Posts Tagged ‘Robert Hornung’

We had hoped to meet Mr Robert Hornung, President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association or CanWEA at our showing of Windfall a few weeks ago, but despite a personal invitation sent by courier to his Ottawa office, he didn’t attend. Perhaps he was busy crafting this message which he sent out to candidates for the Ontario election. As you know, the topic of electricity bills and the cost of renewables is a hot topic leading up to the election, and Mr Hornung wants us al to be sure to understand that wind is good.

His letter is below. We follow with a critique from Parker Gallant, who is on the Board of Energy Probe, and who counters a few of CanWEA’s assertions.

Dear Ontario Election Candidate,

 I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report confirming that wind power is cost competitive in Ontario today and will play an important role in ensuring price stability for Ontarians over the long term.  Behind the Switch: Pricing Ontario Electricity Options, was prepared by the Pembina Institute, a leading Canadian energy policy research organization.  The report demonstrates that replacing new renewable energy sources like wind energy with conventional sources of electricity generation would likely increase Ontario’s electricity prices over the next 20 years relative to scenarios that make use of renewable energy.

 Ontario’s electricity generation fleet is aging.  The majority will reach the end of its service life over the next two decades and will need to be renewed or replaced.  Ontario’s electricity system capacity will also need to grow by nearly 30 per cent to keep pace with demand growth.  Almost 70 per cent of the province’s generation in 2030 will come from sources that are not currently in operation.  The decisions the province makes today will have far reaching consequences for decades to come.

 The current policy to invest in wind energy as a major component of Ontario’s future electricity mix– some 7,000 MW or more of wind power is targeted by 2018 – is a forward-thinking commitment to ensuring a clean and reliable electricity system will be available to Ontarians when it’s needed.

If the current commitments to renewables and wind power were removed, something would need to be built in its place. What that something would be, and how that change would affect electricity prices, are the two main questions the Pembina Institute set out to answer in Behind the Switch.

 Wind power is a cost effective electricity generation choice today in Ontario.  The Ontario Power Authority now offers Feed-in Tariff contracts for onshore wind energy development at a price of 13.5 cents per kWh.  This is cost competitive with new natural gas at 11 cents per kwh – in the ABSENCE of a carbon price – new hydroelectric power at 12.2-13.1 cents per kwh, and new nuclear (which is not cheaper than any of the above).  The cost to produce electricity from wind will continue to decrease over time, while the cost from thermal sources is likely to increase as fuel costs continue to rise.

 Wind power has had a very minor impact in contributing to electricity price increases in Ontario to date.  By the end of 2010, there were 1,447 MW of wind power generation capacity operating in the province, contributing about 2 per cent of the total electricity produced.  The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario concluded in March of this year, that electricity from renewable sources (wind, solar and bioenergy) contributed only 0.2 cents per kWh to the typical residential electricity bill last year. 

 Behind the Switch examines how scaling back Ontario’s plans to develop renewable energy would affect electricity prices, using an integrated energy system simulator to compare two main scenarios. The first scenario is based on Ontario’s current Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP), in which a large part of new electricity generation comes from additional renewable capacity supported under the Green Energy Act; the second scenario tests the effect of eliminating the Act and largely expanding natural gas in place of future renewable resources.

The results found in Behind the Switch indicate that consumer electricity prices are set to continue rising sharply over the next decade under either scenario — with prices peaking around 2022, when Ontario’s nuclear fleet is currently scheduled to undergo significant upgrades.  Even if future contracts for renewable energy were ended in 2011, the model shows consumer prices would be virtually identical between the two scenarios as prices will rise in the near term as there are so many other factors and necessary investments in the overall system that are also affecting prices.  There would be very little change to projected electricity price increases under the LTEP — amounting to less than 2 per cent difference on the average household’s monthly electricity bill. 

 We hope you continue to find CanWEA’s website and publications useful sources of information and facts on wind energy when considering and reviewing proposals for wind energy developments in your area. You can access information about CanWEA and wind energy in general directly from our website at: http://www.canwea.ca/wind-energy/talkingaboutwind_e.php

 We would be pleased to meet or speak with you to discuss the economic and environmental benefits of wind energy in Ontario. For further information, please contact Justin Rangooni, Ontario Policy Manager, at 613-234-8716, extension 235.

