Northland Power had submitted their REA, Renewable Energy Application for the McLeans Mountain
Project around May 13/10. The REA application was returned about June 14/10 as the application
does not have a enough info and it was deemed incomplete. The REA must include all documents in
table 1 of the REA and all requirements of a class 4 wind farm project. A detailed list has
been provided to Northland Power to complete.Their project does have a comencement date
requirement under their contract with OPA but the REA can continue for 3 -5 years.
Raymond Beaudry
mcsea.ca
The headline and first paragraph in Lindsay Kelly’s article in the Expositor May 26,2010 are both unfortunate misinterpretations of the report by Arlene King. Her report, and in fact even the industry sponsored material on which it is largely based, admits an association between illness and proximity to industrial wind turbines but states that “evidence to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link”. She at no time denies the possibility of adverse health effects. The reason that “a direct causal link” has not been clearly established is that the studies have not been done. On June 4, at the Northern Health Research Symposium at Laurentian University researcher Carmen Krogh and I will be presenting a paper which summarizes the current literature which is quite large and convincing. We will propose a methodology for a province wide study to answer the question “What is the safe setback distance for industrial wind turbines?”. The current evidence, which consists of hundreds of case studies, is rapidly increasing as industrial wind turbines continue to sprout up but must be characterized as circumstantial. It is only through a study that a guideline can be established which will guide the safe construction of IWT’s.
Unfortunately the government and wind industry prefer to use the greenwash approach. The wind industry has a fortune to spend on lobbying efforts (all of which is coming out of our pockets as lucrative subsidies from government). Ms Kelly can hardly be blamed for the misinterpretation of the statements because spin and rhetoric are everywhere. Dr. King is also confused. She uses the industry statement that “The sound levels are not sufficient to cause hearing problems” as if that was ever in question and she fails to understand that “annoyance”, rather than a symptom that merits dismissal, is a common first response to a human condition that leads, when the stimulus is chronic and unavoidable, to disease. As a result we are subjected to the Orwellian situation of having the wind industry salesman saying things like “people are getting inaccurate information” (read that as “they are getting the facts we don’t want them to have”), and characterizing advocates as “they really don’t understand the business” (read that as they understand that just because you repeat something a hundred times doesn’t make it true). Wind industry salesman love the word green – they try to include green in every sentence and love to plaster their little green signs across the country landscape. But what is there about an industrial wind turbine that is green? The steel tower from China? The epoxy blades from the sweat shop half way around the world? Hundreds of truckloads of cement? The electricity that is burned off as waste heat because it isn’t needed when the wind happens to be blowing? The 20% lost in the lines? Dead birds?… There is no evidence that wind generated power will be able to replace coal plants or nuclear plants both of which contribute to the basal supply. The only solution to our energy crisis which is based on greed is less greed, ie conservation.
To end on a positive note, a date has been set for the Ian Hannah case in which well respected environmental lawyer Eric Gillespie takes on the provincial government on the issue of the precautionary principle with respect to the health effects of industrial wind turbines. The judge has already reviewed the preliminary evidence, dismissed the wind industry request for intervener status, and stated that if successful the case will mean a moratorium on further wind development until the proper studies are completed. Perhaps the law will force the government’s hand. It is no doubt a case of David versus Golliath but we can all hope that victory will go to the side of truth. Anyone wishing to support the case should send a cheque to The Ian Hanna Fund C/o APPEC Box 173 Milford On K0K 2P0 Make Cheque to: APPEC Legal Fund or IWTB Legal Challenge Fund
IAN HANNA v. ONTARIO – Legal Action update
As many are aware, in October 2009, with the support of a great many people, a major legal challenge was launched under my name to the Green Energy Act – specifically to the parts that deal with siting and setbacks of Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) in relation to people’s homes.
This “Application for Judicial Review” seeks to have IWT development close to people placed on hold across Ontario until independent, epidemiological studies are completed to determine safe setbacks from places where people live.
As announced on April 28th by my attorney, Eric Gillespie, a hearing date of September 30, 2010 has now been confirmed with the Ontario Divisional Court.
On May 4th, we attended a very important hearing in the Divisional Court where a motion to allow the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) to be admitted to this application as a party was argued before Her Honour Madame Justice Swinton. CanWEA was seeking to be able to file evidence in this case and to be entitled to cross-examine witnesses etc. as a full party.
In response to such motions, the Court may grant full party status, deny it completely, or accept someone as a “Friend of the Court” (a “Friend of the Court” may make oral and written submissions at the hearing, but may not introduce any new evidence or cross-examine any witnesses).
We are pleased to report that CANWEA was not granted full party status. They were accepted as a “Friend of the Court”, a decision fully in accordance with our submission to the Court, meaning at the main hearing they will only have the ability to file a brief written argument and make brief oral submissions. They will not be permitted to file any evidence or cross examine any witnesses. This means that the schedule, which is in place, will not require alteration and should proceed as planned with the hearing on September 30th.
All in all, we are very pleased with the way things are unfolding and we consider the outcome of this past week’s hearing to be very much in our favour.
The overall significance of this case was also indicated by the presiding Judge who wrote “If the application succeeds, the members (of CanWEA) will no longer have an opportunity to obtain regulatory approval for the construction of new wind energy projects in Ontario, and the development of utility-scale wind projects in Ontario will be effectively halted for an indeterminate period of time.” This illustrates the importance of this legal challenge.
I will keep you posted, as much as is possible, as we move ahead towards the finish line in September.
We appreciate all of your support and generosity.
All the best
Ian Hanna
Posted to Environmental Registry
1. Draft – Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Windpower Projects -posted to Environmental Registry Deadline is May 21,2010 for this one. The REA regulation describes the requirements for wind power projects related to significant natural features, including significant wild life habitat.Bats are an important part of Ontario’s biodiversity. To provide further clarity and certainty on the renewable energy approval requirements for wind power, MNR has prepared updated draft 2010 Guidelines for application to both Crown and private lands. MNR’s ‘Guideline to Assist in the Review of Wind Power Proposals:Potential Impacts to Bats and Bat Habitats. Developmental (Working DraftAugust,2007)’ no longer applies to windpower projects being reviewed under theREA regulation. As interim direction until final Guidelines are approved,the criteria and procedures identified in this proposed draft 2010 Guidelines will be deemed to be acceptable by MNR for windpower projects being reviewed under the REA regulation. The draft version of *”Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for WindpowerProjects”* is now posted on the Environmental Registry. Search using number 010-9521. Bat mortality is very high near industrial wind turbines causing lung collapse due to pressure changes and internal hemmoraging. This is an unacceptable risk to biodiversity and key habitat. Affecting micro ecosytems has its effect on the entire ecosystem. For wind companies to do a body count does not assist those that have been impacted and removed from the environment.Body count surveys from wind companies are not in their best interest as well as those bats that may have been removed by predators before the count is done. 2.Required Setbacks for Wind Turbines under O.Reg.359/09 Deadline is May 30, 2010 Search using EBR Registry Number: 010-9235
To provide further clarity and transparency on the Renewable Energy Approval, the ministry has prepared six draft technical bulletins. These bulletins are intended to assist proponents of renewable energy projects in preparing reports for the Renewable Energy Approval submission and in interpreting the regulation. The draft technical bulletins will also assist the public, other interested persons, aboriginal communities, and other regulatory agencies in understanding the approval process and the roles they may have in the new Renewable Energy Approval process. The proposed draft technical bulletins are presented for public comment.They are: Technical Bulletin #1 Guidance for preparing the Project Description Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #2 Guidance for preparing the Design and Operations Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #3 Guidance for preparing the Construction Plan Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #4 Guidance for preparing the Decommissioning Plan Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #5 Guidance for preparing the Consultation Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #6 Required Setbacks for Wind Turbines under O.Reg.359/09 Also,7. Renewable Energy Approval InformationThis link above on the doc page allows exemptions for setbacks if the wind company does a noise study. It also does not address should turbines be added later which increases noise.The tech bulletin 6 is very important to comment on as the recommended setback should be in our opinion two km from a receptor ( residence, etc,) or land that has the potential for a receptor or severence. The least minimum is that non participants in the wind farm project should not have their vacant land used as a buffer affecting future use. The setback should be kept within the fenceline of the land being leased.This also should be two km’s. Please send in your comments on these listings.
