Wind companies buying “support”

bribesBelow are some notes on “Support” that wind companies seek from just about everyone. What is the one and only method of gaining “Support”? You guessed it, moolah.

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.

7 thoughts on “Wind companies buying “support”

  1. Here’s something to add that is unbelievable: Relight Corp. (Meridian LLC) is right now trying to “buy” our school board. They have proposed money to our schools in exchange for school board members publicly speaking in support of their project at all public meetings (county board, etc.). If the school board members do not agree, the schools get nothing. The school board speaking in support of their project is required for the life of the project (they say 25 years). The school board has asked for several amendments to the proposition; Relight (Meridian) has refused all but one. This is so unethical~~I don’t even know where to begin. The school board votes on this proposition on Mon.; PLEASE pray for our little community.

    • Ookay – start praying!

      Welcome to Ontario, Russia
      http://elections.ontarioschooltrustees.org/en/education/opsba.html

      Hey Ontario!
      Re: amendments
      Maybe the school boards could provide blankets and sweaters
      – for the school children –
      – for those chilly nights!
      Socks and earmuffs too!…….Please!

      p.s. What else can the school board do – for the children?
      p.p.s. Premier Social Justice has ‘food baskets’ – covered!

      —————————————————————————————-
      Election Year Canada
      October 19, 2015
      Vote Conservative!

      Go Stephen Harper!

    • Hey Kelley B.

      You didn’t say where you are from.
      But yeah – Relight Corp. (Meridian LLC)
      – pretty sick – when you can get school boards to shill for you!
      ———————————————————————————

      Mt. Pulaski CUSD-23 School Board selling its soul to Meridien & Relight Wind Farms –

      ‘[excerpt] Here are some of the requirements (para 9, page 8) imposed on the school board in order to collect on this money:

      –> School Board resolution in support of the project, presented to the Logan County Board
      –> Send the School Superintendent or Board President to speak in support of the wind farm at any and all public meetings (this includes hearings)
      –> Issue press releases, after they are approved by Meridien, in support of the wind farm and in support of the terms and conditions
      –>No Board Member may speak in opposition of the wind farm in their official capacity (meaning they can’t say they are board members), and any opposing views cannot be expressed at the same time as the School Board’s expressions of support and favor of the wind farm (1st amendment stripped from opposing board members)
      –> School Board cannot sue or take part in a suit in relation to the wind farm
      –> School Board cannot pass any law, ordinance, regulation, etc that attempts to regulate, limit, or otherwise detrimentally affect the wind farm project

      In my opinion, this is nothing short of bribery of public officials and bribery of a public body.

      This school board will vote on placing themselves in the position of advocating in favor of zoning, building permits, etc., and will tie their own hands against saying anything bad about wind turbines – to the detriment of the school district and its students and residents.

      They will act as paid shills to speak in favor of wind farms at public meetings and public hearings “on behalf of” the school district and the wind farm, in public hearings and meetings where people will presumably take their “official” word as a bond of trust. I can only presume they will not disclose they are being paid to speak in favor of the wind farm, lest their testimony be stricken and presumed useless.

      This is sickening.
      http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2015/05/mt-pulaski-cusd-23-school-board-selling-its-soul-to-meridien-relight-wind-farms/

    • Kelley, what Is the name of your community where this is this happening with the school board?

  2. Pingback: Wind companies buying “support”

  3. Only fools would support these absurd industrial wind energy projects!

    Who would tell landowners not to be worried about the landowner liabilities???

    Besides
    – leaking oil
    – construction damages
    – property encumbrances (you can bet the farm!)
    – the harm caused to you & your family,
    think, medical, health, life, death,
    of being proximate to noisy, polluting industrial machines,,

    What about Rylands & Fletcher?
    that old legal concept,
    that you have liability
    if something on your property
    causes damage to neighbours.

    No-good Premiere Kathleen Wynne
    accused honourable Member of Parliament, Patrick Brown
    of being “against clean energy”,
    which she is
    using to refer to industrial wind energy projects.

    If this form of energy is so “clean”
    why are there so many legal conflicts about it?

    It’s one of the dirtiest businesses I’ve ever witnessed.

    Brave new Premier Kathleen Wynne
    also acccused Patrick Brown of being
    “against fighting climate change.”

    Premier Kathleen Wynne, Minister of War.

    Children are being conditioned to be afraid
    of “climate change”!

    The climate has ALWAYS BEEN changing!

    I accuse Premier Wynne
    and call her out–
    FEAR MONGER

    What some children ARE
    and SHOULD BE afraid of
    is the harm, damages, loss of property, home & security
    pain, suffering & other stress—
    the TERROR
    caused by recklessly negligent fraudulent industrial wind energy projects.

    For example:

    (With the utmost respect and sensitivity
    for the victims who have already gone thru
    too much…
    Rest In Peace…)

    What Suncor (& others) are doing to those families
    is immoral, unjust,
    & maybe illegal (if anyone could afford to pursue it).

    But you won’t hear
    some of the victims tell you what happened
    because they’re gagged
    or dead.

    And there are children involved.

    “I am aware that not all of the victims were compensated
    and some of the victims are children.”

    I Repeat:

    “I am aware that not all of the victims were compensated
    and some of the victims are children.”

Leave a Reply

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