Open letter to CAFES Ottawa

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We ask the question, How can an “environmental” organization claiming to protect the environment and support “sustainability” be promoting invasive industrial wind power?

March 3, 2025  

CAFES Ottawa  

Re: March newsletter and comments on renewable energy  

We have just seen your most recent Bulletin to your followers and have several serious concerns about the content as regards “renewable energy” in Ottawa.  

You say that City Council paused the siting of renewable energy projects, “effectively banning renewable energy projects.”  

This is not accurate. The intent of that motion passed in 2023 was to protect the people of Ottawa in the event that proposals for industrial-scale wind power and solar power projects were made, in the absence of up-to-date, appropriate zoning protection.  

This is the exact wording:   

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all future requests for MSRs continue to rise through the appropriate Committee of Council to allow for public engagement and consultation, including for LT2 RFP and all future IESO procurements, until such time as new direction is provided by Council  

The motion was not a permanent “ban” as you so dramatically put it, but rather, a step taken to ensure that the City has appropriate regulations in place to protect citizens.  

Instead of supporting a rigorous, detailed process to ensure appropriate siting, you say that CAFES wants to “minimize delay” and allow for approvals of industrial-scale or grid-scale power generation projects. This is very curious and would seem to conflict with your organizations’ other goals, namely protection of the environment and “sustainability.” 

How is it that during the presentations to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on the Ferry Road property, CAFES spoke about saving the “frogs and turtles” but is also advocating for pushing through approvals of gigantic wind turbines which we know introduce harmful noise pollution to the environment, and pose a grave risk to wildlife including birds and bats?  

You also say that communities across North America already have wind power sites that are “regulated and safe technologies.” This is far from the truth. Ontario now has 157 municipalities who have gone so far as to pass motions at Council designating themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new wind power sites. In the main, these are communities that already have wind turbines, or are adjacent to jurisdictions that do, and they are acutely aware of the problems.   

And in the United States, there is a running total of communities that have rejected new wind power sites outright, mainly due to environmental impacts. At present, the tally is 427 municipalities in the U.S. 

Ontario’s environment ministry has more than 7,000 files of wind turbine noise complaints, including hundreds for the nearby Nation Rise wind power site, which had more than 140 complaints even before the project started commercial operation.  

The problems with wind turbines are not limited to noise pollution. The municipality of Chatham-Kent has officially requested the Ontario government to take action on contaminated well water which an independent science panel found to be connected to the construction and operation of industrial-scale wind turbines in North Kent.  

The American Bird Conservancy has stated that wind turbines are a serious threat to North American bird populations and advises officials to take great care in siting new power generation projects. Ottawa is on a major migratory bird pathway, and several species of bats (Important to the ecosystem and agriculture) are already endangered.  

A recent cost-benefit analysis done by an economist showed that for Ontario at least, with its low wind resource, if you want effective action against climate change, and to provide a reliable source of power generation, wind power is not the answer. Add to that, wind power is an incredibly low power density source, meaning it uses up a great deal of land for little return.  

I ask again, How can CAFES be supporting a rush to approvals for this industrial land use which offers little real benefit except profits for a few power developers and investors, with your other goals of environmental protection and sustainability?  

Security of our food supply is becoming a more important issue every day in Canada. Wind power is a low-density form of power generation which uses up a lot of land — how can you justify that along with your goal of promoting “sustainability”?  

I invite you to reassess this situation and realize we have interests in common. Why not support making Ottawa a leader in environmental protection by choosing more effective, efficient forms of clean power generation, and ensuring people, wildlife and the environment overall have the best protection?  

Jane Wilson 

Chair, Ottawa Wind Concerns 

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Ottawa Wind Concerns supports West Carleton residents

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Concerns for environment, water supply with proposal for 250-megawatt battery storage system

Source: Stop West Carleton BESS

February 23, 2025

Ottawa Wind Concerns released a statement yesterday expressing support for the residents of West Carleton who are concerned about the potential negative impacts on the environment from a proposed large battery energy storage system or BESS, currently planned for the Marchurst Road area near Dunrobin. The power developer is Evolugen, a division of Brookfield Renewables.

“We share resident concerns about the proposal for a large Battery Energy Storage System on farmland in West Carleton,” said Ottawa Wind Concerns Chair Jane Wilson, in a letter sent to community group Stop West Carleton BESS, one of several opposing the project.

“Like large-scale industrial wind power sites that were forced on rural Ontario communities, the BESS raises concerns about negative impacts on the environment such as the risk of fire, and noise pollution.  