 Yours sincerely,

 Robert Hornung


And here is Parker Gallant’s comments on CanWEAs assertions about wind power, as presented on the lobby group’s website. The original post may be viewed at: http://ep.probeinternational.org/

In Greek Mythology Aeolus was the “King of Wind” but in Canadian Mythology the King of Wind is CanWEA; a not-for-profit association of 420 members including public and private companies, legal firms, manufacturers, etc. and others who feed off of the largess of taxpayers and ratepayers to ensure they retain their mandated (Ontario’s Green Energy Act) place on the energy podium.

The claims made on CanWEA’s website are wide ranging and while Aeolus was associated with creating storms; CanWEA’s claims are principally associated with saving the world from catastrophic global warming. Let’s look at some of those claims:

The Balanced Diet

One of the claims made is; “Wind energy is part of a “balanced energy diet” and is a perfect complement to other conventional forms of electricity generation. One example is wind and hydroelectric. Over short time periods (days and weeks), hydro can be used to compensate for variations in wind power production. Over long time periods (years and decades), wind can be used to compensate for fluctuations in reservoir levels, an effect that will be increasingly felt through climate change.”

Wind-energy Storage

On the latter claim wind-energy may have some use in Quebec or BC for that purpose, but in Ontario we have limited reservoir capacity (140 MW) unless we wish to flood vast regions of the province. In point of fact Ontario is often forced to export power to Quebec during the Spring  at a loss.

On the former point in the above extract from CanWEA’s website the “perfect complement” is not perfect. Hydro’s peak production comes in the Spring season when the freshet can produce an abundance (almost to full capacity) of cheap clean hydro power which coincides with peak wind production that frequently reaches similar levels. Unfortunately Spring, and Fall are the lowest demand periods so the “complement” is a misnomer and wind power takes precedent over hydro power meaning we must often spill cheap, clean hydro to give wind-energy their first to the grid rights. The “complement” thereby becomes a burden that the ratepayers endure through higher electricity bills.

Wind-energy Variability Demand

This same webpage from CanWEA states “The variability of wind matches the variability of demand. Generally wind is strongest in cold-weather months when our demand for electricity is highest.”

Ontario’s peak demand for the past several decades occurs in the hot summer months not in the cold-weather months and the variability of wind doesn’t match this cycle. Wind-energy is highest in the shoulder months of our Spring & Fall and at night when demand is at its lowest. Wind production in the summer (on average) is less than 17% of it’s capacity and often falls to less then 5% and that is when our demand reaches it’s annual peak.

Wind-energy Reliability

The next CanWEA webpage claims “Wind Power is Reliable.” and goes on to state; “The wind turbines that you see today are the result of decades of research and development. Thanks to these efforts, modern turbines are highly efficient and a typical unit alone can generate enough electricity to power over 500 homes. The science of wind turbine placement has advanced a great deal, too – nowadays, the output of a wind farm can be predicted accurately well before a shovel hits the ground.”

To claim that a typical unit can generate enough electricity to power over 500 homes would require that unit to operate at a 33 % capacity level based on the standard household usage (800 kWh per month) claimed in submissions to the Ontario Energy Board by parties seeking rate increases. My view on the CanWEA statement is that it should state; “a typical unit can generate enough electricity to power 1500 homes for 33 % of the time.” This would ensure that we understand that some other power source would be required for the other 77 % of the time when that unit was producing nothing! The other misleading fact about this statement is that industrial wind turbines, on average, only produce power for approximately 27 % of the time and in the UK a recent report http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf indicated an average production level of only 21 % was achieved in 2010. The additional problem as highlighted in a recent Aegent study is that “excess output would exacerbate or create a number of undesirable outcomes, including:

  • surplus base load generation
  • dispatched-off situations
  • subsidized exports”

Wind-energy & Extreme Weather

This same webpage further claims: “As long as there is wind, there will be wind power.

With good placement, a modern wind turbine will typically produce electricity 70 percent of the time. Enhanced technology and design improvements have also played a part in increasing the reliability of wind power allowing turbines to generate electricity in all but the most extreme weather conditions.”

