Trudeau government silent on wind farm noise

In sworn testimony at an environmental review tribunal, a Health Canada official confirmed industrial wind turbines — large, noise-emitting devices — are regulated by the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. So why isn’t it responding to hundreds of citizen complaints?

KIncardine area house w turbine

Toronto Sun, June 28, 2016

The federal government’s inaction on wind turbine noise is making Canadians sick.

It’s been a year-and-a-half since Health Canada’s $2-million study determined low-frequency acoustic waves from industrial wind turbines cause community annoyance.

According to the World Health Organization, unwanted noise, even at a moderate level, can lead to a myriad of adverse health outcomes, including stress-related symptoms such as sleep disturbance, elevated blood pressure, cardiac events and depression.

It’s a “green” form of radiation sickness.

Canada’s Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA) is supposed to regulate the design and operation of devices that emit radiation, such as microwave ovens and tanning beds. In sworn testimony at an environmental review tribunal, a Health Canada official confirmed industrial wind turbines — large, noise-emitting devices — are regulated by REDA.

REDA requires a manufacturer or importer of such a device to “forthwith notify the Minister” upon becoming aware its device is emitting radiations not necessary for the performance of its function.

On June 15, Barbara Ashbee of Mulmur, Ontario, together with hundreds of other Ontarians, sent an open letter to Health Minister Jane Philpott, asking why Health Canada has not insisted wind energy corporations report citizen complaints about noise radiation. She wants the minister to meet with her and representatives of citizens suffering from turbine noise radiations.

Ashbee wrote: “Many in Ontario and elsewhere have logged serious health complaints with proponents/operators of wind turbine projects, provincial and federal government ministries as well as wind turbine manufacturers … As previous ministers and current Minister Philpott have been informed, the adverse effects of wind turbines are not trivial.”

Access to Information records indicate wind energy corporations have reported no complaints.

Why is Health Canada not forcing wind turbine operators to report citizen complaints, as required?

Is the wind industry lobby that strong?

Why were Canadians not told wind turbine corporations are required to report citizen complaints to Health Canada? Were wind energy companies also not told about the REDA?

Why did Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health study exclude people under age 18 and over age 79, the most vulnerable segments of Canada’s population?

Why do REDA regulations not include standards for the design and operation of wind turbines, as they do for microwave ovens, etc.?

Prior to the 2015 federal election, Canadians for Radiation Emission Enforcement (CFREE) asked candidates in wind turbine-affected Ontario ridings: “Will you support a moratorium on new wind turbines within 2 km of residences, until REDA regulations are updated to clearly stipulate wind turbine operators must comply with REDA, and to include scientifically proven safe setback distances?”

The survey revealed equal support from candidates of all four parties for a wind turbine moratorium. Only three candidates opposed it, but none were elected. In Ontario, the turbine setback is only 550 meters from residences.

Other countries are extending setbacks to safer distances. In Poland, the setback is now ten times turbine height. In closely settled Bavaria, it is now two kilometres. But there is no such action from Health Canada. No moratorium. No change in setbacks. No standards in REDA. More wind projects are planned. More Canadians are getting sick.

Openness and transparency are supposedly important to the federal Liberal government.

What will Prime Minister Justin Trudeau do about Health Canada’s inaction on wind turbines?

Read the full article here.

Ontario needs new wind turbine noise regulations: WCO to MOECC

Wind turbine noise testing needs total overhaul, Wind Concerns Ontario says

NEWS RELEASE

June 27, 2016, OTTAWA – Ontario needs to do a complete revision of procedures for wind turbine noise testing, Wind Concerns Ontario has informed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in a review of proposed regulatory changes.

According to WCO, the growing scientific research on wind turbine noise emissions and the escalating number of unresolved complaints confirm that proposed changes to the government’s old protocol are insufficient to address the problems faced by people living among wind turbine projects.

“The changes the Ministry has proposed to its existing procedures are nothing more than minor tweaks,” says president Jane Wilson. “The government is ignoring the need for real change to keep up with science, and to protect health from noise emissions.”

By 2015, the MOECC had received more than 2,700 complaints about problems with wind turbine noise, WCO learned. Though more recent data are not available, monitoring by WCO suggests that this number has continued to grow with the number of larger new turbines that have become operational since then.

