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

manitoulin-permaculture-intro-course

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 28^th by my attorney, Eric Gillespie, a hearing date of September 30, 2010 has now been confirmed with the Ontario Divisional Court.

On May 4^th, 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 30^th.

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

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

Addresses to send letters
Here is a sample letter.

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.

letter to NPI re liability