The foregoing reference to “extreme weather” is exactly what happened in the UK late last year as those extreme conditions took hold and the industrial wind turbines froze and actually were consuming power rather then producing it as the Institute of Energy Research noted.  A similar event occurred in New Brunswick as reported here.

So just when we need the power, wind fails to provide it. In those situations we require 100% back-up power. So if CanWEA achieve their goal of 20 % of Canada’s electricity capacity by 2025 we will need 20% of other more reliable and dispatchable power generation to ensure we avoid blackouts.

Wind-energy is always Producing somewhere

This same CanWEA page goes on to ask the question: “But what happens when the wind isn’t blowing? Here it is important to remember that the wind never stops blowing everywhere at once. Experience from around the world has shown that a large number of wind turbines spread over a wide geographic area will actually produce a consistent amount of power. And the use of advanced wind and weather forecasting tools helps to make wind energy more predictable and more reliable than ever before.”

That claim to reliability is no doubt something that the UK and New Brunswick grid operators would dispute. The assertion that a geographic spread of wind turbines “produce a consistent amount of power” has been disputed by many and in Ontario’s case an Energy Probe study going back to 2006 indicated that assertion was not backed up with facts. The study went on to state that wide geographic disbursement of wind turbines would cause considerable transmission and grid related problems and add to costs.

Wind-energy Adaptability

The next CanWEA webpage I wish to explore is this one: where they carry this message; “The modern wind turbine was built to adapt to all kinds of wind and weather conditions. Turbines can even be installed on water; they don’t need to be just on land.”

As noted above the first part of this claim is a stretch based on what happened in UK and New Brunswick and no doubt other areas of the world.

Wind-energy as a Cuisinart

The next part of this page is presumably meant to educate us and has this brief description; “Wind turbines generally consist of large blades mounted on tall towers attached to a horizontal shaft. As the wind blows, these blades cause the shaft to turn. The shaft is attached to a generator located inside the head, or “nacelle” of the turbine, which generates electricity. Cables carry this electrical current to transmission lines that then carry it to homes and businesses. Modern turbines rotate quite slowly, at an average speed of between 18 to 20 revolutions per minute.”

What this fails to tell us is that “revolutions per minute” do not tell us that the tips of the blades are travelling at a speed of as much as 200 kilometres and hour and they are very effective at chopping up birds and destroying bats as this webpage highlights for only one of the many industrial wind turbine sites spread throughout the province.

Wind-energy Availability

The next piece of this webpage carries this message; “Maintenance issues are also much smaller on a wind farm. At some conventional power plants, the entire plant may have to be shut down for repairs whereas at a wind farm, maintenance takes place one turbine at a time. This has led to availability factors (referring to the percent of time that a turbine is available to capture the wind) of 98% – much higher than conventional forms of energy production.”

I am not sure what CanWEA are trying to accomplish here beyond putting an impressive percentage on the page. Availability means absolutely nothing without wind to turn the blades and it is a fact that the actual production from the turbines is on average only 27%. If an educator was to mark CanWEA he/she would give them an “A+” for attendance but an “F” for their paper. I also find it interesting that when I enquired about the Wolfe Island industrial wind installation and why all of their units were producing absolutely no power over a three day period during a recent hot spell I received the following response; “We’re currently performing annual substation maintenance at the site (a scheduled 3-day outage) to ensure park and grid reliability. We perform this in low-wind seasons; however, we need to schedule months in advance. Hope this helps,”

What caught my eye about this reply was both the fact that they had shut down all of the turbines and also admitted that the summer was one of the “low-wind seasons”. So the claim to be able to provide maintenance “one turbine at a time” is a stretch and the disclosure of “low wind-seasons” by one of their members is an admission that they will be unreliable during the peak demand summer season.

Wind-energy to reduce Global Emissions

This CanWEA webpage had this bon mot; “Canada’s electricity system is at a crossroads. Demand is rising and many power plants are approaching retirement. We need more power, and concerns over climate change, air pollution and acid rain damage mean we have to look at cleaner ways to generate it.”

