New academic wind farm toolkit disappoints

The need for mandatory community support and proper mitigation of harmful effects from wind turbines is acknowledged, but there is still no definition of who is “local” or a community, Wind Concerns Ontario says.

February 13, 2017

Map of municipalities formally demanding change to the IESO wind power bid process, to July 14, 2016 — a lot of unhappy communities

A Western University PhD candidate and a professor at the university have produced a “toolkit” on wind power development in Nova Scotia and Ontario, which purports to summarize social responses to wind power projects, and offer a set of recommendations.
The document is based on a survey of residents living near several selected wind power projects. It was prepared in association with Communities Around Renewable Energy Projects or COAREP, a “project”  designed to “produce original research and outputs to contribute to constructive and sustainable dialogue within and between rural communities and other wind turbine stakeholders.” COAREP is funded by the Metcalf Foundation.
The authors Chad Walker and Jamie Baxter explain the “toolkit” initiative: “The toolkit also explores some novel forms of planning mechanisms and benefit packages based on the preferences of those residents. We find high levels of support for systems that would allow for independent experts during planning stages, investment opportunities for local residents, and discounts on electricity for those living close to turbines. The paper closes with a list of nine principles which are intended to summarize the key points of the document.”
The “Toolkit” may be downloaded here.
Significant differences were noted between the people surveyed in Nova Scotia and Ontario, the authors noted.
Wind Concerns Ontario had the opportunity to view the toolkit in draft form several weeks ago; we were very concerned about the complete lack of any discussion of adverse health impacts, property value loss, and the fact that the wind power program in Ontario was launched without any cost-benefit or impact analysis (a fact pointed out by two Auditors General) — the situation in Ontario today is that the province has a surplus of power, the cost of signing expensive contracts for renewables like wind power has been a significant factor in driving electricity bills up, yet communities are being forced to “host” the power projects with little or no benefit locally, or to the province.
Wind Concerns Ontario also noted that there was very little real community consultation performed as part of the toolkit development process.
The authors acknowledged Wind Concerns Ontario’s contribution: “Wind Concerns Ontario submitted a 23-page report in response to the toolkit, outlining a range of issues not covered in much detail in the toolkit, but highly relevant to the issue of wind turbine facility siting. We have edited the toolkit considerably as a result …”
“While the creation of a ‘Toolkit’ is a worthwhile objective, it needs to be aligned with the realities being experienced by the host communities if it is to be useful as a framework for assessing interactions with these communities,” Wind Concerns Ontario said in its comment paper to Walker and Baxter.
“It is a concern to us that the work done in developing this ‘Toolkit’ seems to have included very limited communication with Ontario communities. To understand the full impact of wind turbines on a community, the contents of the current draft suggest that the authors need to have more direct contact with the people who are being affected by wind turbines. These are the people that are coming to WCO for information and assistance and forming local support groups to deal with the problems being created.”
While the Toolkit authors maintain that better communication (and money) is all that stands between communities and acceptance of wind power projects, WCO said that for the communities forced to lived with the power plants, the false mythology of wind power has been disproved.
“Over the past six years, the government claimed a number of benefits from the green energy program, including the following:

  • The investment in wind turbines allowed coal plants to be closed. Fact: the Asthma Society this year presented a certificate to Bruce Nuclear in Kincardine recognizing the role of the refurbished nuclear facilities in allowing this change to be implemented.
  • The investment in renewable energy technology creates jobs. Fact: Most jobs created are lower-skill, short-term construction jobs. In the 2011 report, Ontario’s Auditor General warned that studies in other jurisdictions which showed two to four jobs were lost due to increased electricity costs for every job created.
  • Surplus electricity is being sold to other jurisdictions at a profit. Fact: the IESO’s reporting shows that the revenue recovered is below the rates provided for in the wind turbine contracts. Neighbouring jurisdictions are now promoting their lower electricity rates to lure Ontario businesses to relocate.”

WCO pointed out flaws in the research behind the Toolkit development, in particular the fact that the power projects studied were small compared to many developments in Ontario. The use of the Gunn’s Hill wind power project was particularly questionable, WCO said, because while nominally a “community” group invested in the power project, in fact few locals were in the investment group—at the same time, residents fought the project from the beginning, even launching an appeal before the Environmental Review Tribunal.
“It is odd to suggest that this outside group hiding behind the façade of a community organization, will change local population’s perception of the project,” WCO wrote. The situation is confirmed by the survey results which indicate that the project, even in its new format, does not have community support.  Concerns about impact of the noise emissions on the nearby resident population take precedence over sham organizational structures.
This situation raises the question of how the authors have defined ‘community involvement’ in its analysis of the benefits. To be considered as having an impact on project acceptance, it would seem appropriate to include only groups that are located within a limited distance of the wind turbine project.  There also should be some measure of how the group reflects all the residents in an area.  In many wind turbine projects, a small group of landowners agree to participate and impose a project on a community despite the wishes of the wider community.  Creating a ‘community’ structure around these landowners does not change the basic relationship.”
Perhaps as a result of the WCO comment submission, the authors added an eighth principle to the document, related to adverse health effects and other issues with industrial-scale wind turbines:

Principle 8: Financial benefits are not a replacement for proper mitigation

Though residents living near turbines are dissatisfied with the amount of benefits and particularly how they are distributed among the people living closest to turbines, this does not mean that paying residents will quell concerns. Addressing the mitigation of negative impacts from turbines e.g., noise, vibration – and clearly establishing the need for new facilities – should still be viewed as priorities.

