Why do we say No to Industrial Wind Turbines?
People new to this topic often ask us: “But this is green, why are you opposed to wind turbines?”
In fact, we’re in favour of real “green initiatives” that truly benefit and protect the environment. We oppose improperly sited projects that harm people, communities and the environment and we definitely oppose a process that ignores the health and welfare of Ontario residents.
We strongly believe that the negative impacts of the proposed project on the environment, human health, animal health, the economy, community life and demography will by far outweigh any foreseen positive impacts for our community and the province.
Here is a summary of the reasons why we are opposed to this project and others like it in Ontario. Please scroll down for detailed information.
In fact, we’re in favour of real “green initiatives” that truly benefit and protect the environment. We oppose improperly sited projects that harm people, communities and the environment and we definitely oppose a process that ignores the health and welfare of Ontario residents.
We strongly believe that the negative impacts of the proposed project on the environment, human health, animal health, the economy, community life and demography will by far outweigh any foreseen positive impacts for our community and the province.
Here is a summary of the reasons why we are opposed to this project and others like it in Ontario. Please scroll down for detailed information.
- 2009 Green Energy Act
- The process : Request for proposals, Approvals and Environment Tribunal
- Power surplus
- Setbacks, noise regulations and health concerns
- Unaffordable Hydro rates
- Little or no environmental benefits
2009 Green Energy Act
The 2009 Green Energy Act infringes upon basic human rights, threatens democracy and has not lived up to its promises of reducing carbon emissions and creating an economy based on green initiatives.
The provincial government never did a cost-benefit analysis before the enactment of the 2009 Green Energy Act. The Act preamble states that "The Government of Ontario is committed to fostering the growth of renewable energy projects, which use cleaner sources of energy, and to removing barriers to and promoting opportunities for renewable energy projects and to promoting a green economy." The Act supersedes several other provincial legislations.
The provincial government never did a cost-benefit analysis before the enactment of the 2009 Green Energy Act. The Act preamble states that "The Government of Ontario is committed to fostering the growth of renewable energy projects, which use cleaner sources of energy, and to removing barriers to and promoting opportunities for renewable energy projects and to promoting a green economy." The Act supersedes several other provincial legislations.
- Removing barriers equals stripping municipalities of their decision-making powers regarding land use in all renewable energy projects, leaving them powerless to protect their citizens, or to have any input into planning for energy projects that are appropriate to community needs.
- Removing barriers also mean that promoters can ask (and always receive) permits to kill, harm and harass endangered species, in the name of “green” energy or economic development.
- Fostering the growth of renewable energy projects mean that wind power companies receive lucrative long-term contracts leading to sky rocketing hydro bills for consumers. Fostering the growth also means that the government considers the power companies as the “client” in business dealings, leaving no room for taxpayers or citizens’ concerns.
- The policies of the Green Energy Act led to soaring electricity prices and a decline of the manufacturing sector. In a December 2011 news release, Jim McCarter, Auditor General of Ontario states: “The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 was expected to support more than 50,000 jobs. However, about 30,000, of these jobs are likely to be short-term construction jobs. Studies in other jurisdictions have also shown that for each job created through renewable energy generation, two to four jobs are often lost in other sectors as a result of higher electricity prices.” Follow the link to read the news release.
- The Fraser Institute estimates that for every job created through the Green Energy Act, 1.8 were lost. The results of the Act do not live up to the promise of a green economy. Read Rising Electricity Costs and Declining Employment in Ontario’s Manufacturing Sector, by Ross McKitrick and Elmira Aliakbari, Fraser Institute.
- The Auditor General of Ontario issued several reports on the electricity sector since 2011, noting the lack of effective planning and oversight as well of the lack of thorough analysis of the impacts of decisions on consumers. For more information, visit the Auditor General Reports in the Energy section.
The Process: Request for Proposals (RFP), Approvals and Environment Tribunal
In March 2016, the province awarded five new Industrial Wind Turbine projects as part of the Large Renewable Procurement LRP1. Three of the projects were in “unwilling host” municipalities.
