Dufferin County pursues environment assessment of wind project transmission line

5-Transformer StationOrangville Banner, Chris Halliday
It will only go as far as Dufferin Wind Power’s transmission line is long. County politicians, however, plan to hire a land surveyor to measure the length of the wind farm developer’s transmission line and see if the findings could trigger an environmental assessment (EA).

As per provincial regulations, any transmission line in Ontario exceeding a length of 50 km automatically requires an EA be conducted.  According to Dufferin Wind spokesperson Connie Roberts, the line running from Melancthon to Amaranth is 47.25 km long, but county council wants to find out for itself.

“The easiest thing I think you can start with is getting a survey. See how long that line actually is,” local resident Karren Wallace told county council on Thursday (Jan. 8). “What would the cost of a survey be? I don’t know, but what is the cost of regret?” Controversy has swirled around the construction of Dufferin Wind’s 230 kV transmission line ever since the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) approved the company’s plan last year. Read article

25 thoughts on “Dufferin County pursues environment assessment of wind project transmission line

  1. Indeed, what is the cost of regret? Everything.
    And for what?
    Useless,paltry, renewable energy that triples the power bill. An excuse for a runaway climate catastrophe that does not exist.
    Just another scare to push people into accepting a Carbon Tax (for nothing), another way to exploit the public by “experts”.

    Now, who do you think the real criminals are?

    • WUWT, Jan.14, 2015

      ‘1 million tons of pressurised CO2 stored beneath Decatur, Illinois’

      Stored at 7000 feet bellow the city of 74,710 people as a demonstration of a carbon sequestration project.

      One tenth of this much CO2, 100,000-300,000 tons released in 1986 in Africa, Cameroon, killed up to 2500 people which came from the Lake Nyos volcanic crater lake.


      Rural Ontarians are forced to bear all of the risks associated with these renewable energy projects.

      • Any farmers and land owners who invest in IWT partnerships, co-ops, community wind projects are on the hook for their share of any and all costs associated with these projects.

        Equipment failure and weather damage can cost plenty of money. The guarantees on these turbines don’t last very long and neither do the turbines. Last for 20 years? And repairs and upkeep are very costly for IWTs

        If others involved in ventures such as these don’t have the money to cover the involved costs then the others in these ventures will have to pick up the costs.

        The bankruptcy case of Minwind in Minnesota should be a wake-up call for those who have invested IWTs by any of these means.

        The information on the Minwind bankruptcy should be circulated in rural Ontario communities.

    • http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/#comment-1799447

      This is a bit of writing worth checking out. The first few hundred comments are very interesting.

      Once we get to the bottom of the ‘unsettled science’ issue and identify the key players in the ‘alarmism’ and we piece together all of Barbara’s investigative work, we’ll be able to see how we got into this mess in rural Ontario.

  2. Are you a garbage criminal?
    Thinking things through…………with a clear head.

    Waste Collection Policy Update: Dufferin County, Ontario

    Clear, it seems, is the new black.

    Dufferin County in Ontario has followed in the footsteps of nearby Markham and instituted a new policy mandating residents use transparent garbage bags for curbside collection.

    The policy came into effect June 1 as part of the transfer of regional waste collection responsibilities from local municipalities to Dufferin Country.

    Like in Markham, residents are allowed a minimum number (two, in this case) of opaque “privacy” bags to be placed inside the clear bags. Residents are also allowed to forgo a bag entirely and place waste directly in a bin. Non-transparent bags will not be collected.

    Opaque privacy bags have a maximum size restriction of 51 x 56 cm (20 x 22 inches) and regular bags and containers may not exceed 79 x 107 cm (31 x 42 inches) in dimension. Bags that exceed the limit are required to be tagged.

    Like Markham, Dufferin County lists encouraging waste diversion and collector safety as the primary reasons for the switch to clear bags.

    Download the new Dufferin County Waste By-Law here.

    View the residential Waste Services Guide here.

    For questions regarding how the switch will affect your orders and purchasing, please contact us at info@elenpac.com.

    • ‘excerpt] ……..opaque “privacy” bags to be placed inside the clear bags.’

      Dufferin County – to supply clear bags – free of charge.

      Hahahahahahahahahah – sign of insanity!

  3. Opaque inside of transparent?!?! You’ve got to be kidding.
    That’s it, thank God for the good old burn barrel!!! Nothing like country living baby!! No permit required btw 😉
    Keep on baggin, and baggin’ and taggin’! I dont know about those privacy bags; one could easily pull off an act of terrorism and pack an explosive in a privacy bag OMG!! For security purposes, garbage trucks should be equipped with security devices as the airports use, scan the garbage at time of pick up.
    Insane you say?? Welcome to scario Ontario.

    • Many articles on the internet about the MinWind bankruptcy.

      Renewablesbiz, Jan.15, 2015

      ‘MinWind files for bankruptcy’

      In addition to the bankruptcy MinWind has over $1 million in Federal fines to pay.


      Causes of bankruptcy here:

      U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., Nov.17, 2014
      Docket No. EL 15-5-000

      “Petitioners state, that the wind turbines have experienced main bearing failures and ice damage over the past two years and requiring major equipment repairs. Petitioners explain that the repairs have become so costly that Petitioners began soliciting buyers for their wind turbines.”

      Google: EL 15-5-000 [PDF] – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

      MinWind didn’t sell the turbines so now in bankruptcy. MinWind is a Minn. U.S. company.

      • These machines are always breaking down.
        Check out docuse.wordpess.com
        and scroll down to the bottom
        to view some photos of repairs being made,
        2-3 years after these Vestas machines
        were first installed at Clear Creek,
        Norfolk County, Ontario.
        Notice the big crane is needed
        to replace these components.
        The big crane is transported in pieces
        on several tractor trailers
        and is assembled on site.
        Very costly.

        Also, check out the
        docuse.wordpress.com/badscience page
        and help yourself recall how
        the Ontario wind energy fraud has played out.

      • Correction:

      • Bullfrog power was the major contributor! Not the community

  4. So what happens to the land owners of these turbines now?

    ( not that I really care so much just wondering what one does with an industrial turbine on your land?) interesting to know just what kind of deal was made in these instances.

    • Probably depends on what the MinWind bankruptcy court ruling is.

      And now there is an official U.S. document on what the causes were for the bankruptcy of this company. No need to depend on news stories. These are facts.

      Seems so far that investors in such community based companies have decided not to listen to the advice of others in their community about these risks.

      • Look at this quote Barbara:

        “P.S. In 2007 Ontario consumed 152 TWh at a cost of $7.676 billion; in 2014 Ontario’s consumption was 139.8 TWh and the cost (including the $1.012 loss on exports) was $13.524 billion—an increase in the cost per TWh of 91% from just 7 years ago.”

      • Well done post and you went to the original source for the information. This is the best practice for information if original sources are available.

        What do you think about sequestering CO2 under pressure beneath a city?

  5. Look at this quote everyone!:

    “P.S. In 2007 Ontario consumed 152 TWh at a cost of $7.676 billion; in 2014 Ontario’s consumption was 139.8 TWh and the cost (including the $1.012 loss on exports) was $13.524 billion—an increase in the cost per TWh of 91% from just 7 years ago.”

    The legacy of the green energy act! Because in 2007 there was no GEA but now there is!

  6. MinWind failed to realize there was a rule change.
    A desperate plea for forgiveness – a waiver – was denied.
    The fine is too high – and MinWind may have to take the bankruptcy road.
    Did I miss something?

    Oh yeah – and, it was a buyer that brought the oversight to the attention of MinWind.

    ‘[excerpt] Last summer, MinWind filed a petition with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Committee seeking a waiver of self-certification filing requirements. The petitioners contended their facilities had satisfied all requirements for qualifying facilities status, with the exception of section 292.203(a)(3), since MinWind began producing power, and that “inadvertent error and lack of power sector business acumen” was blamed for their failure to file notices of self-certification.

    MinWind contended it had filed all of the necessary reports up until April 2006 . The FERC changed its regulations at that time, requiring an owner or operator of a facility to file a notice of self-certification. The requirement was placed on all facilities larger than 1 megawatt, and became effective April 16, 2006 .

    After hearing the points made by MinWind’s petitioners, the FERC issued its findings in early November, essentially saying MinWind should have been aware of the rules change and that their reason for not filing the proper paperwork was “not persuasive.”

    “Although petitioners argue that the failure to make the filing was inadvertent, the fact remains that for more than eight years (MinWind was) out of compliance with the express requirements for (qualified facilities) status,” the FERC report dated Nov. 7, 2014 , states.

    The commission ultimately granted in part and denied in part MinWind’s request for waiver and directed the wind energy company to make refunds on the time value of revenues collected during the period of noncompliance within 30 days. It was also ordered that MinWind file refund reports with the commission within 30 days.

    Within the report, MinWind petitioners said if they weren’t granted the waiver, they would likely have to pursue bankruptcy.’

      • MinWind makes a decision……

        MinWind files for bankruptcy

        on Jan 14, 2015
        LUVERNE — The 360 investors in a rural Rock County wind energy company stand to lose thousands of dollars after MinWind Energy, LLC., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week in Minnesota Bankruptcy Court.

        A voluntary petition was filed with the court Jan. 6 seeking reorganization status for the 11.5-megawatt wind farm. If MinWind’s request is granted, it would relieve the investor-owned energy company of approximately $1.91 million in fines after it was determined MinWind was noncompliant with qualifying facility self-certification filing requirements under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. The bankruptcy, while it would allow for the wind turbines to be sold, would also preclude investors from getting any financial return on the sale.

      • It’s not over – till it’s over.
        MinWind may be denied.

      • ‘[excerpt] MinWind contended it had filed all of the necessary reports up until April 2006 . The FERC changed its regulations at that time, requiring an owner or operator of a facility to file a notice of self-certification.’

        Personally I think the judge is a nut!
        But it goes to show you – how your life can be turned up side down
        because of – one piece of paper.


      • Once a company files for bankruptcy they can’t sell the company unless the court approves of the sale.

        All the points made here in this discussion reveal just how risky it is to invest in community based power.

        It’s not just the initial investment,you must have the financial resources to run the company which includes any papers that have to be filed.

        Gunn’s Hill is/was was $5,000/share. How many people can afford to lose $5,000/per share price according to the Sustainable Eastern Ontario website? IWTs are expensive machines to own and maintain for small investors.

        Even if a local town gets into this business it’s still risky because the ratepayers could be on the hook.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *