1,600 wind turbines for Lake Ontario – The “Saudi Arabia of Wind”

offshore_windLondon Free Press, John Miner
It’s been called the “Saudi Arabia of wind” — not an oil-soaked desert, but a breezy lake on Ontario’s American border. Now, an Ohio group is moving ahead with plans to harness Lake Erie’s strong gusts, in sharp contrast to neighbouring Ontario that slapped a moratorium on wind farms in all its Great Lakes amid a public backlash to the spectre of the highrise-sized turbines along its shorelines.

The Icebreaker, as it’s been dubbed, will be a small demonstration project with six wind turbines in Erie, about 10 kilometres northeast of Cleveland. It would be North America’s first freshwater wind farm, with construction starting in 2018. But the project’s backers have visions of wringing much more electrical power out of Erie, saying more than 1,000 industrial wind turbines could be built along the shore of Ohio, a small state without the huge land mass for giant wind farms found in places like Ontario, Texas and Iowa.

Together, all that juice would add up to nearly double the output of Ontario’s inland wind farms, most of which are located in Southwestern Ontario. “We are definitely going forward — all system are go,” said Dave Karpinski, vice-president of operations for a consortium behind the project, the Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. (LEEDCo). Read article

NextEra’s Varna Wind: What’s going on in the neighbourhood?

leaving evictionOpen Letter to ERT Panel Lawyers in Ontario
Patti Kellar
I thought it time to provide an open update to the people who put the last nail in our coffin.  That would be all of the Environmental Review Tribunal Panel consisting of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s lawyers who were deemed to be independent and hence, capable of deciding our fate.

You likely won’t remember me.  I was a member of the community of Bluewater who testified in NextEra’s Goshen Project and Northland Power’s Grand Bend Wind Project regarding the serious health concerns associated with Industrial Wind Turbines.  I recall being asked very little by either the Director or the proponent’s lawyers, other than to point out my past efforts in objecting to turbines and questioning something I said regarding the lack of information with respect to the cumulative effect of turbines.  The clear message given by both the Director and wind industry was that there is no problem here, nothing to see, move along folks.

Well, now that you are safely ensconced in the your own lives, gone about your business, I thought it fair you be aware of exactly how your choice has impacted our lives.  As I draft this, I have a sharp pain behind my left eye, the tinnitus that I mentioned to the Tribunal which began five days after the NextEra’s Varna Project started sounds like a violin screeching in my ears, the pressure I feel in my head is intense and I even though I just finished vomiting my dinner, my stomach feels as though it is tied in knots.  Oh yes, my teeth (only in the spots where I have titanium implants) feel as though they are humming. Read article

Inconvenient timing: On eve of Paris Climate Conference, Spain’s Abengoa Solar goes bankrupt

The Rebel, Ezra Levant
One of the things we’re going to hear during the Paris Climate Conference is how we need to be more like Europeans when it comes to green energy.

Here’s one headline: “Spain Got 47 Percent Of Its Electricity From Renewables In March.” Abengoa, one of Spain’s wealthiest companies, has solar plants all around the world.

Except today this is the number one news item in Spain: Abengoa is bankrupt. Nine billion Euros in debt — that’s about $14 billion. 27,000 employees. The largest bankruptcy in Spanish history. Read article

Ontario considers mandatory home energy ratings before selling property

Funny how it only goes one way – residents are always in the wrong, wasting energy. Maybe they should apply the same ‘audits’/scrutiny to say… inefficient wind turbines? That would ruin the industry…

CTV News
CTV News ha211586-a-house-for-sale-hasreduced-price-signs learned the Ontario government is considering making home energy audits mandatory before posting a property for sale. The energy audits would pinpoint spots where homes waste heat and electricity. The property would be given a rating number similar to what consumers see on home appliances.

The government is working on a plan that would not force sellers to pay the $350 cost of the audit. The government is looking at possibly using revenue from the Cap and Trade carbon taxes to subsidize the audits. Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli says that creating mandatory audits would be “about reducing emissions.”

“It’s about a healthier planet and healthier communities because it will result in significant emission reductions,” Chiarelli said. The executive director of the Windfall Ecology Centre, Brent Kopperson, says that making audits mandatory would be a benefit to the consumer.

“It gives you the opportunity to compare one home to another with respect to its energy usage and cost,” Kopperson said. However, there is concern that a low rating could stigmatize a home, lowering its value. But home owners would be given the opportunity to make changes to their home and have it re-evaluated. Read article

Ontario Grid Operator Awards Contracts for Nine Energy Storage Projects

ieso_logo_xlRenewable Energy World
The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) on Nov. 23 said it awarded contracts for nine energy storage projects totaling 16.75 MW. The projects complete IESO’s plan to secure a total of 50 MW of energy storage in Ontario, the organization said.

Through a competitive request for proposals, the IESO selected five companies to develop the projects. Those companies are Ameresco Canada, SunEdison Canada Origination, NextEra Canada Development & Acquisitions, NRStor, and Baseload Power Corp.

“Storage technology remains one of the most innovative and exciting aspects of our energy policy, particularly because of the incredible potential it presents. It will help strengthen our system and improve service to electricity consumers,” Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Energy, said in a statement. “Our government is proud to see the leadership of these five Ontario companies as they move forward to create good jobs and invest in their local economies.”

According to the IESO, the nine project contracts are focused on capacity value – the ability to be available to store energy and provide it back when called upon – and arbitrage value – the ability to store energy during periods of lower prices and inject it back into the electricity system when prices rise – of energy storage. Read article


​Proponent                                                                    Technology    ​       Capacity (MW)
Ameresco Canada Inc.                                               Battery – Solid           ​2.0
Ameresco Canada Inc.                                               ​Battery – Solid ​          2.0
SunEdison Canada Origination LP.                            Battery – Flow           ​2.0
​SunEdison Canada Origination LP.                            ​Battery – Flow ​          1.0
​SunEdison Canada Origination LP.                           Battery – Flow            ​2.0
NextEra Canada Development & Acquisitions, Inc.  Battery – Solid ​           2.0
​NextEra Canada Development & Acquisitions, Inc.  Battery – Solid ​           2.0
NRStor Inc.                                                                ​Compressed Air ​       1.75
Baseload Power Corp. ​                                             Battery – Flow ​          2.0

Liberals wasting billions on ‘green’ energy we don’t need

Chatham Kent wind turbines from Lake Erie and Rondeau Bay2Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein
When it comes to addressing climate change, former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty and current Premier Kathleen Wynne deserve credit for one significant thing. By eliminating Ontario’s use of coal to produce electricity in 2014, they can rightfully claim to have successfully completed one of North America’s largest efforts, ever, to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

True, McGuinty originally promised to do it by 2007 in the 2003 election that brought him to power and the Liberals were seven years late in fulfilling his promise. But they did get it done and it is significant. Globally, electricity produced from coal is the single greatest cause of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, dwarfing minor contributors like Canada’s oilsands and, in fact, global oil production in general. China gets 80% of its electricity from coal, India 70%, Germany 45%, the U.S. almost 40%. Canada gets less than 11% of its electricity from coal and Ontario 0%.

The problem is the McGuinty and Wynne governments claimed they eliminated coal use by investing billions of public dollars in wind and solar power. That claim is nonsense. In 2003, coal provided 25% of Ontario’s electricity. Today, wind and solar power, mostly wind, provide 4% of Ontario’s electricity.

Obviously, it is mathematically impossible to replace 25% of electricity power generation with 4% of electricity power generation. What the Liberals actually did was to replace coal-fired electricity with nuclear power and natural gas-fired electricity. Read article

Gust of bids delays wind awards

2014_06010032London Free Press, John Miner
In a province where it’s been deeply polarizing and hugely costly, wind energy hasn’t lost its steam. So many applicants are chasing Ontario’s next round of wind-energy contracts and deals to supply solar power, the Crown coporation in charge has postponed for months decisions about who will get the business.

“It’s important that we get this right,” said Shawn Cronkwright, director of renewable energy procurement for Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). The delay, coincidentally, comes as the Liberal government on Tuesday rolled out its light-on-detail strategy to fight climate change, a move driven partly by the shutdown of Ontario’s dirty coal-fired power plants that were among eastern Canada’s worst greenhouse gas producers. The closing two years ago of the coal-burning plants, including one near Sarnia, opened the door to more green energy in Ontario, including wind power — most of which is concentrated in Southwestern Ontario.

The IESO had expected to award the spoils from the next round of green energy this month or next. But after receiving a flood of multiple bids from both Canadian companies and international energy giants, the agency has changed its timetable for announcing the winners to next March. Read article

St. Columban wind project causing strife with resident’s health

health hazardSeaforth Huron Expositor
During a community liaison meeting in Seaforth at Huron East’s town hall, an engineer who works on several turbines in St. Columban admitted to the public that most statements made by consultants that residents will “never hear” the large fans are dishonesties.

It was a full community conference with almost every chair filled in the council chambers joined by the HEAT group, Veresen Inc., Huron East council members and a few locals. For all those who came, coffee, donuts and a fruit tray were available free of charge. The voice of the HEAT, Jeanne Melady and Gerry Ryan were front-row ready with pens and paper. The two have been present at three out of the last four Huron East council meeting. They expressed their needs to the political gang numerous times, a primary concern was that HEAT did not know who to call. Today was the day to move forward and be heard by the wind turbine company. At a previous council meeting, Huron East was optimistic and sure several questions would be answered at this function.

Dennis Mueller, a representative for the community liaison committee started the two-hour session by directing questions and complaints from members of 14 households that live near these wind turbines. These inquiries were aimed at Veresen Inc. and the senior engineer. Mueller put all these objections on a screen so the public could view these alleged accusations. Read article

Germany: Wind turbine blade fragments thrown 500 metres form tower

Wind turbine accident at Nieder Kostenz in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany – November 15, 2015

Tribunal agrees approved Pontypool wind project would destroy plant and animal life

pontypoolKawartha Lakes This Week, Mary Riley
MANVERS TWP – Ward 16 Councillor Heather Stauble was literally doing a happy dance at the Fenelon Falls Community Centre after learning opponents of an industrial wind turbine project near Pontypool scored a huge victory on Thursday (Nov. 19). Coun. Stauble was at a special council meeting when she got the news that the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) had announced its decision on the appeal of the Settlers Landing Nominee Ltd. wind project.

Announcing the decision to council, she was visibly overjoyed as councillors hugged and congratulated her. “This a huge, huge step forward for the community,” she told This Week.  She noted this is only the second ERT decision in Ontario that has overturned a wind energy company approval in favour of a community.

The Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) to Settlers Landing Nominee Ltd., granting approval for the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a Class 4 wind facility with a total name plate capacity of 10 megawatts in Pontypool. Settlers Landing wind park would have put five industrial wind turbines near the village. SLWP Opposition Corp. appealed the REA to the Tribunal in May on the grounds that the project will cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment. Read article

Here’s how NextEra makes $287,040,645/year from Ontario wind projects

NexterasMillionsOntarioby Harvey Wrightman
Seven years ago when we first entered the fight against wind projects, everyone including myself assumed that wind companies sought to put their turbines on the sites with the most wind. Wind data was gathered and fiercely guarded by wind companies, the data being “proprietary.”  That’s how it is in the real world – performance is the goal or should be.

Well, in the alter-world that is Ontario Energy Policy, real data is undesirable. Imaginary data is much more useful. It’s almost impossible to find out how much the wind companies are getting paid. The terms of the Feed in Tariff (FiT) contracts are never released to the public – that’s also proprietary and confidential information.  However, from the minutes of the final Community Liaison Committee (CLC) meeting for NextEra’s Adelaide wind project in mid July this year, a smidgeon of real data did surface revealing how much power NextEra was claiming to have produced – it’s a lot more than anyone ever expected.

Here Operations Manager, Peter Miller, let slip how much NextEra was billing the Ontario Power Authority for power production (p 7):

“ … over 160,000 MWH of wind energy has been produced since commercial operation.”

That’s 160,000 MWh for 9 months, or 213,000 MWh/year.

Nameplate capacity for  Adelaide Wind is 60 MW which means Adelaide Wind will produce 60 MWh x 24h x 365 days = 525,600 MWh/year if at 100% of capacity.  This means that Adelaide Wind is claiming production efficiency of 41%!

At $135/MWh the Adelaide Wind project will rake in $28,755,000/year.

But, but, but… real world operational efficiency in SW Ontario rarely exceeds 25% according to the Independent System Operator (IESO) records. The windiest sites might generate close to 40%, but that’s definitely the exception. It seems the Ontario government has decreed that the wind industry shall be paid what the wind industry believes it should be paid. Real numbers/data don’t matter.

Then a question is posed as to how the  Independent System operator (IESO) determines who gets to put power into the grid (p 9). Ben Greenhouse, NextEra Executive Director of Development states:

 “… our electricity system is bizarre … If we bid zero [to IESO, system operator], we would get zero from IESO but we would get compensated at the end of the month for our contract price which is 13.5 cents per kilowatt [$135/MWh].”