click here for website
Thank you
Raymond Beaudry
mcsea.ca
Posted by (0) Comment
Many people came out to the public meeting held on March 22 by Northland Power to make their concerns known to company officials and the consultants contracted to work on the McLean’s Mountain Wind Project. At this meeting it was announced that the DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO APRIL 29, 2010. Thank you to all who have written letters of support….we believe the letter writing is making a difference! Around April 8,2010 Northland Power received contract approval from the Ontario Power Authority for 60 MW of their proposed McLean’s Mountain project to proceed, (this represents about 35 of the 43 turbines thus far proposed) with another 40 MW pending approval and another 100+MW planned after that. Now is the time to act and write! The remaining approval that the company needs to obtain before beginning construction is the REA (Renewable Energy Application)…this replaces what would have previously been an extensive environmental assessment phase (which would have taken place but is no longer required under the so-called “Green Energy” Act). The next week (up until April 29) is one of the last opportunities you have to make your opinion known to company and government officials before the final go ahead is granted. This is a significant moment in island history, because if this first project is approved, 100’s of these mega turbines will likely follow on the heels of this first project (in various other locations throughout Manitoulin). The ombudsman has become involved with this project and is looking into the processes and the issues raised by concerned citizens. Please lend your support; SEND A LETTER to Northland Power and send this letter to each of the company and government officials listed in the attached Addresses document. (By sending a separate email to each person, rather than c.c.ing, it’s more likely that your letter will be read and responded to. Also, if you add even just a few sentences in your own words, preferably at the top of this form letter, this will greatly increase the impact of your correspondence and the likelihood of a response). Remember to SIGN YOUR NAME at the end of each letter before emailing it! We suggest this letter be sent to the chairman of the board of Northland Power Inc. (and distributed to all board members) so they get the message directly that the community of Manitoulin will not accommodate and bear the consequences of Northland’s corporate agenda without accountability for the damage done should the project proceed. Anyone can write as many letters as they like regarding this project. Unfortunately not everyone on the island who has an opinion is on line, so if you know of such a neighbour or friend, please make copies of the letter and the addresses and share these in hard copy. Included are mailing addresses and fax numbers as well as email addresses for this purpose. If you do not agree with all of the points made in the attached letter, feel free to use only some sections of it and write your own! The more letters they receive, the better. For additional info visit www.WindConcernsOntario.org and www.mcsea.ca Please keep copies of what you have sent and also retain any responses that you may receive from your letter writing efforts. Thank-you for your support! Raymond Beaudry mcsea.ca
Here is the letter I sent to all the management of NPI and copied to MS. Dumais at the REA office. I hope as many shareholders as possible will read it and caution NPI about proceeding with a project based on 550M setbacks.
By referring to the economic experience of those European countries that have vigorously promoted wind energy over the last two decades, this report demonstrates that the decisions of the Ontario government did not take into consideration the reality of introducing large scale industrial wind energy onto the grid. In fact, the government’s enthusiasm to embrace what it claimed to be cheap, “clean”, environmentally benign electricity at the same time as diminishing CO2 emissions appears to have ignored all the realistic information that was available, leaving an energy policy based on little more than a leap of faith. Wind energy is neither cheap nor environmentally benign, as this report will demonstrate.
Here is the PDF
What_Went_Wrong_with_OntarioEnergy_Policy2[1]
Posted by (0) Comment
COMMENT – Written by Rick Conroy on Friday, April 16, 2010 – 1 Comment
The gambler
A better man might feel empathy for Dalton McGuinty. Gambling, I’m told, is an addiction. He may not be able to help himself. But here’s the thing—it’s Ontario’s energy future he is putting at risk and it is our money he is wagering. Dalton McGuinty never felt comfortable with the energy file. Not since he blurted out an ill-considered promise to close Ontario’s coal electricity plants, in an election debate in 2003, has he managed to grasp the complexity of the business of electricity or how tightly energy in general is tied to the economic prosperity and well-being of residents of this province.