On November 21, 2013, during a Standing Committee on Justice Policy, then Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli declared on renewables procurement and siting: “It will be virtually impossible for a wind turbine, for example, or a wind project, to go into a community without some significant level of engagement… The actual procurement will require a precondition for the proponents that they will have engaged the municipality, and they have to bring to the table the level of engagement that they’ve been able to achieve with the municipality. It will be almost impossible for somebody to win one of those bidding processes without an engagement with the municipality.” Link to Standing Committee Transcript.
The LRP1 process included the following rated criteria for community engagement:
In the LRP1 process, municipalities were asked by promoters to support projects through a resolution without full disclosure on their scope and potential impacts; many promoters also threatened municipalities to keep them out of any community benefit funds should they refuse to support their projects.
The approval of projects that can have huge impacts on a community and the environment should be based on scientific evidence. But the approval process does not require solid science; it only requires that proponents complete surveys, regardless of the quality of the surveys.
The approval process has turned into a rubber-stamping operation by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, which has abandoned the precautionary principle. Almost every project has been approved by the ministry, and then appealed by communities. According to Wind Concerns Ontario: “In short, the requirements in place for companies to get approval are not adequate, there is not enough proper oversight by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (or even, capacity to do fulfill that role), and there is no check on compliance with Renewable Energy Approvals post-operation.” Link to the article.
After an approval, communities can appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) to ask that a project be modified or halted. The ERT is putting a reverse onus on citizens and community groups to prove that a project will cause either harm to human health; or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.
On November 21, 2013, during a Standing Committee on Justice Policy, then Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli declared on renewables procurement and siting: “It will be virtually impossible for a wind turbine, for example, or a wind project, to go into a community without some significant level of engagement… The actual procurement will require a precondition for the proponents that they will have engaged the municipality, and they have to bring to the table the level of engagement that they’ve been able to achieve with the municipality. It will be almost impossible for somebody to win one of those bidding processes without an engagement with the municipality.” Link to Standing Committee Transcript.
The LRP1 process included the following rated criteria for community engagement:
- Municipal support through a resolution
- A signed community benefit agreement
- The support of 75% of abutting landowners
- First Nations support
In the LRP1 process, municipalities were asked by promoters to support projects through a resolution without full disclosure on their scope and potential impacts; many promoters also threatened municipalities to keep them out of any community benefit funds should they refuse to support their projects.
The approval of projects that can have huge impacts on a community and the environment should be based on scientific evidence. But the approval process does not require solid science; it only requires that proponents complete surveys, regardless of the quality of the surveys.
The approval process has turned into a rubber-stamping operation by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, which has abandoned the precautionary principle. Almost every project has been approved by the ministry, and then appealed by communities. According to Wind Concerns Ontario: “In short, the requirements in place for companies to get approval are not adequate, there is not enough proper oversight by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (or even, capacity to do fulfill that role), and there is no check on compliance with Renewable Energy Approvals post-operation.” Link to the article.
After an approval, communities can appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) to ask that a project be modified or halted. The ERT is putting a reverse onus on citizens and community groups to prove that a project will cause either harm to human health; or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.
- The approval process of industrial wind turbines in Ontario denies any evidence of economic, social or health impacts. The review process does not allow to consider social and economic impacts to a community; and regarding human health, an ERT can only be based on proven serious harm to health. This challenge is almost impossible to meet since the proof must be made before the project is built. This is inconsistent with the province’s Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which defines “adverse effect” to include injury or damage to property, harm or material discomfort to any person, loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and interference with the normal conduct of business.
- Ironically, at ERT hearings, community groups use their own money and resources to fight the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change represented by government lawyers in order to protect the environment.
Power Surplus
Ontario already has a surplus of electricity and does not need this additional power. In September 2016, the government suspended the second round of an RFP (LRP2) to buy 1,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy stating that Ontario will benefit from a robust supply of electricity over the coming decade to meet projected demand. Then why would we need the power from Eastern Fields or other LRP1 projects? Surplus power is costing taxpayers billions as it is sold at a loss to neighbouring jurisdictions. Read the province’s September 2016 announcement.
- Read more on this issue in the Auditor General of Ontario 2017 Annual Report in the Electricity Power System Planning section (PDF).
- Ontario regularly produces too much energy, most of it already “clean”. We even pay producers to not produce electricity and this includes energy production from industrial wind turbines. Read a report from Global News.
Setbacks, Noise Regulations and Health Concerns
In Ontario, the minimum setback between an industrial wind turbine and a non-participant noise receptor (a house in government language) is 550 metres. There is no minimum setback for participating receptors (people who have leased their land for the installation of wind turbines).
Ontario wind turbine regulations require only dB(A) measurements and do not require LFN or infrasound measurements or noise monitoring inside homes. Noise assessments are provided by companies and based on computer models. The Ministry does not measure or validate the accuracy of computer-based noise predictions after the construction of projects. Read more about setbacks on the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change website.
Industrial wind turbines are imposed upon unwilling neighbours and their health and safety concerns are ignored by the government. People are treated like guinea pigs. Between 2006 and 2014, the government received well over 3,100 formal reports of excessive noise and vibration, according to documents provided to Wind Concerns Ontario under Freedom of information. Nothing has been done in 54% of the cases. “The reports show, however, that ministry staff had no protocols or guidelines to deal with noise complaints and that high-level directives blocked staff from responding. Staff were told to rely on computer noise models provided by power developers instead of actual noise measurement. Years after initial complaints, citizens are still waiting for government testing and remediation to their problems. Link to WCO report.
In May 2016, the government adopted more stringent noise regulations and setbacks in order to protect human health. At the same time, the government exempted LRP1 projects from the new rules and let companies decide to follow, or not, the new regulations. None of the approved LRP1 projects elected to follow the new regulations. If LRP1 projects were to follow new noise guidelines, approximately 75% of projected turbines would be too close to homes and could not be built as planned. The government chose to protect companies’ economic interests over citizens’ wellbeing. If the projects are built, the exemption afforded to LRP1 projects will have an impact on people for at least 20 years. Read Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms.
- The setback requirements are to address noise impacts of wind power plants on people.
- The 550-metre setback is arbitrary. No study clearly demonstrates that 550 metres is a safe distance for people in regards to human health. But there is a scientific consensus that the greater the distance, the safer it is for people. Worldwide, different jurisdictions have adopted different setbacks.
- “Evidence-based health studies were not conducted to determine adequate setbacks and noise levels for the siting of IWTs before the implementation of the Ontario renewable energy policy. In addition, provision for vigilance monitoring was not made. It is now clear that the regulations are not adequate to protect the health of all exposed individuals.” Excerpt from Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines
Ontario wind turbine regulations require only dB(A) measurements and do not require LFN or infrasound measurements or noise monitoring inside homes. Noise assessments are provided by companies and based on computer models. The Ministry does not measure or validate the accuracy of computer-based noise predictions after the construction of projects. Read more about setbacks on the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change website.
- “The findings from the Health Canada study show that the standards that form the basis of the Ontario wind turbine regulations are not sufficient to protect human health. The study indicates that the sound power threshold needs to be lowered to 35 dB which in turns means that the setback needs to be increased to 1,300 metres. These standards are not without precedent as both New Zealand and South Australia are using this standard in rural areas.” Excerpt from Evaluating Ontario Regulations for Siting Turbines in Context of Findings from the Health Canada Study, by Wind Concerns Ontario. Link to Wind Concerns Ontario report.