Well, I have a shock for CanWEA. Demand is not rising. In fact Ontario consumed 144 TWh in 2003 and in 2010 we consumed only 142 TWh. Demand has actually fallen, both as a result of the recession and as a result of the loss of major energy consuming industries. Even before the recession a report by the OFL in 2007 indicated Ontario had lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the prior 4 years.

Wind-energy to prevent Climate Change

CanWEA go on to state; “Wind is an obvious part of the solution. Wind is quick to install and produces no air pollution or greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. In fact, in light of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warns that in order to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change, we need to get global emissions to peak and start to decline before 2020, wind energy may well be the best solution right now. “In this critical period between now and the end of the next decade, we are really it on the supply side and that is a pretty large responsibility,” says Steve Sawyer, the secretary-general of the Global Wind Energy Council.”

This is at the heart of CanWEA’s principal argument-saving us from global warming because “wind energy” will get global emissions to decline. That premise was recently taken to task by a report from Bentek Energy which concluded that claims made on CO 2 and other noxious reductions by the wind industry are “vastly overstated” and wind energy is not “a cost-effective solution for reducing carbon dioxide if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton.”

Wind-energy as a replacement for Nuclear power-Globally

This same webpage asks the question: ‘What are our choices? Nuclear power has no emissions, but for the technology just to maintain its current market share, 150-180 new plants will need to be built between now and 2020. The complexities around getting those facilities permitted and constructed make it unlikely.”

So CanWEA have gone global with the above statement unless there are proposal that haven’t yet hit the media about plans to construct these plants in Canada. Are they suggesting that industrial wind turbines could take the place of these 150-180 new plants being constructed around the globe or just the 16 in Ontario that have a rated capacity of about 12,000 MW? Aegent Energy in an April 2011 release estimated that just replacing the nuclear plants in Ontario with industrial wind turbines concluded “Given the operating characteristics of wind generation, 34,000 MW of wind capacity and 10,000 MW of natural gas-fired generation capacity would be required to replace Ontario’s nuclear.” and “That amount of wind capacity would require 14,200 km2 of land – the equivalent of a strip 14 km in width around the shorelines of southwestern Ontario.” The Aegent report estimates that 11,333 turbines would be required so if that assumption is applied to the 150-180 plants mentioned in the CanWEA website that would represent over 120,000 turbines and take up over 150,000 km2. .assuming the “150-180 new plants” are of a like output.

Wind-energy doesn’t have “long planning horizons”

This page goes on to say: “New large hydro is a possibility; it faces long planning horizons and fierce public opposition to the environmental devastation caused by flooding huge tracts of land. Small run-of-river hydro facilities have fewer impacts, but are becoming increasingly difficult to access.”

It is amusing that CanWEA would include the phrase “fierce public opposition” presumably inferring that industrial wind installations don’t face similar opposition. The difference between any new large hydro and industrial wind turbines in Ontario is that the GEA gives the wind developers a carte blanche on the “fierce public opposition” as it gives them an easy ride through the bureaucracy of the various ministries that bless their developments. Fierce public opposition does not carry the same weight with the authorities when wind development is being considered in Ontario!

Wind-energy will be cheaper then Natural Gas

Yet another statement on this page has the following; “Natural gas generating plants are easy to build, flexible to operate and produce fewer emissions than coal, but dwindling supplies and uncertainty over what fuel prices will be next year, much less 20 years down the road, make it a risky choice. Other renewable energy technologies, like solar power and ocean energy, are not yet mature enough to make a substantial contribution over the short term.”

Again the fact that natural gas supplies in North America are not dwindling but increasing seems to have escaped the attention of CanWEA and this has kept the price of natural gas at relatively low levels. For that reason new gas generating plants are the energy of choice in the US and are replacing old coal generation plants because they are more dependable and have ramping capability unlike wind. In 2010 new gas generation plants coming on stream were almost 50% more then wind in rated capacity and even new coal generation plants were higher then wind. If one factors in wind’s low delivery abilities at say; 27% they fall even further behind.

CanWEA’s Advertising Offensive

Criticism on the effects of industrial wind turbines are occurring globally and in Ontario the critics have been both vocal and organized. The criticism’s have universally been about;

  • human health,
  • economic costs,
  • wildlife deaths,
  • declining property values, and
  • esthetics/tourism.