“We echo the concerns of the local OFA in that even classes 4-6 of agricultural land have a role to play in food production and food security for the people of Ontario. 

“The process for the BESS is the same as for wind and solar power installations which features limited public engagement, and the need for communities to approve this significant industrial land use with minimal details provided. “

The West Carleton residents are concerned about the potential for fire, due to multiple battery storage system fires around the world, including several in the U.S. A fire at the three-year-old Moss Landing battery facility in California, which resulted in toxic smoke and the evacuation of residents. The fire has reignited several times. There have been calls for more stringent safety rules for such installations.

In West Carleton, residents are concerned that in the event of a fire, the site would be far from City of Ottawa fire services, and first responders would be volunteer fire fighters, as is the case for most Ottawa rural communities. The chemicals used to fight a lithium battery fire could contaminate the aquifer, which would affect neighbouring farm properties.

Noise from the 250+ containers housing the batteries is another environmental concern.

Residents say they are not opposed necessarily to the battery storage technology, but are asking whether an industrial location close to services like fire would not be more appropriate for this industrial land use. They also note proximity of the site to area wetlands, some of which have been proposed for protection. (See illustration, above.)

The BESS is to be located on farmland currently used for hay, which is part of the food production cycle, says the local chapter of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which also supports the West Carleton resident concerns.

In a story presented by CTV News Ottawa today, https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/proposed-battery-storage-site-in-ottawas-west-end-raises-safety-concerns-from-residents/ Stop West Carleton BESS representative and local farm owner Courtney Argue said, if there was a fire event and the groundwater was contaminated, “there is no remediation.”

Argue also said Evolugen surveyors were on her farm last month without permission.

Kanata North councillor Cathy Curry told CTV News that there was already a battery storage facility in her ward and that it was operating without problems; however, there are no grid-scale BESS installations in Ottawa. Evolugen proposed another BESS near the Trail Road landfill on land zoned industrial with did get CIty of Ottawa support. The West Carleton project however, has a contract from the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO to sell power, but it does not have the municipal support resolution which is mandatory for the project to proceed. (See IESO, Section 11 at https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Resource-Acquisition-and-Contracts/Long-Term-2-RFP )

The battery storage operators (many of whom also operate wind and solar generation projects and are paid for their power, whether it is needed or not) buy power in times of surplus, store it, then sell it back to the grid operator. In theory, they sell the power at one price, buy it back at a lower price, then sell it again at a higher price when power is needed.

Does battery storage work?

One U.K. analyst says battery storage units don’t do what the promoters say they will. In a video titled “Exposing the battery storage con,” released recently, Paul Burgess says that batteries will provide only minutes of power when needed, as they can only use 60 percent of the power stored. In times of “wind drought” which can last more than a week, he says, the battery power stored will have run out immediately. “It is one hair on a camel’s back relative to what’s required,” he says. Battery storage would not be adequate and will cost billions.

Stop West Carleton BESS currently has the support of the Carleton Landowners, and the Ontario federation of Agriculture, and is one of at least four community groups. A petition to the CIty of Ottawa is available and is approaching 1,000 signatures.

For more information email stopwestcarletonBESS@gmail.com

Former Ward 5 Councillor Eli El Chantiry signs the Stop West Carleton BESS petition at a community “pop up” signing opportunity

What does wind ‘farm’ construction really look like?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Destruction of woodlands, loss of farmland, disruption of rural community life for an unsupportable, intermittent source of power

View of trucks and oversize turbine parts from Green Madness

A documentary film made in Upper New York State provides much needed insight into what really happens during construction of an industrial wind power site.

Green Madness: the waste and destruction of one wind turbine project follows the two-year period during which 37 gigantic industrial-scale or grid-scale wind turbines were erected at the Cassadaga wind power project.

It’s one thing to read about the environmental destruction that results from the construction of these industrial sites, but it’s another to actually see see the horrific damage day by day, as filmed by the crew.

A well written voice over details the reality of wind power: it is supported by subsidies, it is intermittent and out of phase with demand in New York as in Ontario (in fact, Ontario energy economist Edgardo Sepulveda says Ontario is bad for unreliable wind power—New York is worse), and it is simply a tool to make money for investors.

“Wind power is a charade sponsored by investment banks,” is one comment. “Somebody’s making money but it’s not the little guy.”

Promises of jobs are also false, as the film makers demonstrate by filming the license plates on cars and trucks owned by workers on the project: Texas, Arizona, California…anywhere but upper New York State.

Likewise, promises of increased revenues for the municipality are not accurate—expenses incurred outweigh any pittance revenues from the huge multi-national wind power developers.

