No means NO, London-area municipality tells Wynne government

Community ‘engagement’ just means meetings, says Dutton Dunwich mayor: municipal support of wind power bids should be mandatory requirement for bids

84% of Dutton-Dunwich citizens said NO to proposed wind farm. They got one anyway.
84% of Dutton-Dunwich citizens said NO to proposed wind farm. They got one anyway.

London Free Press, April 28, 2016

By Deborah van Brenk

An Elgin County community that stands to gain a wind farm it doesn’t want has told regulators they should count native endorsement of a project only if the bands have claims near the planned site.

Dutton Dunwich says any future renewable-energy rules should also require municipal support before any contract can be awarded.

Still steamed by a 20-turbine project awarded to Chicago-based Invenergy this month, Dutton Dunwich wants the province to do more than just tweak rules for Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) for wind, solar and water power. The Independent Electricity Systems Operator has asked for corporate and municipal feedback for the next two LRP rounds.

Under current rules, a company needs to prove it has engaged the community if it wants to win a contract. But that doesn’t mean what Dutton Dunwich thought it meant. “They talk about community engagement. All that means is public meetings,” said Mayor Cameron McWilliams.

His council has unanimously passed a resolution saying a municipality’s no should mean no and only a municipal ‘yes’ can place a project in the running.

In Dutton Dunwich, in a referendum answered by 56 per cent of voting-aged residents, 84 per cent said they didn’t want turbines.

NCC Developments — a green-energy partnership among six Northern First Nations groups — has a 10% ownership interest in the Invenergy Strong Breeze project in Dutton Dunwich.

In a letter to The Free Press NCC chief executive officer Geordi Kakepetum said the proximity of native partners should have no bearing on a project’s value.

NCC’s revenue from this project will help First Nations develop remote solar microgrids and reduce dependence on diesel, it says.

Dutton Dunwich also wants to know why some projects were selected and others rejected. “As elected officials, we are supposed to be transparent . . . but it doesn’t seem to work at a provincial level,” McWilliams said.

The six northern First Nations are hundreds of kilometres northwest of Dutton Dunwich.

But there is precedent for green-energy contracts with aboriginal support far from where the power would be generated: A solar project in Ryerson Twp west of Algonquin Park is backed by Missanabie Cree First Nation near Sault Ste. Marie; a hydro-electric project on the Trenton Locks near Belleville has backing from Dokis First Nation west of North Bay; and Invenergy’s solar contract at Lake Simcoe Airport also has support from the NCC in Ontario’s northwest.

NCC says Dutton Dunwich should be proud to be part of the greening of Ontario.

And, it notes, Dutton Dunwich will see economic benefit from the $150-million development: 150 construction jobs, plus local suppliers providing many of the materials; and tax revenue in excess of $4 million during the 20 years of the contract.

McWilliams said the province limits tax assessments of turbines to about one-fiftieth of their actual value. “I’m not disputing there’s some tax revenue but it’s not significant.”

Neighbouring Malahide Township offered to be a host site to turbines but the bidder there was unsuccessful. …

Read the full story here.

NO wind turbines: Ontario municipality tells Wynne government (again)

…because the government clearly doesn’t get that No means NO.

Lucknow-Sentinel, April 28, 2016

IESO’s designation of Huron-Kinloss as potential host for green energy projects forces township to reaffirm its no wind turbine stance

IESO map of power development capacity for LRP II
IESO map of power development capacity for LRP II

The Township of Huron-Kinloss has reaffirmed its stance as an unwilling host for wind turbines.

The decision was made during the April 18, 2016 council meeting, following notification of Huron-Kinloss’ designation as a potential site for future projects by Ontario’s electricity market regulator, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

During the regular council meeting Monday night, Huron-Kinloss was informed that the IESO had designated the municipality, along with all of Bruce and Huron counties, as ‘Low Area Capability’ for large-scale renewable projects.

It had previously been labeled a ‘No Area Capability’ by the IESO. The change in designation was mentioned by the regulator as part of an April 12 webinar concerning the second phase of its competitive process to find locations for a total of 930 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy sources.

The change in designation was brought to the attention of Huron-Kinloss through a motion by the Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group (MMWTWG) to support its demand that the IESO necessitate municipal approval and involvement in the selection process.

“We’re low, but we were right out of that,” said Deputy Mayor Wilfred Gamble during discussions on the motion. “… So that’s why [the MMWTWG] is recommending that we start screaming.”

