because many costs are not disclosed by the authorities. For example, the report says the Independent Electricity System Operator, which runs the system, “does not release average electricity prices nor does it conduct publicly available jurisdictional comparisons similar to that of Hydro-Québec.”

Lack of information reduces confidence in the system among consumers, the report says. It points out that governments cannot be held accountable without knowing the reasons behind increases.

According to the report, energy demand in the province dropped 8 per cent between 2003 and 2014 – but generation capacity has increased by 13 per cent. This means that Ontario has a huge surplus and so it gives away electricity. These costs of producing electricity and then basically exporting it for free are passed on to customers.

“Let’s help all the actors, including consumers, in this discussion and debate understand what it is in the pricing of electricity in this province,” Mr. O’Dette says.


WCO editor’s note: This is exactly what Parker Gallant has been saying for years, and pointing out particularly the cost of Ontario’s exports of surplus power. And Wind Concerns Ontario has been repeating the Auditor General’s statement of 2012, that NO cost-benefit analysis for Ontario’s push for renewables has ever been done.  WHY is Ontario contracting for 300 MORE megawatts of wind power in 2015?