It’s important for the people of Ottawa to see this film and to understand the reality of wind power construction and development.

Local “environmental” or “climate” groups promote tree planting and wildflower gardens while also hypocritically pushing for industrial wind power in rural Ottawa. The loss of good farmland and woodlands, plus the danger to wildlife and the environment will be horrendous.

The IESO will be launching its Long Term 2 Request For Proposals early in 2025. Wind power is included in the RFP.

If wind power proposals come forward, everyone needs to know what is really involved: it’s not “clean” “green” innocent “windmills,” it’s industrialization of our rural communities and farmland.

To join our mailing list, email ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and be sure to subscribe to this page.

A documentary film follows the construction of a 37-turbine industrial wind power project in upper New York State, and is a chilling portrayal of the destruction that comes with these industrial power projects.

Unwilling Host communities surround Ottawa

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Experience with existing industrial wind power sites and community opposition to expensive, unreliable power generation leads rural municipalities to say NO

December 10, 2024

One of the many effects of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act passed in 2009 by the McGuinty government to give wind and solar power developers an advantage was the removal of local land use planning powers from municipalities.

Today, that authority has been restored by the repeal of the Act (which altered 20 other pieces of legislation), and now, a Municipal Support Resolution is required by the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO before any power generation contract can be awarded. 

In 2013, in protest against the carpeting of rural Ontario with industrial wind turbines against community wishes, municipalities across the province began passing resolutions declaring themselves to be “Unwilling Hosts” to new industrial wind power sites. The first was Wainfleet, spearheaded by then Mayor April Jeffs, and others quickly followed.

Today, there are 157 Unwilling Host municipalities.

What’s interesting is the fact that most already have operating wind power sites, or they are neighbours to active projects, so they are well aware of the negative impacts.

In Eastern Ontario, several municipalities are now Unwilling Hosts following the 2016 approval of the “Nation Rise” industrial wind power project in North Stormont, and in Renfrew County after there was a spate of wind power proposals. To the south east, Prince Edward County is an Unwilling Host after fighting off at least three wind power projects, and where residents spent more than $1.5 million on appeals and court challenges.

Wind Concerns Ontario recently developed a map of Unwilling Host communities that is a graphic demonstration of the dissatisfaction of municipalities with wind power development, and the fact that after 16 years, the Ontario government has not updated noise or setback regulations. Environmental noise pollution has been a problem for a number of industrial wind power sites.

The IESO is planning a new Request For Proposals, probably coming in January (more details will be revealed in an IESO event this Thursday) but municipalities remain unhappy, as indicated in communications to the IESO during “engagement.” Part of the process is an Agricultural Impact Assessment that must be reviewed and approved by any municipality dealing with proposals for new wind power.

Municipalities say they don’t have the time or the resources to deal with these assessments. And, the timing is not appropriate: a proponent can file a cursory Agricultural Impact Assessment or AIA at the time of proposal and request for a Municipal Support Resolution but a full assessment does not really have to be done until 18 months after the company gets a contract.

That’s still not enough time, said a planner from Oxford County in the IESO November 21 event: there are just too many pieces of these assessments to be looked at. The process may not “align” with reality, she said.

We’ll do our best to keep you informed.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

How many birds do wind turbines kill?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Nobody can say for sure … but it’s “far too many” says the American Bird Conservancy

Raptors such as Red Tailed Hawks and eagles, critical to the eco-system, are killed by wind turbines (not cats)

Ottawa-based Community Association for Environmental Sustainability or CAFES, which describes itself as a “network of local environmental and climate leaders”, has undertaken a campaign against “climate misinformation.”

In a newsletter to followers this week, it has a list of topics it says are sources of misinformation, including “Wind turbines kill big numbers of birds and bats.”

“We don’t have to choose between wind energy and wildlife,” CAFES says. “We can have both.”

To support their claim they offer a number of research reports including —our favourite—an article that says keeping cats indoors will prevent bird deaths. Cats do kill birds, of course, and there are many factors behind the millions of birds killed in North America each year.

But wind turbines are not blameless, and the bird kill numbers are not insignificant. We offer this 2021 statement from the American Bird Conservancy:

Countless studies have shown that climate change will cause far-reaching and devastating impacts to wildlife and humans alike. Renewable energy development is a critically important component of the transition away from fossil fuels, making our air cleaner and reversing the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, we have also learned that wind energy development has a substantial negative impact on birds.

“But just how many birds are killed by wind turbines?…

“Rather than going down the proverbial rabbit hole to decide which study might be the most accurate, let’s take the average of the results from these studies. This gives us an estimate of approximately 366,000 birds killed by wind turbines in the U.S. in 2012.

“It’s important to consider that wind energy capacity has grown considerably since then. The study by Loss and others reported that there were 44,577 turbines in operation in 2012, while the U.S. Wind Turbine Database indicates that there are 65,548 today — an increase of 47 percent. Adjusting for this industry growth, we can project that approximately 538,000 wind turbine-caused bird deaths occur in the U.S. each year.

“However, projecting mortality based on energy produced is more frequently used because it accounts for the size of turbines in addition to their numbers. The American Wind Energy Association reports that there were 60,067 megawatts (MW) of wind energy capacity in the U.S. in 2012, versus 111,808 as of this writing in 2021 — an 86-percent increase. Taking this change into account, it can be projected that approximately 681,000 birds are currently killed by wind turbines in the U.S. each year.

These estimates likely underestimate the true extent of the problem due to the fact that many bird fatalities escape human detection.

“Consider that small songbirds are the most abundant birds in the U.S., and are the most frequently killed by turbines. A study published in March 2020 found that dogs located 1.6 and 2.7 times as many small bird fatalities as human monitors did at two wind sites in California. This was true even after attempting to correct for searcher detection error, which is a standard practice for such studies.

“The Erickson* study reported that 62.5 percent of the birds in their data set were small birds. Taking 62.5 percent of the 681,000 annual mortality estimate calculated above and adjusting this with the 1.6- and 2.7-fold multipliers from the dog search study (and adding the other 37.5 percent of birds back in), this would translate into a total of 936,000 and 1.4 million birds based on the numbers from the two sites. Averaging the two, this would suggest that 1.17 million birds are killed by wind turbines in the United States each year.

Indirect effects

“In addition to the bird fatalities discussed above, wind power projects also cause  important indirect effects that must be considered.

“For example, many wind facilities are located far from the existing power grid and require the construction of new powerlines, which are yet another source of bird mortality.

“In a 2014 study, researchers estimated that 25.5 million birds are killed each year due to collisions with powerlines, and another 5.6 million are killed by electrocutions. Therefore, powerlines built exclusively to connect new wind facilities to the existing energy grid result in additional bird mortalities that should be factored into the total toll in birds associated with wind energy development.

Wind facilities also require relatively large areas of land. Facility development can fragment or otherwise alter habitat in ways that make it unsuitable for species that have historically been present. For example, a study at wind facilities in the Dakotas found displacement effects for seven of nine grassland bird species after one year. While these effects have been documented in various studies, they have yet to be broadly quantified.

“When the facts above are considered, it becomes clear that existing estimates of the toll of wind energy development on birds are narrowly considered and do not account for the industry’s full impact.

“It should be noted that the estimates above are imperfect, as they are based on studies derived from an incomplete data set.

“While most wind facilities are required to conduct bird surveys to inform project planning and post-construction bird mortality studies, they are unfortunately not always obligated to share their data, and many companies maintain a proprietary hold on this information. If these data were made publicly available, bird mortality could be better understood and conservation prescriptions could be tailored accordingly.   

“On a similarly important note, the species being negatively affected by wind turbines must be considered. Some species are more susceptible than others to collisions with wind turbines, and some have slower rates of reproduction and thus their populations may be more dramatically affected by losses. Some of our rarest and most iconic species, including California Condors and Marbled Murrelets, fit this bill and are at risk of collisions with wind turbines. Others like Whooping Cranes are losing habitat as a result of wind energy development.

“As noted above, our projections leave little doubt that the annual toll in birds lost to U.S. wind turbines is at least more than half a million, and a similarly conservative estimate would put that number at nearly 700,000 birds. There is a case to be made that the number could exceed 1 million. And for multiple reasons stated above, these are all likely to be under-estimates.

Far too many

Regardless of the specifics, this is far too many when one considers the many other threats to birds on the landscape, and the massive declines we have already seen in our bird populations.

“What’s the solution to this conundrum? How do we continue to add wind turbines to fight climate change when this development is harming birds? Our answer: Bird-Smart Wind EnergySmart wind energy development starts with good data collection and appropriate siting to avoid high-risk areas for birds. Available measures can then be incorporated to further minimize risks, and impacts should always be offset by solid on-the-ground mitigation measures.”

So, siting is important, says the American Bird Conservancy.

But that’s not what CAFES says—they want wind turbines, period. And if you are concerned about bird deaths from industrial wind power sites in the Ottawa area you are guilty of spreading “misinformation.”