The IESO is looking to contract upwards of 600 MW of wind capacity, or the equivalent of 300 2MW turbines. The Request for Qualification process will launch Aug. 1, according to the IESO website.

Huron-Kinloss has long been an opponent to wind turbines, passing a resolution in May of 2013 blatantly stating it is not a willing host for wind projects. Also, in 2011 it passed a motion prohibiting the municipality from issuing developers building permits, unless they adhere to Huron-Kinloss’ own wind turbine rules.

However, its declarations of being unwelcome to this green energy is of little use, said Mayor Mitch Twolan.

“We can say that we are not a willing host, but what does that mean at the end of the day? Nothing because the contracts are let out by the IESO,” Twolan said, following the council meeting. “We’ve always said we’re not a willing host. We passed that a long, long time ago, but the new map that came out, it changes all the time and we had no input into that. And it doesn’t matter that we passed that we’re a non-willing host, they can still put that in there.”

Generally motions passed by municipalities on the siting of turbines are symbolic, as the IESO is the ultimate arbiter under the Ontario Green Energy Act.

Chuck Farmer, the IESO director of stakeholder and public affairs, said the change in designation was to indicate that there is room on the transmission system for more projects and not a reflection of community or municipal support.

“I do understand their concern and I do want to stress that this is an assessment of transmission capabilities — so an assessment of the system ability and not a statement of any community stance,” Farmer said in a phone interview on April 27.

He said the redesignation occurred because previous projects slated for the area are now no longer moving forward, which freed up space on the system.

“That creates an indication there maybe room on the transmission system to connect some more projects in the area,” he said.

Farmer said he couldn’t elaborate on the disbanded wind projects previously set for the area.

The slide from the IESO presentation also states that the designation is the result of preliminary results and is subject to change.

As part of the second phase of its process, called the Large Renewable Procurement (LRP), to construct large-scale energy projects, the IESO is asking stakeholders, including municipalities, for opinions on how the project can be improved.

“Right now we are in the middle of collecting feedback and comments from people about the first LRP process,” said Mary Bernard, the IESO media relations manager.

With a IESO deadline for feedback of May 3 (which Bernard called a “soft deadline”), the motion was added to the agenda the day of the April 18 council meeting. Many councillors had not seen the motion prior to it being announced as new business during the meeting.

After having several minutes to read the motion and its accompanying powerpoint presentation by anti-wind turbine group Wind Concerns Ontario, council raised concern that …

 

Read the full story here.

Union’s hypocrisy on health evident on Day of Mourning

Today, April 28, is the Day of Mourning, when people who have died in workplace accidents are remembered. Writer Karen Hunter says that union Unifors is demonstrating hypocrisy when it promotes the Day of Mourning, while ignoring hundreds of complaints about noise emissions and ill health, stemming from its turbine at Port Elgin, Ontario.

wind turbine

Huffington Post blog, April 27, 2016

Wind turbine highlights Unifor’s hypocrisy on noise hazards

Karen Hunter

The National Day of Mourning sends “a strong message to all governments of their obligation and responsibility to strongly enforce health and safety laws and regulations,” says Unifor, Canada’s largest private-sector union, formerly the CAW.

There’s a “serious lack of commitment,” Unifor says of the provincial government, “to enforce the health and safety protections that we have fought for,” so “unfortunately, the suffering continues.” One of the hazardous dangers flagged by the union on its website notice is noise.

Meanwhile, a new online petition targets Unifor for its failure to comply with provincial health and safety protections, specifically noise regulations.

Unifor owns and operates the controversial CAW Wind Turbine, located on its property in Port Elgin, Ontario on the shore of Lake Huron. The turbine began operation in 2013 to generate money for the union. At the time, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) approved the turbine on the condition that the Union would conduct noise audits within the first two years of operation and provide MOE with the results.

Now, as the turbine begins its fourth year of operation, the tests and results are, at a minimum, two years late.

140 noise complaints prompted town council to pass a motion asking the CAW to honour President Ken Lewenza’s commitment to shut down the turbine if it harmed residents.

MOE knew — as did everyone else — how important noise monitoring would be. Unifor’s turbine is located just 210 metres from the nearest home, less than half of the 550-metre distance required by provincial noise regulations. MOE approved Unifor’s turbine after the union had the community’s zoning changed from a rural tourist/recreational classification to city semi-urban to allow for increased noise.

To further address noise levels, the union stated that its powerful 800kw turbine would operate at just 500kw (despite reduced revenue generation) and that it would self-monitor its operation. Since its startup, Unifor and MOE have received hundreds of noise complaints, day and night, from the nearly 200 families who live within the turbine’s 550-metre radius. Still, the noise testing has not been done.

Back in 2013, during the turbine’s first six months of operation, 140 noise complaints prompted town council to pass a motion asking the CAW to honour President Ken Lewenza’s commitment to shut down the turbine if it harmed residents. The union dismissed the request.

In the turbine’s second year of operation, the district MOE office asked the union to hire an independent acoustic consultant, conduct tests to determine if the turbine is exceeding ministry standards, and provide the results to the ministry. The test results have still not been received.

In the turbine’s third year of operation, town council asked Unifor and MOE to meet and discuss the community’s ongoing noise problems plus documents (obtained through a Freedom of Information request) that reveal incidents where the turbine’s noise exceeded government standards. Unifor declined to attend.

Unifor’s turbine is now in its fourth year of operation without the required tests showing proof of compliance. Nearby residents have even tried to conduct their own professional tests. But their efforts have been thwarted by MOE guidelines that require Unifor’s participation. So, the families continue to suffer from the turbine’s noise. And both Unifor and MOE are well aware.

The families hope their petition will generate enough public pressure to force Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, to enforce the noise tests and result in Unifor doing them. So far, nothing else has worked.

Will the union-promoted National Day of Mourning convince the provincial government to enforce legislation that protects health and safety? If so, what will it take to convince Unifor to comply?

Wind farm appeal decisions could take months

Citizens’ groups say onus is on developers to prove no harm; legislation constructed otherwise

Blackburn News, April 26, 2016

Appeal Ruling Months Away

Anti-wind turbine groups are patiently awaiting a ruling by the Ontario Divisional Court on Suncor and Nextera’s Cedar Point Wind Power Project.

Last week, court heard an appeal on the approval of 46 turbines in Plympton-Wyoming. That ruling could take upwards of a few months to be handed down.

The approval of the project was initially granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and upheld by the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).

Anti-turbine groups argued the developers didn’t provide evidence to the ERT that the turbines would not cause adverse health effects.

The turbine groups say the onus should be on residents to prove they will be harmed.

It’s too early to tell what impacts a successful appeal would have.

In the future, he says it would be beneficial for the government to engage in an inclusive discussion with community members before any projects are approved.

Correcting Ontario’s energy minister on the cost of wind power

It’s not just the cost of wind power contracts, it’s the other costs that accrue because of wind power, Parker Gallant says mean Ontario ratepayers are “wind-whipped.”

Rate increases due in large part to the cost of wind: ratepayers are 'wind-whipped' says Parker Gallant
Rate increases due in large part to the cost of wind: ratepayers are ‘wind-whipped’ says Parker Gallant

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli and the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) both blamed the upcoming May 1st increase in electricity prices on lower consumption. But the blame clearly lies with wind power and what the industrial-scale wind turbine projects delivered to the grid, delivered to local distribution companies (LDC), and also curtailed.  (Curtailment means, the Independent Electricity Systems Operator [IESO] requests that power not be supplied to the grid.)

Future rates are set by the OEB, based on both estimates of future demand and the cost of contracted power in the six months following each rate setting, in mid-October and mid-April.

Looking back, it appears that the OEB failed to forecast wind generation correctly in the mid-October price increase. They explained that the “pot” established to track settlements with generators came up short. Then they blamed that shortfall on our lack of consumption.

Here’s what really happened: wind — generated and delivered to the grid, generated and delivered to LDC along with record curtailment (based on Scott Luft’s conservative estimates) in the five months starting November 1, 2015 through to March 31, 2016 — produced power at levels of about 47% of capacity.  What that means is, wind turbines could have produced about 6.2 terawatts (TWh) in the five months versus 4.9 TWh in the comparable five month period, one year previous.

That difference of 1.3 TWh cost ratepayers an average of $133 million/TWh (13.3 cents per kilowatt hour) meaning the extra generation and curtailment (1,082,600 MWh) of those industrial wind turbines ran the bill up by $173 million, based on an average cost of $133 per megawatt hour.

Based on the foregoing added cost of wind generation and curtailment, let’s look at revenue the recently announced rate increase will generate.   With 4.5 million residential households in Ontario, the ½ cent per kilowatt ($3.13 per month) increase will generate about $169 million — almost exactly what the wind power companies were paid for the additional generation delivered to the grid and LDC (year over year about 745,000 MWh more) and the incredible amount of curtailed power generation increasing from 548,000 MWh (rounded) in the comparable five-month period to the above noted (rounded) 1,083,000 MWh, or 535,000 MWh more.

It should also be noted wind (including curtailed) generation in the comparable five-month period (2014/2015) represented approximately 26% of Ontario’s exports to New York, Michigan, Quebec, and other jurisdictions. In the latest five months (2015/2016) it represented almost 62% of Ontario’s exports to those same markets.

It is time Minister Chiarelli1. and the OEB came clean and finally admit wind power is produced completely out of sync with Ontario’s demand.  The admission should logically lead to a cessation of acquiring any more wasteful renewable energy from a source whose biggest benefit is to line the pockets of mainly foreign developers at the expense of rate-paying Ontario households.

© Parker Gallant,

April 25, 2016

  1. The following quote from Minister Chiarelli appeared in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Sun April 24, 2016 in response to a critical report from the Fraser Institute: “In fact, for the first time, wind power generation is below the average cost of electricity production in our province.” But, it’s out of sync with demand and only adds to the cost of generation billed to ratepayers!

Does the Environmental Review Tribunal really understand “habitat”?

Massive clearing of vegetation in Prince Edward County wetland area prior to a stay motion being granted.
Massive clearing of vegetation in Prince Edward County wetland area prior to a stay motion being granted. Photo courtesy APPEC.

Statement from the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) after the Environmental Review Tribunal decision yesterday, April 25.

Today the Environmental Review Tribunal issued a decision on APPEC’s motion for a stay on WPD’s proposed White Pines Wind Project.  The Tribunal has upheld APPEC’s motion in part, finding that vegetation clearing will cause irreparable harm to the Blanding’s turtle.  According to the Tribunal: “the Approval Holder’s vegetation clearing and site preparation activities in spring foraging habitat in the specific locations proposed for work in the Spring of 2016 will cause irreparable harm to Blanding’s turtles.”

While the Tribunal has put a stop to vegetation-clearing in the spring foraging habitat of these turtles it is silent with respect to the potential destruction of other types of habitat that are also critical to Blanding’s turtles, including their over-wintering habitat and oviposition habitat.  The decision does not bode well for these turtle which as we know use many types of habitats across the White Pines project site and depend on all of them for their survival.

For this reason we are disappointed.  We can only conclude that the Tribunal has an incomplete understanding of “significant habitat” and the importance of protecting all significant habitat, not merely one specific type.

The board is discussing the implications of the decision with our legal counsel and giving careful consideration to next steps.  More information will follow.

Regards,
Orville Walsh
President, APPEC

– See more including a link to the ERT decision at: http://savethesouthshore.org/ert-decides-in-favour-of-appecs-stay-motion-some-reservations-statement-by-orville-walsh/#sthash.K9g05Vu6.dpuf

 

MPAC misled Ontario on wind turbine neighbour property values: Conroy

“Anyone with eyes” can see wind turbines impair property values… why does an Ontario government agency insist the opposite is true?

The Times

The Wellington Times, April 22, 2016

Misled

By Rick Conroy

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.- George Orwell

They didn’t come to talk about industrial wind turbines. Rather, the two emissaries from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)—an agency of the province of Ontario—came to apologize.

MPAC is the government agency that determines the value of your home or property for municipal taxation purposes. They know they do a poor job of it. They have such low confidence in their ability to assess the value of your home, particularly in rural, heterogeneous neighbourhoods, one phone call is often all it takes to have an assessment reduced.

So the MPAC folks came to Shire Hall to say they are sorry and want to do better. Part of a dog-and-pony-apology tour across Ontario. They came with plans to improve the way they, and clerks in municipalities across the province, might work together better.

County council members, however, wanted to know about industrial wind turbines. Specifically, they wanted to know the impact on property values of 50-storey machines erected in a scenic rural shoreline. The MPAC folks were prepared for the question. They get it a lot.

Leaning heavily on MPAC’s own study based on 2012 data, the representatives assured council industrial wind turbines nearby had “no statistically significant impact on sale prices.” When it conducted the analysis, the provincial agency knew its findings would meet with a skeptical reception, so it hired an American consultant to examine the data too. It, however, found a statistically significant impact lowering the sale prices of homes near industrial wind turbines, but that the impact was small.

That was the information shared with council. Council believed it was true.

Ed and Gail Kenney have been battling MPAC for seven years. In 2008, the couple’s Wolfe Island home was valued at $200,000. The following year, 86 industrial wind turbines sprouted around his home. Fluctuating pressure caused by the turbines makes Ed uncomfortable and edgy—he finds it difficult to sleep. Yet he doesn’t want to move.

That same year MPAC determined the value of the Kenneys’ home had risen to $375,000—driving their municipal taxes much higher. They appealed. If anything, the value of their home was less because of the turbines, not more. It took several years and a small fortune, yet they lost their appeal.

“The board found that based on the evidence, in this case, there appeared to be no evidence of any negative impact to the value of the property,” concluded the MPAC appeal panel.

The case raised serious questions about how MPAC conducts its evaluations. The hard data appeared to contradict its conclusion. A small corps of amateurs pored over the data. They found a correlation between a decline in sale prices and proximity to industrial wind turbines. But they were just raising more questions. There was no hard evidence or academic research contradicting MPAC. Until now.

A new study prepared by Clarkson University and Nanos Research paints a very different picture of what happened as a result of the industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island.

The Clarkson-Nanos study concludes that a massive wind project proposed for Galloo Island— part of a chain of islands that includes the Duck Islands stretching from Prince Edward Point to Henderson, New York—will likely depress property values of homes with a view of the turbines. The researchers calculate the impact is likely to be more than $40 million while providing the community with little value in return.

But surely the most surprising aspect of their research, for Ontario residents at least, was what they learned about property values directly across from Wolfe Island.

Clarkson-Nanos found that properties with a view of the western side of Wolfe Island, in and around Cape Vincent, prior to turbines being built, commanded a premium of about 10 per cent relative to similar properties. After the turbines were constructed, however, they found a “strong negative impact” on property values. Further, their analysis determined that industrial wind turbines reduce property values on the American mainland by about 15 per cent.

So let’s get this straight. MPAC and its consultant couldn’t detect a significant impact on property values on homes in the shadow of these looming mechanical giants—yet across the channel, an independent research body found homes are worth far less because their view includes industrial wind turbines.

It is obvious to those with eyes that industrial wind turbines impair property values. It is surely why the province wouldn’t tolerate an appeal based on economic or property losses as a result of an industrial wind project located nearby.

Yet the provincial government continues to compel its agencies to tell the public a different story.

The last shreds of credibility MPAC may have once had, now lie in tatters.  …

 

Read Rick Conroy’s stunning conclusion and the rest of the story here.

 

Chiarelli magic: how millions of your dollars are nothing to Wynne government

Energy Minister claims $408 million increase is simply an “aberration” 

At least it's not double digits, Bob says of the latest power bill increase. That makes it weird.
At least it’s not double digits, Bob says of the latest power bill increase. That makes it weird.

 

When asked about the latest increase in electricity prices coming into effect May 1, 2015, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli told the Legislature it was an “aberration.”  He went on to blame Ontario consumers for the price rise because they “used less electricity than expected this past winter”.

Decreased electricity demand was also the reason given by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) in their press release. The OEB said the price of the average bill would increase by “$3.13 per month for households and small businesses”.  That makes no sense: the OEB’s press release of April 2015 made no mention of the fact that more energy was used in the prior winter because it was exceptionally cold — yet the price went up.

Using more or less electricity doesn’t affect continually rising electricity prices despite claims made when the local distribution companies (LDC) are spending those hundreds of millions of our ratepayer dollars telling us to “saveONenergy”.

Let’s look at the electricity line on the “average bill” for the actual cost to Ontario’s 4.5 million residential ratepayers.

The message from the OEB was: it will only cost the “average ratepayer” $3.13 more per month and together with the same cost in the October 2015 press release of $4.42 more per month, adds $90.60 annually to the “average bill”.   If one applies the $90.60 annual cost to just residential ratepayers, the amount removed from ratepayers pockets is huge.  With 4.5 million ratepayers (based on the OEB’s Yearbook of Distributors for 2014) it represents $408 million. That’s without including the additional costs to tens of thousands of small and medium sized businesses.

If it seems like power bill increases never end in Ontario, let’s look back. The all-in average electricity rate as of November 1, 2008 was 6.02 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) so the 4.2 million ratepayers, at that time, consumed 40.3 terawatts (TWh), costing them about $2,4 billion.  Fast forward to November 2015 and the 4.5 million ratepayers were paying an average of 11.6 cents/kWh, and the cost of the 43.2 TWh consumed was $5 billion. The increase in just seven years was 108%. That’s well above Ontario’s inflation rate.