Continue reading

Ontario Liberals are peddling Hydro One for the equivalent of a payday loan

National Post, Kelly McParland
Government documents can often make dull reading, couched in the near-impenetrable bureaucratese in which public servants specialize. Thursday’s report by independent budget watchdog Stephen LeClair was a welcome exception – welcome to everyone except Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government, that is.

In simple, blunt terms, LeClair explained that the Liberals’ plan to sell off 60% of Hydro One, the provincial power distributor, will cost far more than it brings in. While it may provide a short-term benefit to the government by helping it balance the budget in time for the next election, the gains will be brief while the costs run on indefinitely.

“In years following the sale of 60 per cent of Hydro One, the province’s budget balance would be worse than it would have been without the sale. The province’s net debt would initially be reduced, but will eventually be higher than it would have been without the sale,” LeClair says.

The annual loss from forgone revenue would range from $300 million to $500 million. The province would get a better deal if it simply borrowed the money rather than selling off an asset to produces a dividend for taxpayers of $750 million a year. Read article

Residential Power Bill Comparison 2015: Ontario 52% higher than New Brunswick

What do all those lines on an Ontario power bill mean? How does a Hydro One power bill stack up to a New Brunswick power bill? Here’s a comparison from recent October, 2015 billings.

HydrooneHydro One statement:

  • 3 lines for the differing Time Of Use charges (916 kWH costing $19.18+$17.31+$52.38 = $88.87)
  • Delivery charge ($101.39)
  • Regulatory charges ($6.02)
  • Debt Retirement charge ($6.41)
  • HST ($26.35)
  • Total ($229.04)
  • Less the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (-$22.90)
  • New Total $206.14
  • Current cost per kWH with Clean Energy Benefit ($206.14/ 916 = $.225 per kWH)
  • Without soon to be removed Clean Energy Benefit ($229.04 / 916 = $.25 per kWH)

NB-PowerNB Power statement:

  • Monthly Service Charge ($22.65)
  • Kilowatt-hours used (833 kWH @ $.1025/kWH) costing ($85.38)
  • HST ($14.98)
  • Total ($123.01)
  • Bottom line cost per kWH, including the HST ($123.9 / 833 = $.148 per kWH)

In Ontario, this consumer would pay 52% more (including the Clean Energy Benefit), and will soon pay 69% more when the Clean Energy Benefit is terminated on December 31, 2015.

The Rebel

Metrolinx pulls plug on Lisgar GO station wind turbine: produced 91% less electricity than projected

throw money ladder windMississauga MetroNews
Metrolinx has packed up its 31-metre-tall wind turbine at the Lisgar GO Station after it produced 91 per cent less electricity than projected.

The provincial transportation agency has officially dumped a pilot project aimed at creating renewable energy using a $620,000 wind turbine.  Unveiled in 2009, the turbine was slated to produce enough energy to power 80 per cent of the Lisgar GO station’s electricity per year – 98,550 kilowatt hours (kWh). It fell far short of its targets, producing less than ten per cent of that.

“These things are sometimes difficult to predict. It was based on educated estimates and, as it turns out, they were lower than anticipated,” said Metrolinx media relations manager Anne Marie Aikins.

Metrolinx staff began taking down the structure in July, finishing sometime in August.  Aikins said it has since been sold. Read article

Wind turbines protested in song during Addington Highlands council meeting!

Kudos to those who raised their voices in song and Out of Order (that’s the only way to do it)! Keep them coming – loud and clear!

[PS: you’re protected by anti-SLAPP legislation as of yesterday, so carry that Right with you confidently, Nexterror should leave you alone]

“Local residents gather at a Township Council meeting in Denbigh where they sing a protest song about the Council’s decision to vote in favour of accepting ‘windmills’ in the Township.”

How NextEra lobbied for change to rules to benefit its “six-pack” wind projects

sixpack nexteraFor those who remember the chaotic days of 2010 and 2011 (or those who are living in its aftermath), when wind contracts were given in lumps to NextEra, Samsung and IPC – These documents will be of much interest to you. My advice – just read through them all, when you have the stomach to do so.

London Free Press, John Miner
“It was a cesspool. It was shameful. I feel very badly after seeing what went on here for my fellow Ontarians and the ratepayers of Ontario. They are having to bear the burden of the shameful behaviour,” Appleton said in a transcript from the hearing. Read article

See All Legal documents from Mesa’s lawsuit


Here’s a taste from the Investors Post Hearing Submission

  1. In December 2010, the OPA released the FIT rankings for projects which had not received a contract. As noted previously, Mesa’s projects were ranked 8th and 9th in the region and, even taking into account the 500 MW set aside for the Korean Consortium, Mesa’s projects were within the 750 MW that would be allocated in the Bruce region. NextEra’s projects on the other hand were located in the West of London region, and due to the limited capacity which would be activated in this region (300 MW), most of NextEra’s projects would not receive a contract.
  2. Sue Lo stated that Ontario consulted widely with developers and stakeholders. However, no documents were provided to the Investor about Ontario’s consultation with other proponents, which the Investor requested and was granted by the Tribunal in Procedural Order No. 4, save for documents relating to Ontario’s consultation with NextEra.
  3. Realizing that it would not receive contracts in the West of London region due to the lack of available capacity, NextEra began lobbying the Ontario government for a change to the rules to allow changes in connection points amongst regions.
  4. Mr. MacDougall confirmed this, as he testified that, after he left the OPA, he heard that the reason the rules were changed to allow connection point changes between regions was because NextEra had lobbied for this result. Mr. McDougall explained that NextEra bundled its projects a the NextEra “six-pack” approach to “share a common connection, whose connection would be relatively expensive, but shared across six projects would make a connection economically viable.”
  5. This is confirmed by contemporaneous documents. Within days of NextEra executives meeting with the  XXX,  the Ministry] made the decision to allow a connection point window for projects in the West of London and Bruce.
  6. Prior to these meetings, Ontario had decided that it would not conduct a province-wide ECT and that an alternative allocation process would have to be utilized to award that capacity made available by the Bruce to Milton transmission line. The OPA recommended a modified TAT/DAT for the Bruce region, which would not allow a connection point window.
  7. To understand the results of the proposed TAT/DAT, the Ministry of Energy requested a “dry run” of the results. This dry run showed that XXXXX. Although Mr. Cronkwright had “concerns” about showing the results to the Ministry of Energy, and the document itself says that it should not be shared with the Minister’s Office, Mr. Cronkwright confirmed that the OPA showed the results to the Ministry of Energy.
  8. 156. Weeks later, Ontario government officials began meeting privately with NextEra. On XX NextEra’s Vice President, Al Wiley, personally met with XX. The next day, on May 11, Mr. Wiley met with Andrew Mitchell, Senior Policy Advisor in the Minister of Energy’s Office, and apparently a member of the secret “Breakfast club”, to discuss whether a connection point change window would be opened prior to the next round of FIT contract awards, which was a “a very significant issue for NextEra.” Then on May 12, the Premier met with the Ministry of Energy, and the decision was made to allow a connection point window change. On May 13, the morning after the decision was made, Ms. Lo met with NextEra, and in response to this call, Mr. Wiley sent Ms. Lo the names of the six NextEra projects “remaining in the FIT queue.”
  9. Days later, on May 31, Nicole Geneau of NextEra knew that a connection point change window was opening although no public announcement had been made.
  10. Ms. Lo contended that all FIT applicants were treated the same, but the documents in the record show that more favourable treatment was given to Pattern, International Power Canada and NextEra. IPC’s projects were protected from being shut out by a Korean Consortium set aside, something that was not offered to any other FIT proponent, while NextEra was given insider access to the outcome of the Bruce allocation process. And Pattern was allowed to benefit from the favourable treatment afforded to the Korean Consortium, a benefit which was not given to other FIT proponents like Mesa.
  11. Canada attempts to down play this preferential treatment by contending that the OPA had been advising FIT proponents since 2010 that a change window would be allowed prior to the first ECT.238 However, this contradicted the FIT Rules, which only allowed connection point changes prior to the first ECT for projects connecting to the distribution system. The FIT rules did not allow for such changes prior to the first ECT for projects connecting to the transmission system, like those of NextEra and Mesa.239 Therefore a FIT proponent like Mesa, that was relying on the FIT Rules for its understanding of the process, would have reasonably expected that projects like NextEra’s would not be able to change connection points prior to the first ECT, or prior to the awarding of contracts in the Bruce region.
  12. Furthermore, at no point, in any of these communications,did the OPA advise proponents that projects would be allowed to change their connection points to a different transmission area or that this would be done outside of a province‐wide ECT.
  13. To get around this, Canada contends that if the FIT Rules did not prohibit something, then it was allowed. This argument is unavailing. The OPA could have held stakeholder consultations to decide what course of action would best represent the understanding of the majority of the affected stakeholders. Had it done so, Ontario would have discovered that more affected stakeholders located in the Bruce region would oppose the change than affected stakeholders in the West of London as the proposed change window benefitted mainly two companies in the West of London, NextEra and Suncor, at the expense of 12 projects already ranked in the Bruce region that were in line for contracts (two of which belonged to Mesa).
  14. If a change amongst regions was what was originally intended under the FIT rules,and every proponent knew or should have known this, why did NextEra have to lobby for it? The reason is simple: this was not the understanding of FIT proponents at the time. Colin Edwards of Pattern Energy confirmed this during his deposition:

Continue reading

NextEra turbine parts flying off blades

DSC_0812John Miner, London Free Press
NextEra Energy acknowledged Wednesday that it shut down some of its Ontario turbines and warned landowners after it was discovered a part on spinning blades could fly off.

NextEra said the potential problem was with “a small thin plastic attachment” on the turbine blades that could separate while in operation. “No injuries or property damage occurred as a result of this situation and we are working aggressively to develop a long-term solution,” NextEra spokesperson Joselen Bird said in an e-mail.

Some wind turbines, particularly those near roadways or other public access areas were temporarily shut down. After the plastic part was removed from the blades, the turbines were restarted, Bird said. Bird emphasized that affected landowners were notified and the company shared with them the actions being taken.

The issue was raised in the Ontario Legislature Tuesday by Huron-Bruce Conservative MPP Lisa Thompson, who demanded a safety audit of industrial wind turbines across the province because of the risk of falling debris. She asked the government to shut down any turbines found unsafe. Read article

Wind Terror in Turkey

turkey-1The Law is My Oyster
If you thought the carry-on and underhand tactics by the wind companies in Ireland was something to believe, feel relieved that you are not being threatened by the Turkish wind industry (probably owned by the same crowd?), who seem to be well in control of local government and the district courts.

The environmentalist Esen Fatma Kabadayi Whiting has been conducting a brave struggle against the energy company ABK Çeşme RES Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş since 2013 February. She has been resisting the building of wind farms close to residential properties and has also been highlighting the devastation caused to protected areas of conservation and to agricultural land.

The energy company responded to this campaign by making a complaint of criminal slander against Ms Whiting, but she denied the charge as bogus in the Çeşme 1st Criminal Court. The company representative who made the complaint did not bother to appear, but despite his non-appearance in court to pursue his complaint, the case was adjourned to 18 December, rather than being dismissed.
Ms Whiting has often spoken out against the compulsory appropriation of land under the Emergency Nationalization procedure and the environmental damage caused by the Çeşme WPP company. She vowed not to give up and promised that the struggle would continue against the Çeşme WPP as she predicted: “One day the wind will turn.”

I didn’t slander anyone. If I had said those words to him there I would say them to him again in this courtroom. I’m not one to be merciful with my words,” said Ms Whiting. Read article

WPD files with Superior Court of Justice to force ON government’s hand on Stayner wind project

C-K airportSimcoe.com, By John Edwards
The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) is concerned that the wind farm near Stayner proposed by WPD could have an “economic impact,” on the Collingwood Regional Airport.

In a letter obtained by simcoe.com from Mohsen Keyvani, supervisor of team 5 of the environmental approvals branch for the MOECC, sent to Khlaire Parre, director of renewable energy approvals for WPD Canada, the ministry is calling on the company to complete an “economic impact analysis,” by Nov. 9. In his letter, Keyvani said the MOECC expects the analysis to include input and engagement from the Collingwood Regional Airport.

“The MOECC is concerned about the project’s potential economic impacts on the Collingwood Regional Airport resulting from the operational impacts that Transport Canada has indicated will occur at the airport,” Keyvani wrote. “In its comments to the MOECC, Transport Canada has indicated that in order to maintain aviation safety at the airport, if the project were to be implemented, it will be necessary to raise the limits of the instrument approach procedures which may result in impacts on aerodrome operations at the airport.” Read article

Pickens: NextEra’s unfairly influenced Liberals with private meetings & $18,600

Nextera sucksNew York Times, Alexandra Stevenson
Some excerpts, but do read it all:
“Like other investors who have challenged governments, Mr. Pickens has taken his dispute to an international court. He is seeking $700 million in damages for future losses related to bids that his wind power company, Mesa Power, lost in wind power auctions in Ontario.

Mr. Pickens and Mesa Power contend that the Florida company, NextEra, was granted exclusive access through private meetings with important government officials that ultimately tilted the bidding in its favor.

The province of Ontario granted NextEra $3.8 billion in energy contracts. Mesa Power contends that $18,600 in donations that NextEra made to the ruling Liberal Party in Ontario before elections in 2011 had undue influence on the auction.

NextEra did not respond to a request for comment.”


“A review of documents and emails between NextEra executives, lobbyists and government officials show that NextEra met and held calls with high-level officials at the Ontario Ministry of Energy, the premier’s office and the power authority, even as Mesa Power executives were told they could not speak to officials until contracts were awarded. When NextEra lobbyists requested more information, officials sometimes responded within hours.

Mr. Pickens’s lawyers argue that NextEra was able to wield influence because of its chief lobbyist, Bob Lopinski at Counsel Public Affairs. A former adviser to the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, Mr. Lopinski was hired in 2010. He contacted former colleagues in the premier’s office to set up meetings for senior NextEra executives including Mitch Davidson, the chief executive. He also arranged for meetings at the Ministry of Energy and the power authority.” Read article

Bluewater Gets Reports of “Material” Fall Off Turbines

turbinebladeBlackburn News, Bob Montgomery
Bluewater council has asked staff to look into reports that parts of wind turbines are falling off of the blades. Mayor Tyler Hessel reports a few residents have told their councillors that they’ve been told by wind energy company officials not to take crops off near the turbines until they notify the company so they can slow down the turbines.

Hessel points out some of the turbines are near municipal roads so if there is a possibility of parts of the blades falling off the municipality would like to know about it. Hessel adds his understanding is that sensors attached to the blades with adhesive are the source of the consern but stresses at this point the information they’re getting is second hand so they’re looking for confirmation of that and an explanation from the wind energy company.

Hessel adds if there is a possibility of sensors becoming separated from the turbine blade the municipality as well as all of the residents living anywhere near a turbine should be alerted to that possibility.

Watch: The Unscripted Kathleen Wynne

CTV is airing the movie Wynne quit on. This is how the Premier reacts to the opposition, press and protesters. You can imagine what she muttered to herself when we protested her in the midst of her scripted speeches.


Wind Turbine Group Told of Falling Property Values

211586-a-house-for-sale-hasreduced-price-signBlackburn News
A member of the Multi Municipal Wind Turbine working group says an assessment of property values confirmed a 25% property devaluation due to industrial wind turbines.

Dave Hemingway says he had confirmation from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation of a steep drop in property values. However, Hemingway was told by the assessor that his MPAC boss did not want wind turbines considered in property value.

Hemingway adds he has been having trouble getting any official information released since he started dealing with MPAC on the issue in 2011. He says he has had hearings with 7 different chairs during that time. Read article

Huron East farmers hit with $32 million liens by wind turbine construction contractors

Veresen, St. Columban Wind. Money troubles. Maybe this explains why they went after my dad for ‘costs’ in the Environmental Review Tribunal, being short on cash. They were denied costs in a decision by the ERT, and thankfully future Appellants haven’t had to face this threat when trying to voice their concerns in the only way that is provided to them.

But $32 million in liens? Did they EVER have the money to build this wind project? 

spiderplow lien wind

Parcel Register for Property Identifier

Huron Perth Landowners Association (HPLA) Press Release — October 8, 2015

Over $32 million in construction liens have been placed against St. Columban area farms. In many cases, it seems, they were applied without the farmers’ knowledge.

Six liens, valued at over $32 million, have been applied to local properties by wind turbine construction contractors, according to the Service Canada registry.  From documents obtained four of the six liens have been applied since June 2015.

In addition, three Superior Court Certificates indicate that legal action has been initiated and, according to court records obtained Oct. 5, 2015, this continues to be an ongoing issue.

Information from one local farmer (leaseholder), who has construction liens placed against his property, shows that the liens are more than double the income he hopes to receive over the twenty-year life of his leases. He was told by contacts associated with the wind turbine company that the liens would be removed, and yet no such action has been taken. He was unaware of the more recent construction liens, which also impact his farm. Continue reading

The secret life of wind-farm turtles

WoodTurtlePublicDomainSootoday, David Helwig
Wood turtles are known for their sculpted shells, colourful legs and equally colourful personalities. They are highly valued as pets. Formally known as Glyptemys insculpta, the wood turtle is classified as endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species. 