Proposed new testing procedures are inadequate as they limit testing to audible noise outside of the home, while many citizen complaints relate to turbine noise emissions that people cannot hear, but rather, are vibrations or sensations that they feel, says WCO. And, while many complaints are about the noise and sensation experienced inside buildings, the MOECC only tests outside noise.

“The MOECC persists in the standard of using one form of noise measurement, the dBA, while the acoustics industry and even the Government of Canada has said this is providing only part of the picture on noise emissions,” Wilson says.

The process of confirming turbine compliance with regulations is convoluted and complex — people have lost trust in the Ontario government, WCO says. For example, the Enbridge project near Kincardine began operation in late 2008 but there is still no report that confirms the turbines are compliant.

The MOECC also relies on information from the power developers, and predicted modelling — not actual noise testing. This has resulted in a loss of faith in the Wynne government as a protector of public health.

Rather than dismissing resident complaints, WCO told the Ministry in a comment document in response to proposed regulatory changes, the government should view these contacts as an opportunity to learn and show leadership in responsible renewable energy implementation.

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups and citizens concerned about the impact of industrial-scale wind power projects on the economy, the environment, and health.

Contact Jane Wilson at president@windconcernsontario.ca

Additional quotes:

“If government and the wind power development industry is using only A-weighted noise measurement or dBA, they are only getting part of the picture.”

“Wind turbines have been found out of compliance via third-party measurements, yet the MOECC does not act on these findings. The MOECC also does not report publicly on complaints or actions taken as it does for other complaints made to the ministry ‘Spills Line’. ”

“Using only computer-generated predictive noise models does not reflect the reality of wind turbine noise emission experiences in Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change needs to do actual, on-site testing in conditions similar to or the same as those that spurred a citizen complaint to assure Ontarians it is fulfilling its mandate to protect people.”

www.windconcernsontario.ca

See the WCO comment document filed with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change here: ResponsetoNoiseProtocol-June16FINAL

WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO 250 WELLINGTON MAIN STREET WELLINGTON ONTARIO

Ontario: paying for power not delivered, paying for wasted power, and paying to help with skyrocketing bills

In short, just paying and paying. Parker Gallant reviews the first five months in the electricity sector in Ontario, and asks what new Energy Minister Thibeault will do about the impact of the province’s renewable energy policy.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault: what will he do about paying for power we don't need, paying for power we don't get, and paying for the economic impact of constant increases?
Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault: what will he do about paying for power we don’t need, paying for power we don’t get, and paying for the economic impact of constant increases?

 

The Independent Electric System Operator (IESO) a few days ago released the 18 Month Outlook; sifting through the pages one finds some alarming comments such as this one: “The need for greater flexibility is related to our current supply mix. Forecast uncertainty from increased quantities of VG [variable generation] is compounded by demand forecast uncertainty.”

More alarming is this quote: “The need for additional flexibility increases as the VG fleet grows.

“Variable generation” is of course a reference chiefly to wind and solar which is causing IESO grid management grief; the situation may well lead to blackouts or brownouts as more power generation in Ontario is variable.

Coincidentally, IESO also released a quarterly publication called “A progress report on contracted electricity supply” which highlights that IESO had, as of March 31, 2016, contracted for 5,814 MW of wind generation and 2,490 MW of solar generation. In fact, 1,434 MW of wind and 334 MW of solar were classified as “Under Development”.

Immediately following, IESO released the May 2016 Monthly Market Report which contained some disturbing facts such as disclosure that the “Weighted Average” for the month for Class B ratepayers was $133.81 per megawatt hour (MWh), or 13.4 cents/kWh (excluding the Debt Retirement charge). That is 20.7% above the average price of 11.1 cents/kWh levied by the OEB as of May 1, 2016.

What that means, is we are heading for another significant rate increase commencing November 1, 2016.

With this in mind let’s look at some events in the first five months of 2016.

The Global Adjustment climbed by over $1.7 billion from the same period in 2015 with Class A clients (large industry) seeing an increase of $310 million or 88%, and Class B ratepayers a $1.435 billion increase (43,3%). That happened even though consumption was virtually flat!

Another hit was related to curtailed wind (paid at an estimated $120/MWh) and, according to Scott Luft’s conservative estimates, was 730,000 MWh for the five months of 2016. The cost to ratepayers of almost $88 million is about 44% of the estimated $200 million annual cost for the OESP (Ontario Electricity Support Program) which kicked in January 1, 2016. That means, Ontario ratepayers are paying mainly large foreign-owned wind generating companies to cut back on power production at the same time as we pay to support as many as 571,000 households suffering from “energy poverty”!   The irony? Intermittent power generation from wind, produced out-of-sync with demand, is causing households to pay for power not delivered and also pay for power needed by low-income households!

In the first five months of 2016 the average intertie (exports minus imports) was 6.570 million MWh; Ontario generated revenue of $68.4 million from the average HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) sale price.   The ratepayers in Ontario, however, were obliged to pick up the Global Adjustment costs of $674 million (average GA cost per MWh was $102.61), meaning it cost almost $150.00 per “average” household just to support surplus export sales.

While all this was going on, OPG was also spilling hydro (1.7 million MWh1) as they report in their 1st Quarter results, Bruce Nuclear was steaming off nuclear power, and wind power generators were being paid an average of $133/MWh to produce out of sync with demand intermittent power that is now apparently causing IESO grief in ensuring they can manage the grid.

The waste and expense: does new Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault know that his predecessor instructed the IESO to acquire another 600 MW of wind in the next procurement phase?

One might ask, will Energy Minister Thibeault have the intestinal fortitude to cancel that directive and save Ontarians from paying for power that is clearly not needed?

© Parker Gallant

June 24, 2016

 

 

  1. OPG were paid for spilling the 1.7 TWh of hydro which could have supplied almost all of the low-income households with free power for those five months.

Wind power contract process ‘unfair’ ‘frustrating’ and undemocratic say Ontario municipalities

Mayor Higgins: Hoping for open discussion with the new Energy MInister (Photo CBC)
Mayor Higgins: Hoping for open discussion with the new Energy Minister (Photo CBC)

CBC News June 20, 2016

 

Seventy-five municipalities across Ontario are calling on the provincial government to give them more say on future wind farm projects.

Some eastern Ontario communities have declared themselves “unwilling hosts” to wind farms, only to recently have the province award contracts against their wishes.

The City of Ottawa, North Frontenac and at least 73 other municipalities want Ontario’s Independent Electrical System Operator (IESO) to “make formal municipal support a mandatory requirement in Ontario’s next round of procurement for renewable energy projects,” according to the resolution.

The provincial energy agency claims to let communities express their concerns, but that has little impact on the outcome, according to North Frontenac Mayor Ron Higgins.

“We basically don’t have any democratic right when it comes to deciding where these wind turbines go … within our municipality,” he said.

Wind Energy

75 municipalities across Ontario have endorsed a resolution that calls for increased local consultation before the next round of renewable energy projects. (Robert F. Bukaty/Associated Press)

Higgins said if given the opportunity North Frontenac would turn down all wind turbine projects, but he said some area municipalities would support them.

“We may want them, we may not want them, but if we do want them we’d like to be able to tell you where to put them,” said Higgins.

“Not right in front of a cottage door, or high on a mountain where all our cottages can see it.”

Current process ‘unfair,’ Ottawa councillor says

The current procurement process for renewable energy projects is “unfair” and “incredibly frustrating,” according to Rideau-Goulbourn ward Coun. Scott Moffatt.

Moffatt said he has no choice but to tell upset constituents “‘sorry, it’s the province, sorry, it’s the province.’ It just sounds like we’re passing the buck, but literally we have no control over these things.”

Both Higgins and Moffatt said they’re hopeful Ontario’s new energy minister, Glenn Thibeault, will be open to new discussions.

Higgins said he requested meetings with previous minister, Bob Chiarelli, three times, but that all requests were denied.

See the entire story here

 

The real cost of wind power: U.S. report

Subsidies mask the real cost of producing electricity from wind, says a recent U.S. report

The people get it: subsidies mask the true costs of wind power
The people get it: subsidies mask the true costs of wind power

The wind power lobby is currently putting forward the idea that generation of electricity from wind energy is actually dropping in cost, and is one more reason for governments to choose wind over other forms of power generation.

Not so fast: a U.S. institute has done a review of the actual costs of wind power. They include funny things like transmission, the cost of idling or spilling other forms of power generation when wind power gets first-to-the-grid rights, as in Ontario, and — amazingly–the social, environmental and health costs of wind power.

Their conclusion? “[T]he growth of wind energy in the U.S. is not the result of new technology and favourable market forces. Rather, wind energy’s rapid emergence is largely a response to general federal and state subsidies intended to boost the technology … ,” says energy Economist Robert Lyman, in a summary document.