The rates for every kWh of electricity consumed since 2008 have cost ratepayers $9.5 billion more than if the rates been maintained at 6.02 cents/kWh. The average annual increase ratepayers have paid for just electricity has been almost $1.4 billion1. and has been caused mainly by the addition of renewable energy, principally in the form of unreliable and intermittent wind and solar requiring back-up support from gas plants.

With the increase effective May 1, 2016 and the prior one of November 1, 2015, the added cost of over $400 million annually to residential ratepayer’s bills for the electricity line will be an “aberration” only in the sense that it represents an increase of 8% as opposed to the double digit growth of the previous seven years.

 

©Parker Gallant

April 21, 2016

1.Please note the $2 billion cost of smart meters, transmission lines to connect wind and solar to the grid are billed in the “delivery” line.

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

Settlers Landing wind project back to judicial tribunal next week for “remedy” hearing

“Serious and irreversible harm” risk found for Capstone Infrastructure power venture

Kawartha Lakes This Week

April 21, 2016

By Mary Riley

MANVERS TWP – Ward 16 Councillor Heather Stauble provided an update on the status of three industrial wind turbine projects proposed in Manvers Township.

Coun. Stauble emailed This Week, noting the fight continues to try and block the projects, which have met fierce opposition from residents in Bethany and Pontypool, especially since several of the turbines will be built on the provincially-protected Oak Ridges Moraine.

Residents and community groups have fought for several years, mounting legal challenges alleging the turbines can cause significant harm to water, wildlife, the environment and human health.

RELATED: Opponents Of Wind Turbines Launch GoFundMe Campaign To Help With Legal Costs

Here is where each project currently stands:

– Sumac Ridge (wpd Canada) on Ballyduff Road:

In spite of efforts to protect this area on the Oak Ridges Moraine, the City was ordered by the Divisional Court (court file 37/15) to provide access and issue permits to the site. The City appealed to the Court of Appeal and will be heard in early May. However, in the meantime,  the developer has the legal authority to clear the road allowance.

wpd Canada has notified the City that it intends to start clearing trees along Wild Turkey Road, starting on Saturday, April 23.

Take pictures before it’s gone forever–Councillor Stauble

Coun. Stauble wrote, “For those of you who have enjoyed the peace and quiet of Wild Turkey Road, go and take one more walk and lots of pictures before it is gone forever.”

Capstone Infrastructure has provincial approval for two wind farms in the area.

– Settlers Landing (Pontypool)

The Environmental Review Tribunal adjourned after the Tribunal did find there would be “serious and irreversible harm.” The wind company now has an opportunity to present a “remedy” to the Tribunal.

Settlers Landing is one of only two projects where the ERT did find serious and irreversible harm.

The ERT Hearing on Settlers Landing will take place at the Pontypool Community Centre on Monday, April 25 at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, April 26 at 9 a.m.; Wednesday, April 27 at 10:30 a.m. and Thursday, April 28, at 9 a.m.

Snowy Ridge (North side of Hwy 7A – east of Hwy 35):

Capstone has given a Notice that it needs to change its REA for Snowy Ridge to increase the construction and lay down areas, re-route roads and distribution system.

Donations to help with the legal challenges are appreciated. For info re Settlers Landing – Dave Bridges at dbridges@1-zoom.net. For Snowy Ridge contact Ron Awde, rawde@sympatico.ca or Manvers Wind Concerns: www.gofundme.com/gzpxr22k.

Read the full story here.

Return planning powers to municipalities, MPP demands Wynne government

No municipality would ever put wind turbines beside an airport, says Simcoe-Grey MPP Wilson

April 21, 2016

Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson is not letting up on his campaign to halt the Fairview wind power project which would put wind turbines hundreds of feet tall next to the very busy Collingwood airport.

The power project is now being appealed by a record six appellants, including all the relevant municipalities, the community group, and the aerodrome owner.

Thursday, Wilson demanded the government reverse the contract with WPD in the Legislature, and also held a news conference in which it was revealed that wind power developer WPD has now restructured ownership of the project and will develop it as “WPD Fairview.”

“This is a shell company with no assets,” said Clearview resident Chuck Magwood in the news conference. The company will be able to walk away from any legal action or requirements of it: “It’s better than bankruptcy,” he charged. Magwood is known for being CEO of the company that developed and built Toronto’s Skydome.

Preliminary hearings have already been heard in the appeal, which begins mid-May.