Most folks leave things they don’t understand alone—they don’t try and turn the house upside down hoping it all comes out right. But that isn’t how McGuinty rolls—at least on this file.
Instead he is placing billions of your tax dollars and your children’s tax dollars on a bet that a mix of unproven wind, solar and other exotic means of electricity generation will one day put a meaningful dent into Ontario’s supply of energy. It is a high-stakes gamble—with about the same odds as winning the lottery.
Nevertheless, McGuinty last week announced his government was offering contracts for 184 renewable energy contracts. By some estimates this converts into an $8 billion investment. This is on top of billions more spent through at least four other outlandishly rich contracts designed to attract investors.
Whom has the province attracted? Well, they include such corporate luminaries as 2225054 Ontario Limited and 6718710 Canada Corporation. Others such as Zep Wind Farm LP signify that these outfits are organized as limited partnerships which means the investors who anted up the money to make the FIT application were able to write off at least part of their investment on their personal taxes. So as a taxpayer you are an enabler of this bit of speculation.
Most of these companies didn’t exist five years ago. Many likely formed just to apply for the FIT contracts. This is the cast of characters to whom McGuinty has decided to hitch Ontario’s energy future.
Like the husband and father who secretly gambles away his family’s savings, McGuinty must create a web of diversions and lies to cover his tracks.
Number one diversion: tell people wind and solar energy is better than coal-generated electricity.
The McGuinty government doesn’t issue a press release on the energy file in which it doesn’t attempt to turn the public’s dislike of coal into support for its misguided green energy schemes.
Energy Minister Brad Duguid last week: “The advantage is we’re not poisoning the lungs of our kids when we use green energy.”
Yes, by all means, we can all go along with not poisoning our children. But the question that needs to follow is: will wind and solar energy help us do that? Will McGuinty’s energy schemes reduce our dependence on coal-fired electricity? Mr. Duguid will dodge the question—but the answer is no.
Worse, he knows the answer is no. All one has to do is look to Europe, which has installed thousands of wind turbines and solar panels over the past two decades. Not one coalfired electricity generating plant has closed due to the introduction of these new generating sources. In fact, European nations are building 50 brand new coal-fired generating plants over the next decade. They are also scaling back wind energy development and the rich incentives required to erect it. Why does McGuinty expect a different outcome in Ontario?
Number one lie: XYZ wind farm will supply electricity for 5,000 homes. The truth is that all the wind turbines in all the world can’t run a toaster, let alone a home, on their own. It is a lie that is repeated in virtually every news story on wind or solar development. Intermittent energy sources like wind and solar must be paired with a fossil fuel generating plant to produce the steady and reliable stream of electricity your toaster needs to run properly.
The truth is wind energy, combined with a natural gasfired generation plant, might be able to supply electricity that you can use in your home—but you will never know how much was supplied by natural gas and how much came from wind. In most jurisdictions the gas plant runs full-time— burning fossil fuel—the unseen partner in the wind and solar fantasy.
However the cost of building and operating additional natural- gas fired plants needed to back up wind is never calculated in the billions we are spending on green energy. It would be cynical to call natural gas green energy.
Many will suggest it is a worthwhile gamble—that doing something is better than doing nothing. But this is a trap. Doing the wrong thing is worse. Much worse. For we are robbing ourselves of the dollars that should be invested in real energy research and development—not frittered away by making the investors in 2225054 Ontario Limited wealthy.
Worse still, we are propelling massive hikes in energy costs. This will have direct impact on low- and middleincome Ontarians. It will be yet another blow to manufacturers and processors—another reason to move jobs out of the province to low-cost jurisdictions. Smelters, miners, pulp and paper mills and auto manufacturers are all large consumers of electricity. As their margins get squeezed they get closer to putting their raw materials on a ship and processing them elsewhere—taking these jobs with them.
In desperation McGuinty is doubling down and digging our hole deeper. So far this year the province has spent on average a little over 3 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. Last week McGuinty offered to pay 2225054 Ontario and dozens of other such outfits 44.3 cents per kilowatt hour—14 times more than the going rate. Does this sound like a rational man? Perhaps it’s time we intervened.
rick@wellingtontimes.ca
TAKING A DEEP BREATH ON WIND POWER
Michael Trebilcock Chair in Law and EconomicsFaculty of Law, University of Toronto84 Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 2C5Tel.: 416-978-5843Email: michael.trebilcock@utoronto.ca
The current Ontario government’s headlong rush into massive subsidization of various forms of renewable energy, including wind power and solar energy, is likely to reveal the law of unintended consequences from these precipitous policies unless we take a deep breath and calmly and rigorously re-evaluate these policies before committing billions more dollars from consumers and taxpayers to them.Such a re-evaluation would sharply focus on three key factors: a) the costs of renewable energy; b) its contributions to reducing CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions; and c) its contributions to creating jobs in the province. Much of the current government’s renewable energy focus has been on the promotion of industrial wind turbine-generated electricity, and hence I focus on these three factors as they relate to industrial wind power.
Economic Effects
First, as to the cost of wind-generated electricity, the feed-in tariff for on-shore wind turbines in Ontario provided for under the Green Energy Act is 13.5 cents per kWh (and higher for smaller projects), which is more than twice prevailing rates for electricity on the spot market in Ontario (less than 6 cents per KWh). Solar power qualifies for an 80 cents per KWh feed-in tariff. These cost increases will be fed through to industrial, commercial, and residential consumers through various additional charges on their electricity bills. In addition, further expenditures are required in order to enhance and extend the transmission grid to accommodate these projects. A recent study by London Economics Consultancy, “Examining the Potential Costs of the Ontario Green Energy Act 2009 (April 30, 2009), estimates that the higher costs of green power will add hundreds of dollars to average electricity bills of households throughout Ontario. A recent article in the Globe and Mail, “The High Cost of Green Power,” January 8, 2010, quotes Adam White, President of the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario, as stating: “The situation is not sustainable because it will leave companies paying higher rates than competitors in other jurisdictions.” Toronto energy lawyer, Peter Murphy, is quoted as stating: “The government is sitting on a political time bomb.” Recent studies of wind power in Denmark,# Germany,# and the UK,# reach similar conclusion about the impacts of renewable energy on electricity costs in these three jurisdictions. The Ontario government’s estimate of an increase in electricity costs per year from its renewable policies of 1 percent a year seems to lack any justification or credibility.
Environmental Effects
The contributions of industrial wind power to reducing CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions, which might be thought to justify the additional cost of renewable energy, are in fact at best marginal. Most wind turbines run at only about 25 percent of nameplate capacity, so that generating any substantial amount of electricity from wind power requires massive numbers of wind turbines. In addition, because of their intermittency and unpredictability (like solar power), they require the availability of back-up generation, especially for peak-load capacity, which has entailed in Denmark, Germany, the UK, and now Ontario the construction of additional fossil fuel plants (typically natural gas plants) to provide reliability. This dramatically reduces the net contributions of wind power to CO2 abatement, which come at an extremely high cost relative to other abatement strategies (such as real-time pricing of electricity).# In the case of base load electricity, most of this is provided in Ontario by carbon-clean hydro and nuclear power so that, to the extent that wind power is used to provide base load electricity, it simply displaces lower cost hydro and nuclear power with no effects on CO2 emissions (or results in exports of surplus power, often at give-away prices). In October 2007, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) – the government’s own agency, tasked with planning Ontario’s power system and now entering into long-term contracts with renewable energy producers – published its Integrated Power System Plan, where it analyzed a “high wind power” scenario for the province, and concluded: “Since wind generation has an effective capacity of 20 percent compared to 73 percent for hydroelectric generation, additional generation capacity with better load-following characteristics would need to be installed. This needed capacity will likely have to be obtained by installing additional gas fired generation. Thus, in addition to incurring further capital costs for the gas generation installation, higher gas usage would be expected to make up for the reduced amount of renewable energy from wind compared to that from hydroelectric generation or this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions.” The OPA concluded: “Wind and solar power will never be more than a niche supplier of power in Ontario.”What did the OPA see as the better alternative? Renewable hydro power sites in northern Ontario (which it identified). The OPA stated: “The hydroelectric generation developments included in the plan are cost effective compared to developing additional wind generation; this comparison includes the cost of transmission reinforcements. In conclusion, development of major hydroelectric generation north of Sudbury, with major reinforcement of the transmission north of Sudbury, is the preferred alternative compared to developing additional renewable generation in southern Ontario and other parts of northern Ontario.” This begs the obvious question, what has changed in two years? Beyond these sites in northern Ontario, in the medium to longer term there is enough northern Canadian hydro power in Manitoba, Quebec and Labrador to satisfy Ontario’s needs for decades. If Boston and New England can depend on northern Canadian hydro power, why not Toronto? Moreover, prior demand projections for electricity need to be revised downwards to reflect not only the current economic recession (demand was down more than 6% in 2009 over 2008), but the long-term contraction in a number of Ontario’s electricity-intensive heavy manufacturing industries, such as steel and automobile manufacturing.
Employment Effects
The potential contributions of renewable energy to the creation of jobs in the province require a heavy dose of skepticism. While the government has claimed that it plans to create 50,000 new green jobs in the province over the coming years, the additional burdens on industrial, commercial, and household consumers from higher electricity costs associated with renewable energy will kill existing jobs. Recent studies in Denmark and Germany find that very few net new jobs have been created as a result of renewable energy policies, and in the case of Denmark, have cost between US $90,000 to US $140,000 per job per year in public subsidies, and in the case of Germany, up to US $240,000 per job per year. According to a column by Randall Denley in the Ottawa Citizen of January 24, 2010, the new manufacturing jobs entailed in the massive Samsung renewable project recently announced by the Ontario government will cost $300,000 each in public subsidies.In an SNL Financial news wire report of October 23, 2009, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources was reported as stating that the agency had temporarily stopped accepting applications for proposed wind energy projects because it had already received 500 such applications and needed to make sure that it had appropriate processes in place before taking any more. Obviously, the massive public subsidies being offered by the Ontario government to the renewable energy sector, especially industrial wind turbines, have provoked a massive corporate feeding frenzy, but corporate enthusiasm for subsidized wind power should not be confused with the longer-term public interest. On all three of the critical factors reviewed above, wind power attracts a failing grade. Beyond these three factors, localized impacts on flora and fauna and on the character of some of Ontario’s most beautiful rural communities, potentially adverse health effects on local residents from persistent exposure to low intensity turbine noise, potentially adverse impacts on local property values, and an environmental review process which the Ontario Environmental Commissioner describes as “broken,”# render renewable energy policy, at least as currently conceived by the Ontario government, one of the least compelling public policy options in the challenging economic environment in which the province finds itself now and for the foreseeable future. Picking technological winners in fields such as this, and then picking winners within classes of technology (such as Samsung) are fraught with the risk of costly errors. A far better policy orientation would be first to price all sources of electricity so as to reflect environmental costs and let consumers respond accordingly, and then to subsidize breakthrough R and D in all sectors that are significant sources of carbon emissions. As Dr. Jan Carr, former CEO of the OPA from 2005 to 2008, puts it in a recent article:#The recent rush to “green” Ontario’s electricity system has produced a largely ad hoc approach to the selection and investment in power generation technologies that will unnecessarily increase the cost of electricity with far-reaching economic and social effects… Pricing carbon would have the advantage of continuing a century of economically rational development of the electricity system as an essential underpinning of modern society. To do other than proceed on an economic basis is to risk massive economic distortions… The alternative process of picking winners and losers in renewable energy technologies, based on perceptions and public opinion polls, puts us all at considerable risk.” Before mortgaging its long-term future by awarding hundreds more 20-year fixed-price contracts to wind developers, the province of Ontario urgently needs an independent, objective, expert investigation (perhaps by the Auditor-General) of the prospective economic, environmental, and employment effects of wind power and other renewable energy policies in the province and alternatives thereto.