It’s worth noting here that the Ottawa area is on the Atlantic Flyway, a pathway for migrating birds.

Our question is, of course there are multiple causes for bird deaths, but why do you want to kill more?

In our view “environmental and climate leadership” would be looking for the best solutions, and doing a full risk-benefit analysis.

 Huge wind turbines in a migratory bird pathway is not the answer for protecting the environment, or dealing with climate change.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

A safe environment…for everyone

  • *A Comprehensive Analysis of Small-Passerine Fatalities from Collision with Turbines at Wind Energy Facilities, by Wallace P. Erickson , Melissa M. Wolfe, Kimberly J. Bay, Douglas H. Johnson, Joelle L. Gehring, in PLOS ONE, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107491

Local investor consortium plans bids for power contracts

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Just “another form of farming” investor group claims, says it will bid in next IESO round

Industrial wind turbine just south of Ottawa: industrial land use

Following a web event held by the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO a few weeks ago, Ottawa-based investor consortium Ottawa Renewable Energy Cooperative filed a comment in which it stated the group plans to bid for renewable energy projects, when the IESO releases its next Request For Proposals.

OREC already has invested in 24 renewable energy projects in Ontario, mostly solar, but also two small wind turbines, in the Kincardine and Bluewater areas of western Ontario (Huron County).

OREC’s comments to the IESO include the claim that it intends to bid for contracts. It acknowledges community opposition to some types of renewable energy development but claims it can avoid that by building smaller projects that will not attract opposition. The group correctly states that opposition to the Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS was aided by the inability of developers to provide answers to citizen concerns.

OREC’s comments follow. Emphasis in italics is ours.

Concern 1: We previously noted a qualification bias in LT2 material in favour of indigenous engagement, including indigenous participation as co-proponents. We wish again to request that community-based investment entities such as OREC will be granted equivalency to indigenous participation in terms of rated criteria points as well as set-asides, particularly if such set-asides will be structured to incentivise partnership with indigenous communities. Our question is, “why not community groups too?”

Concern 2: Rural Ottawa is still reverberating from the process of approving large BESS contracts in LT1. Much negative feeling has grown since November 2023 when a plethora of Open House events were held in Ottawa’s rural areas and developers were not ready with adequate answers about appropriate project scale and risks to communities. OREC is monitoring continuing conversations among opponents and their municipal representatives, and we anticipate greater opposition to LT2 projects. OREC believes a development model involving multiple small projects on distribution lines, funded by community investors, will attract significant interest within municipalities. This approach will attract municipal councils to the benefits of local economic activity, and the virtuous loop of generating energy locally, thereby relying less on large energy sources from outside community boundaries. OREC believes that scaling generation and BESS units such as OREC is proposing, meaning smaller, more widely distributed locally owned projects will attract positive attitudes, especially within rural areas, to what is effectively another form of farming. OREC recommends to the IESO that future energy procurements accommodate smaller scale projects, particularly clusters of small projects that have commonality of ownership and regional proximity. Clustered projects on different but proximate distribution feeder lines could be considered as single projects. OREC further recommends that the IESO include rating criteria that reward developers who partner with community-based organizations, similar to indigenous engagement criteria.

Our comments:

Community support: OREC is requesting that community groups supposedly representing local residents should get the same consideration as Indigenous peoples. First, although OREC claims to be “local” its membership is unknown, and in fact the consortium actively reached out to residents in Huron County to invest, as well as Ottawa area residents. So, what is “local”? But more important, OREC misses the point of the IESO’s initiatives regarding Indigenous communities. The goal is to assist these communities with a “clean, reliable and affordable” energy, such as, for example, reducing communities’ reliance of diesel generators for power supply.

Community opposition: After acknowledging the problems of the BESS proposals in the fall of 2023 (a rushed process with little information available), OREC says it anticipates more community opposition. Instead of acknowledging citizen concerns about loss of farmland, industrialization of rural communities, and the significant environmental impact that industrial wind turbines can have, OREC says it has the answer — “multiple small projects.”

OREC has demonstrated grid illiteracy in the past and this is more of the same. Former energy minister Todd Smith commented in February of this year that the addition of renewables (wind and solar) under the McGuinty-Wynne governments created “a lot of instability” on the power grid. The answer, Minister Smith said, was to build a supply of “clean, reliable, baseload power” and the best way to do that was to use Canada’s proven nuclear technology to build large power sites.

Creating multiple small sources of intermittent power generation will not provide reliable power for Ottawa, and it may add to grid instability. That’s not good for anyone.

Citing a “virtuous loop” of local power generation, OREC seems to imply that cute little windmills operating in the area will be like locally grown food. It is not.

Local benefits: OREC claims there are “local benefits” to renewable energy projects. What are they? There are no jobs after the construction phase (and few of those unless you drive trucks), and few if any jobs afterward. Wind turbine maintenance and monitoring is done from remote centres, with a few highly trained technicians on the ground. As the president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy Dr Chris Keefer commented, There are no employee parking lots for wind farms. There are plenty of problems with wind turbines, which is why in Ontario there are currently 157 municipalities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves to be Unwilling Hosts to industrial wind power sites. Most of the Unwilling Hosts either have wind turbines already or are nearby jurisdictions that dothey know the problems, such as noise pollution, risk to wildlife, and irreversible damage to aquifers.

Farming: While possibly drawing analogies to local food production OREC purposely ignores a very big question about wind and solar power development—they use up a lot of land. Good land. Wind and solar are both “low density” forms of power generation because they require so much land for very little power generation. Ottawa’s Official Plan states that renewables cannot be sited on prime farmland, but in truth, all classes of farmland have value. This goes against the public’s wish to encourage local food production. OREC counters with the preposterous claim that operating industrial wind and solar power sites is ”another form of farming.” No, it isn’t. It’s industrialization.*

While OREC promotes itself as a “green” organization, interested in “sustainability,” the fact is, it is an investor group, interested in making money. They have shown little concern, even disdain for citizen concerns (see note below) about the environment and community well-being.

While OREC presents dreamy ideas about “local” power generation as if it were sweet corn, we are ready with the facts: wind power is ineffective, intermittent, unreliable, and expensive —it doesn’t make sense for Ottawa.

OTTAWA WIND CONCERNS

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

*OREC founder and Board member Dick Bakker spoke at an Ottawa IESO web event several years ago and when citizen concerns about the environment were raised, he angrily snapped that people who objected to industrialization of their communities were just “NIMBYs.” Industrialization. Acknowledged.

Ottawa Valley towns on list of 155 Ontario “unwilling hosts” to new wind power sites

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Nothing has changed, says Tom Allwood, Grey Highlands Councillor and Chair of Ontario’s Multi Municipal Energy Working Groups. Noise limits and setbacks are the same–unacceptable, say municipalities

May 14, 2024

CTV News London published a story last week on the 155 Ontario municipalities that have now passed formal resolutions designating themselves as “unwilling hosts” to new industrial wind power sites.

The list of Unwilling Hosts was compiled by Wind Concerns Ontario, a community group coalition concerned about the impacts of industrial wind turbines.

There are several Unwilling Hosts in the Ottawa area including Merrickville-Wolford, Champlain, The Nation in Prescott-Russell, Bonnechere Valley, East Hawkesbury, Greater Madawaska, and North Grenville (Kemptville).

CTV News published the news story featuring interviews with Tom Allwood, councillor for Grey Highlands and chair of the Multi Municipal Energy Working Group, and Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario and chair of Ottawa Wind Concerns.

See the news story link for a video report.

CTV News London

Scott MIller

Ontario is looking to add more renewable energy to its electricity supply, which will likely mean more wind turbines going up across the province.

However, that might be prove difficult with so many municipalities no longer interested in wind.

“I like to say it’s not 2009 anymore. We know a lot more about wind power than we did in 2009. It was supposed to bring lots of jobs. That turned out not to be true. It was going to be a reliable source of power. That turned out not to be true. It was supposed to be cheap power. Not true. Our electricity bills went up 250 per cent after the turbines went up,” said Jane Wilson, founder of Wind Concerns Ontario.

There are 155 Ontario municipalities that have said they are not willing to host wind turbine projects, now or in the future.

Among them, many municipalities in Huron, Bruce, and Grey Counties, where many of the province’s 2,600 turbines are currently spinning.

“The first iteration of wind turbines through the Green Energy Act just took away many siting decisions from municipalities, so that upset a lot of people,” said Grey Highland Coun. and Chair of the Multi Municipal Energy Working Group Tom Allwood.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has plans to add roughly 5,000 MW of wind, hydro, solar, and biomass energy by 2030. There’s currently 5,500 MW of wind turbines built in Ontario today.

“The federal government is certainly looking towards thousands of new wind turbines. Where are they going to go? The spots that have good wind have been taken,” said Allwood.

But not everyone is sour about the IESO’s renewable renewal. Wind energy is just what Ontario needs, said Jack Gibbons from Ontario’s Clean Air Alliance.

“If we integrate our wind and solar with Quebec’s storage option, then we can convert wind and solar into a firm 24/7 source of baseload electricity for Ontario,” he said.

However, Wilson believes wind energy, as it’s currently implemented, should not be of Ontario’s future energy mix.

“It’s intermittent. It comes in the fall and spring when we don’t really need it. It comes in the night, when we really don’t need it. There are some better choices and cleaner choices. Wind energy is not as clean and green as we were told it was,” said Wilson.

“They haven’t done anything with the setbacks for this round of procurement. They’ve gone out and arranged contracts for battery energy storage, and there’s real concerns about these systems as part of wind generation,” said Allwood.

IESO is seeking proposals for new renewable energy projects this fall.

#UnwillingHost

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Wind power lobbyist opposes protection of prime agricultural land

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Farmland Trust warns that current use of prime agricultural land is “unsustainable” while wind power developers make threats if they don’t get access to it for power generation. And money. (Don’t forget the money.)

Berwick area farm: 29 huge industrial wind turbines now operate, despite community opposition [Photo D. Larsen]

The Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO is preparing to launch a new Request for Proposals in 2025, and is gearing up now with consultations for municipalities and stakeholders, prior to releasing final documents.

At issue is the policy of the Ontario government —and the City of Ottawa —that prime agricultural land must be protected.

The wind power industry sees this policy as an obstacle and is fighting back. With some success. In a recent IESO web event, a spokesperson said the question of protecting prime ag land is a topic of “active discussion” in government.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, which is not an environmental organization but a trade association and lobbyist, had this to say in a comment to the IESO. (The emphasis is ours.)

“CanREA recommends that Ontario consider orienting agricultural land use policy in a manner similar
to Alberta’s recently announced ‘agriculture first’ approach for renewable energy project approvals.
This approach allows wind and solar generation on Class 1 and 2 lands if they can demonstrate that
they can co-exist with agriculture
.


“We believe that this is a sensible approach. CanREA’s law firm members who represent Ontario
farmers in negotiations with renewable energy developers describe numerous cases where siting of
renewable energy projects on agricultural lands has provided additional income to allow farmers to
stay on the land – making farming careers sustainable for them and their families.


“Should additional restrictions be imposed, renewable energy development would be forced into less
desirable areas with lower wind and solar potential, located further away from load centres. This
would result in system inefficiency, reduced levels of project investment and higher cost solutions for
Ontario ratepayers.”

Very clever wording on their part and not without active threats to the Ontario government, even going so far as to mention the association’s “law firm members.” Phrases like “additional restrictions” are meant to foreshadow legal action if CanREA doesn’t get what it wants, which is unfettered access to Ontario’s farmland for profit.

People want farm land protected

The lobbyist is out of step with Ontario’s citizens and the primacy of protecting our food supply. At a time when “eat local” echoes throughout the province, and the COVID experience of interrupted food supply is fresh in everyone’s mind, the protection of Ontario’s cropland is important.

The Ontario Farmland Trust has this warning for us:

“Every day in Ontario, we lose 319 acres of farmland to non-agricultural land uses like urban development and aggregate extraction; this rate of farmland loss is unsustainable and cannot be allowed to continue. Everyone in Ontario relies on agriculture, from the food we eat, to the jobs in our communities.Without strong protections in place for our farmland, we may not be able to provide enough food to feed our growing population.”

Wind power developers: we want the money

Several wind power developers lined up to file comments with the IESO too—any resemblance to the comments from CanREA are not accidental. Here is Capital Power.

“Broad, overarching limitations or restrictions for specific classifications of agricultural land or
technology types will likely limit the development of cost-effective projects in locations near existing
energy infrastructure. It will also result in a loss of potential non-agricultural income for farmers.
Capital Power submits that the appropriate use of land and potential impacts on agricultural use is
most effectively determined between landowners, developers, and through current project approval
processes. No further limitations, rated criteria, or other considerations needs to be considered for
LT-2 or potential projects.”

Translation: hands off our negotiations with farm owners.

Similarly, U.S.-based Invenergy commented:

“We would work with the landowners to minimize impact to
the land and form an agreement to return land to its
original state. Some projects may be able to allow for the
same productivity levels of the agricultural land like a wind
facility.”

Invenergy also said restricting prime agricultural land mean that municipalities would lose out on tax revenues from wind power projects. That is true but with the tax rates currently capped, the amount paid is a pittance in comparison to wind power operator profits, and would need to be assessed along with municipal costs such as the need for fire services, inspections, etc. It is not possible to return land fully to its “original state”—wind turbines require massive concrete and rebar foundations that cannot be removed.

Wind power developers also under-represent the amount of land used for wind turbines. At least one developer currently claims a turbine uses only 0.2 of an acre but obviously, this does not take into account access roads and other infrastructure.

You can read more industry comments here but make no mistake: they want that prime farm land and will do anything, and say anything to get it.

Get ready for Ottawa’s Rural Summit!

Tags

, , , ,

The City has just posted dates for Ottawa’s rural communities to participate in the Rural Summit, a special opportunity to discuss issues of concern to rural residents.

Here are the dates and locations for the drop-in sessions and events:

The following in-person workshops are planned:

  • April 10 at 7 pm – Ward 19 workshop at Navan Memorial Centre and Arena (1295 Colonial Road)
  • April 19 at 7 pm – Ward 19 workshop at Sarsfield Community Hall (3585 Sarsfield Road). Bilingual workshop to be conducted primarily in French.
  • April 24 at 7 pm – Ward 20 workshop at Greely Community Centre (1448 Meadow Drive)
  • April 29 at 6:30 pm – Ward 21 workshop at Alfred Taylor Recreation Center (2300 Community Way). There will also be a drop-in session between 1 and 4 pm.
  • May 27 at 7 pm – Ward 1 workshop at R.J. Kennedy Community Centre and Arena (1115 Dunning Road)
  • June 1 at 9 am – Ward 5 workshop at West Carleton Community Complex (5670 Carp Road)

These workshops will help identify the challenges facing rural communities and highlight potential opportunities that could be addressed at the summit. All consultations and outreach will inform the agenda for Rural Summit 2024.

Take the survey

There is also a survey to gather info on issues of concern. The link to the survey is here:

https://engage.ottawa.ca/rural-summit-2024

(There is a question on wind turbines–be sure to answer!)

It’s a great idea to subscribe to get updates on the Summit too. Just use the link above for the survey, to find the SUBSCRIBE button, on the right (or at the bottom if on your smart phone)

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Take the survey!!!

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ottawa’s rural residents have a rare opportunity to express their views on city services and policies. (And there is a question on wind turbines, too!)

March 25, 2024

In advance of the 2024 Rural Summit, the City of Ottawa is offering a survey on issues and policies of interest to rural residents.

The City explains:

“In 2005, the City of Ottawa hosted a Rural Summit to address the results of the City’s Citizen Satisfaction Survey. This summit helped advance several successful initiatives in rural Ottawa. In 2008, another Rural Summit occurred, and this resulted in improved opportunities for rural residents. A Rural Summit has not occurred in over a decade due to the pandemic, a municipal election, and other priority projects. Recently, a new Official Plan was adopted, a Zoning By-law is being prepared, and the Rural Economic Strategy is being updated. In addition, the newly adopted City Strategic Plan supports stimulating growth in economic districts. These plans and regulations clearly impact rural Ottawa, and therefore it is an opportune time to consult with rural residents.

“At the City Council Meeting on December 14, 2022, Councillor Kelly brought forward a motion regarding the City of Ottawa hosting a Rural Summit. This motion noted that staff should be working to host the summit during the current term of council.

“The objective of Rural Summit 2024 is to recommend improvements to the provision of the City of Ottawa services to residents and communities of rural Ottawa.”

The survey is a mix of questions, and statements with which you can agree or disagree.

Of interest to many will be this statement:

Rural areas should be the primary location for wind turbines, waste management, solar farms and battery storage.

You are asked to agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5.

More to come

The City seems to be encouraging “engagement” before the Rural Summit—this is a good opportunity to express views as rural residents. More from the City:

“Your participation is crucial as it will help shape the content and focus of ward-specific workshops scheduled for this spring. These workshops will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on local issues and brainstorming solutions.

“The outcomes of these workshops will be integral in shaping the agenda for the Rural Summit 2024, slated for November. Your input will directly contribute to the development of strategies aimed at enhancing the well-being and prosperity of our rural communities.

“Your opinion matters, and we value your insights. Please take a few moments to complete the survey using the link provided below:

https://engage.ottawa.ca/embeds/projects/37643/survey-tools/45541

“In addition to the survey, Rural Workshops will take place in each of the rural wards in the hopes of to gain as much feedback as possible. These workshops will be in-person, are open to all residents of the respective ward, and we encourage all to attend.”

Please take this survey as soon as you can: our city needs to know rural residents are informed, and have opinions that matter.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com