It’s similarly listed as endangered under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. Ontario’s wood turtles are at risk from international pet poachers, habitat loss and degradation, skunks, foxes and household pets, to say nothing of the threat of being rendered into road kill by motor vehicles. Add to this the wood turtle’s late maturity, slow growth and its poor reproductive success, and you have a serious situation.

There are, apparently, wood turtles in the vicinity of the Bow Lake Wind Farm. So far as your provincial government is concerned, these are secret turtles. So much so, that SooToday is designating them as Bow Lake Windfarm Ninja Turtles (BLWNTs). The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry doesn’t want you to see them, know how many there are, where they are, where they aren’t, what they eat for breakfast or even anything about the methods used to look for them. When someone tried recently to learn more about the BLWNTs, ministry officials fought beak and claw to prevent release of the information. Read article

EnviroCan wins tilt at radar-hexing windmills

exeter radarJohn Miner, London Free Press
Environment Canada can’t block wind farms from being built close enough to throw off its weather radar readings, but it’s won the right to order turbines curtailed during severe weather in Southwestern Ontario, documents obtained by The London Free Press show. Under a 32-page agreement negotiated with NextEra Canada, Environment Canada can order the Florida-based wind energy giant to reduce wind farm operations in extreme weather that could jeopardize public safety.

Following a call from Environment Canada to its operation centre in Juno Beach, Fla., Next­Era has 20 minutes to “feather,” or adjust, turbine blades back in Ontario so they won’t contaminate radar readings, according to the agreement provided to The Free Press under the federal Access to Information Act. The curtailment can last up to an hour, but can be extended by Environment Canada if dangerous weather conditions — Southwestern Ontario is located in a tornado alley and heavy snow belt — persist.

Ground Zero for industrial turbines in Ontario, with the biggest and largest number of wind farms in the province, Southwestern Ontario has been a hotbed of rural opposition to the highrise-sized installations, which took off after the Liberal government began signing sweetheart deals with energy companies — paying them far more for their electricity than consumers pay — under its Green Energy Act in 2009. But while much of the opposition to wind farms has come from activists concerned about health, land values and control over where the towers can be built, which the province took away from municipalities, the contamination of weather radar readings by spinning turbine blades — known as “clutter” — is an international concern.

Scientists in United States and Europe have shown that a weather radar signal bounced off a spinning turbine blade can appear to be a rotating cloud or tornado. The wind farm operations can also distort precipitation estimates. Read article

Wind energy claim that it’s clean not true in Ontario context

protest-london-not-clean-not-green.jpgSanto Giorno, Sarnia Observer
The wind energy lobby, the provincial government and the mainstream environmental groups continue to claim that wind-generated electricity is “clean” and therefore “good for the environment” (Sarnia Observer, Sept. 23, Turbines rising in Lambton).

This claim is simply not true in the context of Ontario’s electricity sector.

With every megawatt-hour of wind-produced electricity accepted into the Ontario grid, the province is in fact substituting electricity that produces an average of 40 kg CO2 per megawatt-hour (from gas turbines operating ONLY during peak demand) with electricity that produces an average of 200 kg CO2 per megawatt-hour (from gas turbines that MUST operate whenever the wind stops blowing).

If the provincial government continues to promote wind energy, as outlined in their 2013 Long Term Energy Plan, the increasing amounts of wind-generated electricity will cause CO2 emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector to double between 2016 and 2032.

These are the findings in an annual report titled “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma” by the two Ontario engineering societies – the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) and the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO).

The latest edition, published in April 2015, can be found here. The CO2 emission numbers were calculated using published data from the grid’s system operator, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). Read article.

What I needed to say to the Anti-SLAPP Bill committee

Bill 52 was finally sent to committee last week and today was the first day of the hearing. I called in my appeal to reinstate the retroactive clause that the Liberals removed last December. The Liberals seem to be the only ones saying ‘no’ to this. Here’s what I said, (or what I wanted to say, I had to quickly cut a paragraph or two out to make it 5 minutes on the mark – I hate those hammers that tell you to stop speaking!)

As well, here’s a new video by another group that explains anti-SLAPP in Ontario quite well.

If you’d like to comment on the Bill you can still file a written statement – deadline  6 p.m. on October 1, 2015.