As more turbines are erected more critics emerge and those critics now consist of the medical profession, engineers, nature groups, real estate agents, acoustical specialists, economists, and municipal and provincial politicians. On the issue of human health a recent peer reviewed paper by Carl V. Phillips published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society indicates “There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.” which is in sharp contrast to the CanWEA claims.

In an effort to counter all of the negative media, CanWEA has embarked on an aggressive campaign which has included support from ENGOs, formal polls with leading questions, commissioned a noise study, an economic study and ran a series of ads on various radio stations and in regional newspapers.

Print Ads

In the latter case they have used several people to carry their message containing such catchy phrases as; “wind energy is about land stewardship”, “my family supports wind energy”, “the wind facility has also brought in some tourists who are curious to see what it’s all about.”, “wind energy is having an incredibly positive impact on our community.” and “ I would say the wind development has been a real boost for the whole community.”

What the ads fail to say is that hundreds of people have had their health affected in some manner, many have abandoned their homes and farms (5 in one small community alone), several have had their properties acquired and forced to sign gag orders and a number of them live in their basements to try and avoid the effect of the noise and vibrations from the turbines. The print ads also often describe a particular industrial wind development and claim it will produce “enough zero-emission electricity to power” a given number of homes.

When I do the math on the electricity they claim they will produce I found that the ads are saying the turbines will operate at a much higher efficiency level (34/36%) then other industrial wind sites in Ontario.

One of the individuals in the ads; Jutta Splettstoesser whose family farm hosts turbines, has embarked on a organized campaign as a “friend” of wind-energy and is being helped out (administratively) by CanWEA & OSEA. The latter was just awarded a $125,000 “education” grant by the Community Power Fund under the Community Energy Partnerships Program which is funded by the Ontario Power Authority and paid for by the ratepayers of this province. The fact that the Executive Director of the CFP worked with the Executive Director of OSEA in the past is simply a coincidence?

Amazingly enough Jutta’s husband was reputedly caught removing anti-wind signs. Another individual in one of the ads is the Mayor of Chatham-Kent and a former MPP when Bob Rae led the NDP to victory. I can only assume that he is still a supporter of the NDP and therefore favours wind turbines. Back in 2009 he was front and centre when CanWEA presented the Municipality with the 2009 National Group Leadership Award. That many people in his municipality suffer adverse health effects from wind turbines apparently is not his concern.


The claims by CanWEA published on their website and in their advertisements clearly border on unsupportable statements of fact and should be reviewed by the Competition Bureau and Advertising Standards Canada. Perhaps it is time for CanWEA to come clean!

Parker Gallant, July 31, 2011

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

The North Gower Wind Action Group Inc. is a corporate member of Wind Concerns Ontario Inc.

Read Full Post »

Here from the Orangeville Citizen is a story in advance of a protest scheduled for Orangeville, Ontario, Saturday November 27. People in Orangeville are quite aware of industrial wind turbines and their effects, as they are surrounded by them in Shelburne, Amaranth and Melancthon, with hundreds more planned.

Note that CanWEA is now taking a different approach: instead of disparaging protesters, they seem to be saying, This shouldn’t happen! This is GOOD for you!

Here is the story by Wes Keller.

Protest march Saturday

2010-11-25 / Front Page
Experts divided on wind turbines’ effects
By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter

Whatever the reasons, the gloves are off in the fight for and against industrial-scale wind turbines, but the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) is urging its membership to work closely with communities to gain back a broad base of public support and the Ontario Government is forging ahead in its support of the turbines as a key element in a greener energy future.

The provincial commitment is evidenced by a Long Term Energy Plan announced Tuesday. Although nuclear energy would provide 50% of electricity under the new plan, wind, solar and biomass sources would provide 18%, with most of it from wind.

Perhaps nowhere is the fight more visible than here in Dufferin County, where a group calling itself Whittington Coalition for our Right to a Healthy Environment (WCORHE) has organized a second protest parade from Orangeville’s Rotary Park along Second Avenue and Broadway to MPP Sylvia Jones’s office at 10 a.m. this Saturday.

