Throughout the whole run of the wind turbine monster story there is one constant: money, and the scumbag landmen whose task it is to trap the rubes into putting ink on the paper, have handed out $100 bills at buffet dinners for “prospective leaseholders,” presented falsified maps of signed leaseholders, pressured elderly farmers with verbal threats of legal action, provided indirect payments to family members to drop ERT appeals…the list goes on and on.
In short, money and its corruptive effects is the root of all the problems wind projects imposed on a community. Faced with an increasingly sullen and sometimes hostile rural populace who slowly have come to realize they are targets, government response has been to encourage wind companies to spread the grease money a little wider to co-opt the opposition. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has come up with a form “Adjacent Landowner Agreement” to be filled out and signed by “willing” landowners – all identified by the property “PIN” – how clever, so personal.
Here’s a letter from Suncor to Adelaide-Metcalfe council outlining what they would like to see the council commit to for some cash. Some highlights:
Adjacent landowner support
• Pool payments will be made to Landowners who are adjacent to the Project and have executed the IESO prescribed form: Adjacent Landowner Support Agreement
— Includes all assessed parcels with title, including Municipal Right-of-Way
— Annual payment based on Acreage with a minimum payment
— Should 75% of all Adjacent Landowners support the Project, payment doubles
Municipal agreement and support resolution |
• Request for municipalities to sign a binding agreement with Suncor, contingent upon successful award of a contract, with the following terms:
— Community Support Plan as described
— Agreement to work with Suncor to develop a framework for distribution of the funds in a way that respects Suncor’s funding priorities
— Intent to execute a road use agreement with Suncor allowing for use of Municipal Roads and Right-of-Ways for equipment delivery and infrastructure placement
• Request for municipalities to sign the Large Renewable Procurement Prescribed Forms: — Municipal Meeting
— Municipal Agreement
— Municipal Council Support Resolution
— Execute Adjacent Landowner Support Agreements
Very helpful Suncor is, and take note:
- that the municipality through its ownership of the Right-of-Way gets counted
- so far no word as to how the payments are; thus, the promise of “payment doubles” for reaching the 75% level could be… double of nothing.
Nonetheless, this puts pressure on Nextera whose landmen, according to sources, have been playing hard-ball with the locals, telling them if they don’t sign they’ll get nothing, and the lease payments are less because the FIT price is less.
What the wind companies don’t produce is their spreadsheet with all the numbers for costs and revenue. Since we’re talking money now, I’ll do the simple math for them, taking the approximate operating expenses and revenues for the Adelaide wind project.
- We’ll estimate the operating efficiency at 27%
- Yearly gross output 60MW/h x 24 x 365 x 27% = 141,912 MWh
- Gross revenue is 141,912 x $135/MWh = $19,158,120 for a year’s production.
- Payment to the leaseholders is 2% of the gross or $19,158,120 x .02 = $383,162
- The other optioned properties get another half percent= $95,790
- NextEra is conditionally offering the township $1750/MWh x 60 = $105,000
- Property tax $40,000 x 60 x .0269259 = $64,622
- Yearly payment on capital expense and interest: $8,000,000
- Grand total: $8,648,574
After all the expenses NextEra takes home over $10million/year from the Adelaide Wind Project. They pay the township and leaseholders a measly $648,000 which is less than 3% of the gross revenue. Some of the Samsung projects were handing out 5%-6% to leaseholders. Wind companies are cheap. Think about that when they call on you.
Then have a look at the question/comments that were posed by energy developers to the IESO:
Trying to get away with as little “support” as possible…
17. With respect to adjacent/abutting landowners to proposed connection lines, should the proponent be responsible for the adjacent landowner support for a connection line that already follows existing municipal infrastructure – including roadways and electrical corridors – or does the proponent only need to contact those adjacent landowners that have the line passing through their personal, private property. For further clarity, is our understanding correct that the abutters for the connection line on municipal road are the municipality? (Abutting)
IESO RESPONSE: In regards to the Mandatory Requirements for a proposed Connection Line not located on Provincial Crown Land, the Registered Proponent must notify every assessed owner of Property within 120 metres of the proposed Connection Line as well as every assessed owner of Property on which the proposed Connection Line is to be situated.
Support needed of 75% of the properties (individual pin #’s)
18. If a Site has lands adjoining that are divided into “Surface Rights” and “Mining Rights”, resulting in two PINS for each adjoining property, are both property holders considered to Abut the property on which the Site is located? (Abutting)
IESO RESPONSE: Under Section 3.3.1(b), in order to receive Rated Criteria points for those categories that include landowner and Provincial Crown Land Lease Holder support requirements, the Registered Proponent must evidence support from all landowners of no less than 75% of (1) the Properties that Abut the Properties on which the Site is located and (2) the Properties on which the Connection Line is proposed; and (3) all Provincial Crown Land Lease Holders of no less than 75% of Provincial Crown Land Leases located in whole or in part on, and Abutting, the Properties on which the Site is located. The requirement is not in relation to 75% of the owners or Provincial Crown Land Lease Holders. The requirement is for all of landowners or Provincial Crown Land Lease Holders of 75% of the Properties or Provincial Crown Land Leases. If both entities or individuals that hold the “Surface Rights” and “Mining Rights” qualify as either landowners of the Properties or Provincial Crown Land Lease Holders of the Provincial Crown Land Leases, they would both be required to sign the Prescribed Form – Landowner and Provincial Crown Land Lease Holder Support in order to count that Property or Provincial Crown Land Lease towards meeting the 75% requirement for Rated Criteria. If two PINs exist, denoting two parcels, each would count as a Property.
Engineers considering their liability insurance
55. As Proponents search for Independent Professional Engineers to fulfill the requirements of Section 3.2.6 (b)(15)(iv)(1), we are finding that several Professional Engineers are not willing to sign off on the Prescribed Form – Site Considerations Confirmation since they do not believe the Site Considerations information is related to engineering. Further, some Professional Engineers have even suggested that the liability insurance provided to them will not allow them to sign off on the Prescribed Form. Please advise how this requirement can be met given this challenge.
IESO RESPONSE: Meeting the requirements of the LRP I RFP is the responsibility of the Qualified Applicant, Qualified Proponent, and Registered Proponent, as applicable. The IESO cannot provide further guidance on this question.
Separate forms for each land parcel – ah gee, that’s a lot of paperwork
66. Can we use multiple PIN # on a Prescribed Form – Abutting Landowner support for a landowner who has multiple parcels? This could be easily done by adding an Appendix and the Prescribed Form could remain as is. This would seem to be less burdensome than having multiple Forms for the same landowner.
IESO RESPONSE: No. A separate Prescribed form – Landowner and Provincial Crown Land Lease Holder Support must be provided for each Abutting Property or Provincial Crown Land Lease.