“What seems clear, however, is that the actual cost of wind-generated electricity is higher than most published cost estimates indicate,” Lyman says.

“Mandates requiring the use of wind energy increase electricity costs for consumers, and subsidies mask the actual cost of doing so, while penalizing taxpayers.”

Read Mr Lyman’s summary document here: THE UNSEEN COSTS OF WIND

 

MEDIA: To get in touch with Mr. Lyman, please email Wind Concerns Ontario at contact@windconcernsontario.ca

75 municipalities to Wynne government: make municipal support mandatory for wind power bids

 

NorthFrontenac

NEWS RELEASE

Municipalities call on Ontario government to make municipal support mandatory for wind power bids

Plevna, June 15, 2016—

Seventy-five municipalities have now endorsed resolutions that call on Ontario’s Independent Electrical System Operator (IESO) to make formal Municipal Support a mandatory requirement in Ontario’s next round of procurement for renewable energy projects.

Mayor Ron Higgins of North Frontenac, who put forward a resolution now supported by other municipalities, says making municipal support mandatory is key to fairness in the process. “It will force proponents to seriously address local concerns when developing these proposals, rather than just going through the motions,” he says.

The IESO process allowed municipalities to express their concerns about wind power projects but that had little impact on the outcome, Higgins says. In spite of the fact that then Energy Minister Chiarelli said a contract in an unwilling community was “virtually impossible,” three of five wind power contracts were awarded in municipalities that did not support the projects proposed by developers.

The municipality of Dutton Dunwich, which also created a mandatory support motion, held a referendum on the wind power project bid there — 84 percent of residents said no. The municipality is now fighting a contract award.

Municipalities across Ontario support these resolutions, including former Energy Minister Chiarelli’s home municipality of Ottawa. Municipalities in Northern Ontario also endorse the resolution.

“Communities know what type of development is appropriate and sustainable,” says North Frontenac Mayor Higgins. “Our resolution points out that utility-scale wind power does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions or appreciably benefit the environment. In fact, in our case, it would have harmed it.”

The recent Environmental Review Tribunal decision revoking the approval for the Ostrander Point wind turbine project underscores the importance of community input into the process of awarding contracts and approving power projects. The community in Prince Edward County went through two appeal hearings and two hearings in court before succeeding in its goal of protecting the environment and endangered wildlife from a power project.

Recent feedback published by the IESO shows that the current bid process was resoundingly condemned by municipal officials and community groups for a lack of openness and transparency.

###

Contact: Mayor Ron Higgins, North Frontenac, 613-884-9736

Mandatory Municipal Support Resolution

  1. Adelaide-Metcalfe, Middlesex County
  2. Alfred & Plantagenet, Prescott-Russell County
  3. Amaranth, Dufferin County
  4. Asphodel-Norwood. Peterborough County
  5. Algonquin Highlands, Haliburton County
  6. Arran-Elderslie, Bruce County
  7. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, Huron County
  8. Bayham, Elgin County
  9. Bluewater, Huron
  10. Brockton, Bruce
  11. Brooke-Alvinston, Lambton
  12. Bruce Mines, Algoma District
  13. Cavan-Monaghan, Peterborough
  14. Central Elgin, Elgin
  15. Central Huron, Huron
  16. Chamberlain, Timiskaming District
  17. Chatsworth, Grey County
  18. Clarington, Region of Durham
  19. Dutton-Dunwich, Elgin
  20. East Ferris, Nippissing District
  21. Elgin, County of
  22. Essex, Essex County
  23. Enniskillen, Lambton County
  24. Gananoque, Leeds and Grenville County
  25. Georgian Bluffs, Grey
  26. Grey Highlands, Grey
  27. Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Peterborough
  28. Hornepayne, Algoma
  29. Howick, Huron
  30. Huron, County of
  31. Huron-Kinloss, Bruce
  32. Kawartha Lakes, City of
  33. Killarney, Sudbury District
  34. Kincardine, Bruce
  35. Lakeshore, Essex
  36. Lambton, County of
  37. LaSalle, Essex
  38. Laurentian Hills, Renfrew County
  39. Leeds and the Thousand Island, Leeds and Grenville
  40. Lennox & Addington, County of
  41. Mapleton, Wellington
  42. Magnetawan, Parry Sound District
  43. Marathon, Thunder Bay District
  44. McDougall, Parry Sound
  45. McNabb Braeside, Renfrew County
  46. Meaford
  47. Newbury, Middlesex
  48. Mono, Dufferin County
  49. Morris-Turnberry, Huron
  50. Nairn and Hyman, Sudbury District
  51. North Frontenac, Frontenac County
  52. North Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
  53. North Grenville, Leeds and Grenville
  54. North Perth, Perth
  55. North Stormont, Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry
  56. Northern Bruce Peninsula, Bruce
  57. Ottawa, City of
  58. Peterborough, County of
  59. Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton
  60. Prescott-Russell, United Counties of
  61. Prince Edward, County of
  62. Rainy River, Rainy River District
  63. Ramara, Simcoe County
  64. South Bruce Peninsula, Bruce
  65. Southgate, Grey
  66. Tillsonburg, Oxford County
  67. Trent Lakes, Peterborough
  68. Tudor and Cashel, Hastings County
  69. Tweed, Hastings
  70. Val Rita-Harty, Cochrane District
  71. Warwick, Lambton
  72. Wainfleet, Niagara Region
  73. West Grey, Grey
  74. West Lincoln, Niagara
  75. Zorra, Oxford