Oddly, perhaps, what is turning into a major issue locally is born out of a relatively minor installation, at least in respect of scale. But it has raised a number of considerations, not the least of which might be the adequacy of setbacks as defined under the Green Energy Act (GEA).

Betsy Collin, whose million dollar residence on the Mono-Amaranth Townline would fall under the shadow of the three 2.3-megawatt turbines in Amaranth, questions the GEA’s standard minimum setback of 550-metres without reference to the size of the turbine.

It isn’t the first time the role of the GEA has come under scrutiny in Dufferin. Not long ago, Melancthon council learned of a farmer’s co-operative by way of a news release from the proponent.

It is the sort of thing that CanWEA president Robert Hornung says shouldn’t happen. The GEA, he said, “does clearly contain requirements and provisions,” he said, but those are the minimum standards of engaging in consultation.

To overcome that problem, CanWEA has been drafting a document, Best Practises for Community Engagement and Consultation, a principle of which would be to “consult early and often.”

Consultation, however, is not going to overcome perceptions of adverse health effects from industrial wind farms, the other thrust of WCORHE’s opposition to the Whittington project’s setbacks, and Wind Concerns Ontario’s (WCO) opposition generally.

CanWEA, along with its U.S. counterpart, a year ago had established a seven-member panel, including experts in the fields of medicine, audiology, acoustics, environmental and public health from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Denmark.

That panel, in a report co-authored by Dr. Robert McCunney, based on a review of a large body of scientific literature on sound and health effects, and specifically with regard to sound produced by wind turbines, concluded that sounds or vibrations emitted from wind turbines have no adverse effect on human health.

“The panel’s multi-disciplinary approach helped to fully explore the many published scientific reports related to the potential impact of wind turbines on people’s health,” said Dr. McCunney, an occupational/ environmental medicine physician and research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans.”

More recently, a WCOsponsored panel conducted what it called The First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects in Picton, Ontario.

“It brought together American, British and Canadian acousticians, physicists, physicians, and medical researchers. The audience came from across Ontario and the United States and from as far as Australia,” says WCO.

Briefly stated, that panel disagreed with almost all the findings of the one assembled by CanWEA.

Now, if WCO can’t win on the battlefield of health it will fight on the financial and political fronts. In a harshly worded letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty, WCO president John Laforet says: “Over 70 municipalities across Ontario, representing more than two million people that have moved motions of moratorium in support of Wind Concerns Ontario’s position are being ignored.

“The government is already being sued over the Green Energy Act, and now you’re setting yourself up to be defeated at the polls because of it.

“We are developing a list of vulnerable rural ridings held by your party for our members to target in 2011 if your government continues to ignore these 70 municipalities and Wind Concerns Ontario members concerns.” Mr. Laforet said.

WCO and its allies, meantime, are circulating a study by one professional engineer, William Palmer, which says Ontario householders cold be faced with increases in electricity costs of about $4,000 annually.

Under Tuesday’s LTEP, home energy costs are expected to rise by 3.5% annually over the next 20 years – effectively doubling them – and industrial costs would rise by 2.7% yearly in the same period.

The Palmer study says the cost to the Ontario economy “will be at least $14 billion per year and will have a significant adverse impact on the Ontario economy and cause widespread hardship.”

But CanWEA views it differently. “Wind energy’s growing contribution to Ontario’s electricity supply is already creating jobs and economic opportunities for manufacturers, service providers, landowners and rural municipalities in Ontario,” said Mr. Hornung.

“Surveys have indicated that there are currently more than 1,300 people employed full-time directly in wind energy in Ontario, thanks to the Green Energy Act – and studies have indicated that for every new direct job there are two indirect jobs created. We have only begun to scratch the surface in terms of potential for new jobs and investment.”

CanWEA says every 1,000 MW of newly installed wind generation capacity represents approximately $2.75 billion in private sector investment, 1,000 new jobs, and enough electricity to power 300,000 Canadian homes. It claims it also provides a minimum of $3 million in annual lease payments for farmers and other rural landowners, as well as a similar amount in new taxes for rural municipalities.

However, opponents note that municipalities could actually lose tax revenue because of the combination of a $40,000 cap per megawatt on the turbines’ assessments and lowered assessments on nearby farm and residential properties.


To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »