Wind turbines are not popular. They are expensive, noisy, use up valuable productive farmland, and don’t work for climate change. Why say Yes to more?

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Request for Proposals (RFP) ended a few weeks ago with the submission deadline of October 16; successful contract bidders will be announced in April, 2026.
While the IESO and the wind power lobby must have expected some opposition, they may not have thought it would be this bad.
Of the 20 proposals, only three received mandatory municipal support, two were withdrawn due to community opposition, and one is on Crown land with minimal requirement for public input, but at the end of the RFP 14 proposals were rejected by “host” municipalities.
Most of the municipalities voting No already have wind turbines. In Mapleton, for example, council relied on a resident survey. That found 70 percent of residents were opposed to more turbines, and 75 percent did not support more wind power generally in Ontario.
In Chatham-Kent, the No vote was based on concerns about a damaged aquifer and contaminated well water subsequent to the last wind power project (and no action from the Ontario govt despite a commissioned science panel report) as well as the prospect of more lost farmland. With 500+ turbines, C-K said it had already “done enough.”
Govt policy is that wind turbine projects should not be located on prime agricultural areas, but several wind power developers ignored this and proposed industrial wind projects on prime ag land anyway. Community feedback and municipal decisions confirmed: protecting farm land is important to rural residents.
“We feed Chatham-Kent, Ontario and Canada,” said one young farmer at that city’s council meeting.
Concern for the preservation of Ontario’s farmland, at a time when food security and the Canadian economy is prevalent, was a key factor for many.

Several municipalities criticized the IESO process, saying they were pushed to make a very significant decision with long-term consequences based on little information. Several of the developers countered that it wasn’t worth their while to spend money on elaborate impact studies (environmental, agricultural) if they weren’t assured a contract.

That was OK in the IESO tick-box process, but it wasn’t good enough for people and their elected councils.
Another error was the lack of respect shown for citizens and communities*. While developers continued to rely on their old playbook of offering minimal information in storyboard shows, people wanted more: they asked for (but didn’t get) Q&A “town halls” where questions and answers could be heard by everyone. And in one case, the mandatory notification of a public “meeting” was posted in a community newspaper some 50 km away from the project site.

One project was actually proposed next to national historic site Algonquin Park, with complete disregard for the fact that much of the local economy depended on tourism associated with the park, and Ontario’s pristine landscapes—industrialization by noisy, highly visible wind turbines was not an idea welcomed by the community. (The project was withdrawn after just eight days.)

These tactics and more did not go over well, and certainly did not lead to success.

In more than a few cases, a Council vote to deny support for a proposal was followed by an Unwilling Host resolution. That has no standing in the RFP process, but is a clear message to developers not to come knocking on doors.
Citizens took action swiftly during the RFP period, upon hearing of the proposals for new wind power projects. Facebook pages formed in opposition to new projects were active and successful, community meetings were held, tables set up at local farm markets, and citizens shared information and experience enthusiastically. People drove for hours to share lawn signs and other resources** in a show of unity.
Again, many of the unwilling municipalities already have operating wind turbines. In short, the NO municipalities rejected wind power proposals not out of uninformed fear of wind turbines, but out of experience with the negative impacts.
They simply don’t want any more.
What’s next? Will the wind power industry recognize that Ontario is very well informed on the cost-benefit of wind power, or will the lobbyist press to remove municipal support as a requirement?
What was learned: the people of rural Ontario are well informed on grid-scale wind power, and they are protective of community and farmland.
In this round, Ontario chose the reality of farming over the hype about wind “farms.”

Wind Concerns Ontario

*This is an ongoing problem. The Multi Municipal Energy Working Group, comprised of dozens of rural Ontario communities and represented by local mayors and councillors, has prepared reports and letters of concern to the IESO on the topic of wind power, including one report on the catastrophic failures of aging turbines and the need for safety. Meetings with the IESO have been scheduled, then cancelled, and never re-booked.

**One such resource was the cost-benefit study for wind power in Ontario by economist Edgardo Sepulveda, available here.