Final arguments in Amherst Island appeal: danger to turtles and people?

The Whig-Standard, June 7, 2016

By Elliot Ferguson

The public waits for the start of the final day of the Amherst Island ERT. Elliot Ferguson/The Whig-Standard
The public waits for the Amherst Island hearing to begin June 7th. Photo: Elliot Ferguson/Whig-Standard

STELLA — The two sides in the legal battle over the Amherst Island wind energy project laid out their final submissions Tuesday.

The Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) is seeking the revocation of a conditional approval of Windlectric’s wind power project.

The hearing comes after the association appealed an August decision by the Ontario government that gave the project conditional approval. The Amherst Island Island Environmental Review Tribunal is expected to be the largest such hearing since the process was established.

Island resident Amy Caughey led off the final submissions by arguing that the negative effects on children’s health have not been studied collectively.

Caughey said the proximity of a proposed concrete batch plant near Amherst Island Public School would hurt pupils’ health.

But Caughey said such effects can’t properly be studied unless the children are first exposed to the dust and noise from the plant and the changes in their health documented.

“In Canada, in 2016, we do not permit such trials on children,” she said. “The burden of proof cannot fall on a parent.”

APAI’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie, said the evidence has met the burden of proof needed to show wind turbines are detrimental to human health.

“This case advances the health claims further than any other case this tribunal has heard,” he said, before outlining the key evidence his witnesses presented about the potential negative impacts of the wind turbines.

Gillespie said expert testimony showed Amherst Island is home to many species — birds, bats and turtles — that could be negatively affected by the project.

“This island is a stronghold for species that is under pressure,” he said of the local bobolink population.

Gillespie saved his final submission for the Blanding’s turtle, which has taken a special place in ERTs in this area.

The closing of the Amherst Island ERT came the day after a similar process rejected a wind energy plan for Prince Edward County.

On Monday, an ERT upheld an appeal of a nine-turbine project by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN), saying the installation of gates on access roads won’t adequately protect the population or habitat of Blanding’s turtles.

Gillespie said island residents called as witnesses have testified to have seen the turtle on the island. …

Read the full story here.

Victory for environment, community at Ostrander Point

Ontario Coat of Arms

The people of Prince Edward County have been battling a wind power project planned for–and supported by the Ontario government–for more than six years. An Important Bird Area and staging area for hundreds of thousands of migratory birds, and home to endangered species, Ostrander Point was a fragile environment— not suitable, most thought, for a huge, utility-scale, wind power project.

The Environmental Review Tribunal released its decision today, prepared by co-chairs Robert Wright and Heather Gibbs.

Here is a news release from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists and their lawyer, Eric Gillespie.

TORONTO, June 6, 2016 /CNW/ – The endangered Blanding’s turtle has come out ahead in its race to protect the species and its habitat in Prince Edward County.

The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal ruled today that the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change permit related to proposed industrial wind turbines on the Ostrander Point crown lands should be revoked.

“This is a great outcome for everyone involved and for the environment” said Myrna Wood of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, the appellant. “It’s taken some time, but with this result the effort has clearly been worthwhile” said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel.