Industrial wind turbines are imposed upon unwilling neighbours and their health and safety concerns are ignored by the government. People are treated like guinea pigs. Between 2006 and 2014, the government received well over 3,100 formal reports of excessive noise and vibration, according to documents provided to Wind Concerns Ontario under Freedom of information. Nothing has been done in 54% of the cases. “The reports show, however, that ministry staff had no protocols or guidelines to deal with noise complaints and that high-level directives blocked staff from responding. Staff were told to rely on computer noise models provided by power developers instead of actual noise measurement. Years after initial complaints, citizens are still waiting for government testing and remediation to their problems. Link to WCO report.
In May 2016, the government adopted more stringent noise regulations and setbacks in order to protect human health. At the same time, the government exempted LRP1 projects from the new rules and let companies decide to follow, or not, the new regulations. None of the approved LRP1 projects elected to follow the new regulations. If LRP1 projects were to follow new noise guidelines, approximately 75% of projected turbines would be too close to homes and could not be built as planned. The government chose to protect companies’ economic interests over citizens’ wellbeing. If the projects are built, the exemption afforded to LRP1 projects will have an impact on people for at least 20 years. Read Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms.
Unaffordable Hydro Rates
Overly generous renewable energy contracts and a lack of effective planning and oversight are some of the reasons for the steep increase in hydro rates. As a result, taxpayers unnecessarily paid billions of dollars.
- Introduced in July 2017 by the government, the “Fair Hydro Plan” is anything but fair and does not address the problem root cause. In October 2017, the Auditor General of Ontario Bonnie Lysyk issued a special report The Fair Hydro Plan: Concerns About Fiscal Transparency, Accountability and Value For Money (PDF). Ms. Lysysk states that the accounting proposed by the government is fundamentally wrong and finds that the provincial government plans to obscure the financial impact of electricity rate cuts. Watch the Auditor General of Ontario read her report.
- The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers’ Submission for Ontario’s 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan (December 2016) offers several options to reduce electricity bills by reducing costs or increasing revenue. Their A2 recommendation could save taxpayers 200M$/year. “Cancel committed capacity contracts that have not been built that have cancellation benefits or that are not in compliance with contractual in service requirements.”
- In her 2015 annual report, the Auditor General blames lack of oversight for high hydro costs.
- “Ontarians paid $37-billion above market for electricity over eight years, Auditor-General's report says. Link to a CBC news report and a Globe and Mail article.
- “Ontarians paid $37-billion above market for electricity over eight years, Auditor-General's report says. Link to a CBC news report and a Globe and Mail article.
- For more information or to view all reports, visit the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, in the Energy section.
Little or No Environmental Benefits
Wind power plants bring no or very little environmental benefits. Wind power is unpredictable, intermittent and often out-of-phase with demand. It has to be backed-up by other sources of energy. Ontario’s engineers point out that more intermittent wind power means more natural gas back-up, which means more fossil fuel use, not less.
- “Variable renewables (wind and solar) achieve their best return on investment when they displace high emitting fossil fuels either in the electrical power system or in non-electrical sectors of the economy (thermal energy loads). They have little or no economic value when they displace other carbon-free sources.” “Solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear energy are primarily used for electricity generation. Solar energy is also used for some space and water heating. About 90% of Ontario’s electricity in 2014 and 2015 was produced from these carbon-free sources. Trying to reduce GHG emissions further within the electricity sector is equivalent to the proverbial “squeezing blood out of a stone.” Excerpts from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers’ report: Ontario’s Energy Dilemma: Reducing Emissions at an affordable cost (2016).
- According to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, in 2016, the province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity – an amount equal to powering more than 760,000 homes for one year, or a value in excess of $1 billion. “Curtailment is an industry term that means the power was not needed in Ontario, and could not be exported, so it was dumped. It’s when we tell our dams to let the water spill over top, our nuclear generators to release their steam, and our wind turbines not to turn, even when it’s windy… These numbers show that Ontario’s cleanest source of power is literally going down the drain because we’re producing too much. Speaking as an engineer, an environmentalist, and a rate payer, it’s an unnecessary waste of beautiful, clean energy, and it’s driving up the cost of electricity.” Read the blog post.
