Many people believe that because there is a multi-step approval process for wind power projects in Ontario, there must be plenty of authoritative oversight along the way.
No.
First of all, let’s be clear: we are talking about industrial-scale wind power generation here, not the little iconic wind “mills” you used to see on farms in Ontario and which are still used to create power for limited use, like a water pump. That’s as far from the current industrial wind power projects as you can get.
Under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act or the GEA in Ontario, wind power developers create a proposal for a project, then apply for a Feed In Tariff contract. If they get that (and that process is a whole other story) then they can proceed to preparing a Renewable Energy Application (REA) for submission to the Ministry of the Environment. Their draft REA is reviewed by certain “stakeholders” and then eventually shown to the public for comment. The company is required to hold two information sessions for the public; these are typically merely Open Houses. There is no formal presentation, no question and answer period, and no sign that comments from the public are recorded in any form.
After that, the company submits the REA, gets a Certificate of Approval (the MoE is currently promising a one-month turnaround in the interest of speedy development) after which time the public has 15 days to appeal. As we saw from the Kent Breeze appeal in which a single citizen spent upwards of $150,000 to appeal the Suncor project in Chatham-Kent, the project proceeded even while under appeal, and by the time the decision was handed down in July 2011, was completed. (That project is now the subject of a $1.5 million lawsuit by a family who rapidly became ill after the project started.)
So the process is this:
-the companies do their own environmental screening according to the list of topics required in the regulations. They use private consultants (many of whom are members of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, a lobby group for the corporate wind industry) and do not seem to be required to provide information on those consultants’ credentials.
-the public has a limited time and frankly, limited ability to review and assess the assessments
-the environmental screening reports done by the corporate developers go to the Ministry of the Environment for review and approval. We have no idea the depth of the review process.
-There is no third-party, independent, professional review. Requests for “elevation” i.e., for a formal, full environmental assessment to be done by the Ministry of the Environment have been refused: not ONE has been granted since this began in 2006.
In short, the Ontario government believes so strongly that wind power is “good” and “green” it doesn’t really require a proper environmental assessment.
Worse: if environmental effects are experienced such as the bird kills at Wolfe Island (the developer TransAlta forecast 2 per year per turbine and has been surprised to find the rate exceeds 13 per turbine), the Ministry of the Environment simply RAISED the acceptable number of birds that could be killed.
Worse still: there is NO accepted methodology to measure environmental noise from industrial wind turbines—the MoE staff admit this! (See http://www.windyleaks.com )
That’s not acceptable to us.
Doesn’t sound very “environmental” either.
Wind power: it’s not what you think.
Want to live here?
Maybe you’ve seen this but this seems to be the kind of tactics this company uses to ensure they “close the deal” on their “GE assisted” wind proposals.
http://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2011/02/22/anger-over-companys-bid-to-get-approval-for-wind-farm-near-lichfield/
Anger over company’s bid to get approval for wind farm near Lichfield
Feb 22, 2011 by Ross
A company planning to build a wind farm have been accused of using “questionable tactics” in their bid to get the scheme approved.
The chairman of Lichfield District Council’s planning committee says he has received a personal phone call from a PR company working on behalf of ProWind.
The German company are aiming to build four 425-foot high turbines near the villages of Haunton, Harlaston and Clifton Campville.
Cllr Richard Cox said:
“I was rather surprised to hear from them I must admit. Clearly it is not the right thing to do. I politely declined to talk to the individual who called and then advised my colleagues on the Planning Committee that they too should refuse to speak to ProWind or their representatives on this issue.”
Councillor Matthew Ellis
Cllr Matthew Ellis, Staffordshire County Council’s representative for Lichfield Rural East has now written to Lichfield District Council’s chief executive to complain about the tactics being used by the developers.
He explained:
“The communities affected by this massive development proposal have adhered to the planning rules from day one. Yes, they’ve campaigned publicly against the proposals because they genuinely believe, as do I, that it would fundamentally change for decades the beautiful area of the Mease and Tame Valley. But they haven’t directly lobbied the local councillors who will decide whether this development goes ahead or not.
“ProWind’s PR company is phoning around the local councillors who are directly involved with the planning application decision. To the councillors’ credit, I understand, they have refused to discuss the issue at all. In this country there is a democratic process which must be followed and it is vital that process and the people involved are left to get on with it.
“The developers have provided reams of information to planners and, no doubt, spent a small fortune on this planning application. I think they’ve done enough and should not try to influence decision makers on a one to one basis.”
No-one from ProWind was available for comment.