SOURCE Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation

A key point in the decision was the concepts that there must be balance between preserving the natural environment and wildlife and the goals for “renewable” power generation.

The Ontario government has approved wind power projects in other areas where environmental protection is a concern.

Will the government of Ontario do the right thing and now cancel contracts for utility-scale wind power in these locations?

ToughonNature

‘Resounding condemnation’ of wind power bid process: WCO on comments to IESO

The IESO asked for comments on its Large Renewable Procurement process. Looks like nobody is happy, least of all Ontario citizens and the municipalities that would be forced to have the power projects.

Communities have valid reasons for objecting to huge power projects but government is not listening [Photo: Prince Edward County]
Communities have valid reasons for objecting to huge power projects but government is not listening [Photo: Prince Edward County]
London Free Press, June 3, 2016

John Miner

The agency setting the ground rules for the next multi-billion-dollar round of wind farm development in Ontario says it can only go so far to meet demands for changes in its program to acquire more electricity.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which picked the winners in the last round, asked residents, wind farm developers, municipalities and First Nations how the controversial program could be improved.

A persistent theme in the 120 pages of responses was a call for municipalities to be given a veto over developments, a power stripped away by the Liberal government — to the anger of many municipalities — when it launched its green energy program.

“Municipal support must be a mandatory requirement. There must be greater consideration given to the impact of the power projects on the community, and on the people who must live near them,” wrote one respondent.

But Adam Butterfield, IESO’s manager of renewable energy procurement, said such a decision would have to be made by the provincial government.

“The feedback we get will be communicated up to the Ministry of Energy for them to consider any related policy changes. We provide our advice, as we always do, on these aspects. But at the end of the day there are some policy ones, such as the veto aspect, that are in the government’s purview,” he said.

In Southwestern Ontario, home to the largest wind farms in the province and the most wind turbines, the Liberal government’s decision to take away local control over where the highrise-sized turbines can be built left many centres joining a movement of so-called “unwilling host” communities for energy projects.

Butterfield said he doesn’t know how the government will respond to the latest feedback.

“To date they have been pretty firm that renewable energy is a provincial issue and so they haven’t been amenable to considering a (local) veto. We will provide the feedback up and see where things go over the course of the summer.”

Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, a provincial coalition opposed to wind farms, said the survey responses show the process doesn’t respect Ontarians and their wishes for how their communities develop.

“The point is made repeatedly that the process for locating renewable power projects differs from any other sort of development — that there is little openness or transparency, and that municipalities ought to have real ‘say’ in where these power projects go,” Wilson wrote in an email.

“The comments are a resounding condemnation of the procurement process,” she added.

The IESO has been instructed by the government to procure another 600 megawatts of wind energy, with the contracts awarded by 2018.

The generating capacity is being added at a time when the IESO’s own forecasts project Ontario will remain in a surplus power position for at least a decade.

A report last year by Ontario’s auditor general concluded Ontarians paid $37  billion extra for power over the last eight years because of the government’s decisions to ignore its own planning process for new power generation projects.

Along with suggestions for a municipal veto, other respondents to the IESO survey called for more openness by companies about their plans and an end to non-disclosure agreements with property owners.

“Proponents intentionally misled, failed to follow the process (meeting and information distribution), and used other methods to ensure the community was misinformed and had little time to respond,” wrote one. …

Read the full news story here.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This spring, 72 Ontario municipalities have formally passed a resolution demanding that municipal support be a mandatory requirement in wind power project bids. See the list of municipalities under our MUNICIPAL RESOLUTIONS tab.

NoMeansNo_FB (2)

Huron County considers partnership on health investigation

Blackburn News, June 3, 2016

Huron Considering University Partnership On Wind Turbine Study

A study being proposed by the Huron County Health Unit on the health impacts of wind turbines may take a new direction.

Health Board Chair Tyler Hessel explains the board had a few concerns about the study, including what they were going to do with the information they collected, and how much it was going to cost them.

Hessel says the University of Waterloo is working with Wind Concerns of Ontario on a study similar to the one the Health Unit was proposing, but it would go into more detail and so they’re exploring the possibility of partnering with the university.   That would give them access to a more scientific study done by a group with better human and financial resources.

They have invited a spokesperson from the university to speak at a future Health Board meeting to discuss a partnership.

Hessel adds his understanding is the university is looking at testing in specific areas and in specific homes and doing very detailed analysis.