Principle 6 also acknowledges support for mandatory community support as part of the wind turbine siting process (i.e., as WCO says, contracts should not be awarded without community support as a mandatory requirement) and further, that any discussion in a community about he possibility of a wind power facility should occur BEFORE lease negotiations. In Ontario, the practice is to sign up leaseholders and by the time the community is aware of a potential power development, all the documents have been signed.
We remain disappointed that many in the academic world seem to be unmoved from the ideology of wind power development, while the real world community experience provides a different view.
Read the Wind Concerns Ontario critique of the draft Toolkit here: UWOToolkit-commentFINAL

What's your reaction?


  • Agneta
    Posted February 13, 2017 8:31 pm 0Likes

    If people who live in the vicinity of proposed industrial size wind turbines say: YES! Then it can be done.
    When people say: NO ! ! ! That means: NO ! ! !
    No too long ago a judge somewhere in Canada asked a rape victim why she did not keep her knees together? That was not a popular thing to say. Well, we do not want industrial size wind turbines where I live. “NO” means “NO” Is that so hard to understand?

  • Barbara
    Posted February 14, 2017 11:48 am 0Likes

    Would these academics purchase lab equipment for their own use that only works part of the time?

  • whooper
    Posted February 14, 2017 7:32 pm 0Likes
  • whooper
    Posted February 14, 2017 10:23 pm 0Likes

    Smug to say the least! Chad Walker’s facebook page says it all!
    No wonder the “toolkit” is so biased. @TheChadWalker

  • Sommer
    Posted February 15, 2017 9:29 am 0Likes

    I wonder if the reason it says, “We find high levels of support for systems that would allow for…. discounts on electricity for those living close to turbines ” is because they took a look at the list of symptoms that develop in people being exposed to these turbines. anyone in Ontario can access this information easily. It’s on the Waubra Foundation website.
    While it’s frightening to look at this information, once you do it affirms that the changes in health you’re experiencing when these turbines near your home are turned on are REAL.
    Is there a reason why we don’t hear more about this in the ‘tool kit’?Or are they suggesting that lower electricity rates will compensate people for the harm?

  • Bert
    Posted February 15, 2017 11:20 am 0Likes

    If you Google “Chad Walker Invenergy” and “Jamie Baxter Invenergy” it shows they both are involved with this wind company.
    In the Toolbox: “It was prepared in association with Communities Around Renewable Energy Projects. THEMSELVES?!
    They are clearly not objective. How can Western University allow this kind of unscientific, biased publications?

    • Barbara
      Posted February 15, 2017 2:01 pm 0Likes

      Being a U.S. company, can they sue under NAFTA for being not fairly treated if their Canadian projects are halted?

  • Barbara
    Posted February 16, 2017 12:02 am 0Likes

    CEGN/Canadian Environmental Grantmakers’ Network
    ‘En Route To a Low-Carbon Future’, April 30, 2015, 27 page report
    RE: The role of foundations/philanthropy in meeting this objective.
    Report also includes the organizations involved in this project.

  • Barbara
    Posted February 17, 2017 5:52 pm 0Likes

    The DD petitions were ignored and it’s very likely the the Nation petitions will be ignored as well.
    Losing Essex County greenhouse operations will cause a decline in the local tax base and much of the Essex County auto industry is gone. So what will be left?
    All these kinds of losses have a domino effect on the economy.

  • Barbara
    Posted February 17, 2017 11:02 pm 0Likes

    Update: FERC – PJM court case
    Re: Intermittent generation
    ‘FERC Defends PJM Capacity Performance Model Before DC Circuit’, Feb.15, 2017
    Scroll down ~ half-page
    “When we talk about reliability benefits …” ( Wind discussion part )
    The Nanticoke project will connect with PJM.

  • Barbara
    Posted February 19, 2017 4:35 pm 0Likes

    Ames Tribune, Iowa, Aug.18, 2016
    Example of corn stover bales fire.
    This fire produced a lot of smoke.
    This fire photo just happens to include nearby IWTs. Where would another photo like this one be found?
    More information online. Use: stover fires/corn stover fires as these occur in other places.

Add Comment

© Copyright 2022 | WCO | Wind Concerns Ontario

to top