May 31, 2009

Wind Industry has Inside Connections with Government

Posted in Uncategorized at 8:42 pm by sosren

The following news story on June 10/09 from the ChronicleHerald.ca is fairly self explanatory:  Excerpts are higlighted which show a confidential connection to Ministries at the highest levels of our Federal Government.  The Wind Industry also enjoys the same “cozy” relationship with our Provincial Government.

 
OTTAWA – Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.

Mr. Prentice is the MP for Calgary-Centre North, home to much of Canada’s oil industry. Mr. Harper also represents a Calgary riding.

Ms. Raitt made the comment as she and Ms. MacDonnell were being driven around British Columbia on Jan. 30, a few days after the budget.

The conversation was inadvertently recorded on Ms. MacDonnell’s digital recorder and eventually came into the possession of The Chronicle Herald.

Ms. MacDonnell tells Ms. Raitt that CanWEA, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, had sent a letter to its supporters complaining about the lack of funding for wind energy in the budget.

“I’m not going to put up with the whining of CanWEA, and the reason being is that they’re not utilizing the money that is there now,” says Ms. Raitt. “And until these things don’t start getting built.”

Ms. MacDonnell appears to read from the letter from CanWEA: “We know that the proposal was actively promoted and pushed by Minister Raitt. In fact, it is our understanding that it was actually part of the budget until it was taken out very late in the process.”

Ms. Raitt responds: “No. No. I would never have told that.”

“You wouldn’t have told her,” says Ms. MacDonnell. “Is that true?”

“Yes,” says Ms. Raitt. “It is true.”

“So somebody is talking,” says Ms. MacDonnell.

“Someone in Finance talked,” says Ms. Raitt. “Am I going to get blamed for this?”

Ms. Raitt was worried about the prime minister’s reaction to the fact that CanWEA was somehow aware of budget talks, which are supposed to be kept in confidence.

“I certainly didn’t know the fact that it came out late in the process,” she said.

“I would have no way of knowing that. I understand that’s what happened. My suspicion is, what I told you, that Jim took the money for his clean energy plan. They said ‘Ah, they don’t need it.’ There should never have been any choice. No one asked my opinion on it. If they had, I would have lobbied. Maybe that’s why I’m invited to P and P (priority and planning, a cabinet committee). Oh, the prime minister’s not going to like that.”

Ms. Raitt at first blames the normally tight-lipped Finance officials for leaking the information. Later in the conversation, though, she and Ms. MacDonnell seem to agree that it may have been Natural Resources officials who let CanWEA know that the money had been there but was pulled.

“Those quotes clearly point to the fact that I’m on the team,” says Ms. Raitt. “And I am. That’s what happened. I don’t have that pull. Period.”

“Do you think someone on the EnerCan side did it?” she asks Ms. MacDonnell.

“That would probably be the most likely explanation, that they’re trying to do damage control with the different groups,” she says. “’We did it. We pushed. We brought it. It was there.’”

“’The minister brought it to Flaherty,’” says Ms. Raitt. “I didn’t push it hard at the table though.”

They go on to discuss problems with wind energy funding, with Ms. Raitt complaining that wind energy producers aren’t accessing federal funding that is already available – a subsidy based on kilowatt production.

“If they can’t finance it, and they can’t get their (environmental approvals), and they can’t buy their equipment, then it doesn’t go further and they don’t get the kilowatt cent,” she says.

“So I asked Tyler what’s the sunset? How long do people have to hold onto money? And I don’t know what the answer is yet. But there’s $862 million still waiting for this project.

“I’m upset that the ministry, that the department, told people that that was going to be oversubscribed by a certain date. That’s built this whole fear. It was a $1.5-billion announcement, started in ’07. No one would ever think the funding would run out unless they were told it would run out. So that’s my sadness.”

CanWEA complained publicly about the lack of new money in a news release after the budget.

“Our ability to compete with the United States for investment in wind energy projects and manufacturing opportunities will decline as a result of this budget,” said president Robert Hornung.

“At a time when the United States has made measures to support renewable energy deployment a key component of its plans to stimulate the U.S. economy, Canada is moving in the opposite direction.”

CanWEA had called for a $600-million fund to expand wind energy. It declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.

On May 19, Ms. Raitt announced the $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil patch at a speech at the University of Alberta, saying the money would encourage “new technologies now to help protect and preserve our environment for future generations.”

Mr. Prentice’s office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister’s office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.

Ms. Raitt’s office also declined to comment.

Speculation about the recording has been rife since the Canadian Press reported Tuesday that Ms. Raitt mentioned Mr. Prentice on the recording, apparently because Conservative officials knew about the comments and were bracing themselves.

Ms. Raitt’s comments about the budget wrangling were made on the same five-hour recording ………………………………………………………

Advertisements

May 30, 2009

Did you Know Bill 150 known as the Green Energy Act…

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:08 pm by sosren

  • Takes away your civil right to object to any infrastructure project proposed for your neighbourhood regardless of impact on you and your family.
  • Strips municipalities of their planning protection rights, effectively re-zones all of Ontario into an Industrial zone.
  • Severely curtails environmental rights.
  • Eliminates the need for proper Environmental Assessment thus putting Threatened and Endangered Species at risk.
  • Eliminates previously protected designated Green Spaces and gives them to Industrial Wind Turbine developers.
  • Excludes Ontarians from any say or objection in the establishment or location of industrial wind turbine plants.
  • Systematically Silences Ontario citizens .
  • Fails to address health issues or any impacts on residents whatsoever
  • Bestows the Energy “Czar” power over pricing and procurement.
  • Awards aid to commercial wind-turbine developers, whose profits will come exclusively from public funds (guaranteed 20 years).
  • Enacts a ”reverse onus” clause whereby developers will no longer be accountable, but rather it is the “victim” who must prove harm by doing their own costly environmental assessment. The victim is allowed only 15 days to complete.
  • Infringes on our right to fair government, health and safety, and erodes trust and checks and balances in the system.
  • Raises your electricity bill by an estimated 30%
  • Search and Seizure – Grants the government the right to enter a place of business without a warrant to ensure conformance to energy audit standards with fines of up to $25,000.

Green Energy Act Revises Wind Setbacks……WHY??

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:32 am by sosren

The Title of the Revisons to the Green Energy Act is as follows:

 

Proposed Content for the Renewable Energy Approval
Regulation under the Environmental Protection Act
“Proposed Content for the Renewable Energy Approval Regulation under the Environmental Protection Act”

 

On page 13 the following “Setback” revision is noted:

“Setback” refers to the distance in metres separating the centre of a structure, referred to as a Point of Reception in the Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (October 2008), and the base of the closest wind turbine. The noise emission level of a wind turbine must be the guaranteed values of the Sound Power Level corresponding to 95% rated power output. Should a Sound Power Level rating for a turbine fall between categories, it should be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

It is proposed that if a proposed wind energy generation facility has 26 or more turbines or has turbines with sound power level rating of more than 107 dBA, the proponent shall submit a noise study to the Ministry of the Environment consistent with Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (October 2008).

It is proposed that if the wind turbine project proponent should be interested in obtaining a lower setback than indicated for turbines it would have the option to complete a site-specific noise study consistent with the Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (October 2008) and the noise level limit of 40 dBA at the nearest Point of Reception. Under no circumstances can a site-specific study result in a setback lower than the minimum 550 metres.

It is proposed that the proponent will provide a frequency chart from the turbine manufacturer showing all tones generated by the turbine.”

 

WHY???????????

That is the question that hundreds of Ontario Citizens are asking themselves and their provincial reps since this announcement.  These poor souls are living amongst the hundreds of 400 foot tall Wind Turbines already installed and operating much closer than 550 metres away from their homes.

Has the Provincial Government now just “discovered” that any turbines closer than 550 metres to a living human being is dangerous?

We all know there are Health problems associated with Low Frequency Noise from existing Wind facilities and we have all heard the sad and tragic stories of many of our neighbours who have endured pain and suffering with no empathy whatsoever from the Wind Industry or Polticians who “rubber stamp” these projects and then go on to count the cash crop they have just planted.

WHY????

Until that question is answered we DEMAND that FULL  HALT  NOW is placed on any further development of Wind Facilities in our Province until that one question is satisfactorily answered!

May 20, 2009

Come Clean on Truth about Cap and Trade

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:23 pm by sosren

 

Posted By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN FP Comment June 3/09

There was a a definite “Alice in Wonderland” quality to Premier Dalton McGuinty’s announcement last week that Ontario is moving ahead with a cap-and-trade carbon market, ostensibly to fight global warming.

We still don’t know, for example, what the “cap” on total greenhouse gas emissions will be, to what sectors of the economy the cap-and-trade market will apply and whether the government will give away carbon credits to industry for free, or auction them off.

To claim you’re introducing a cap-and-trade market without answering those basic questions is nonsense.

Environment Minister John Gerretsen’s statement in the Legislature about cap-and-trade was a study in bafflegab.

Nowhere did it come close to explaining what a cap-and-trade market is — essentially a stock market in which the stock is a “carbon credit,” allowing the bearer to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Nor did he explain that by imposing a new charge on industry for emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the ultimate effect will be to take billions of dollars out of the pockets of ordinary Ontarians, one of the dumbest things you can do in a province that is already suffering from a deep recession.

Indeed, some of the answers politicians gave under media questioning caused me to doubt whether they even understand what a cap-and-trade market is.

The Canadian Press, for example, reported McGuinty “dodged questions about whether Ontario’s worst polluters — its coal-fired (power) generation plants –will be forced to bear extra costs under the system, which could be passed on to taxpayers.”

Huh? The answer to that is of course they will and of course those costs will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of higher electricity prices, unless

McGuinty plans to exempt these plants from cap-and-trade, which would turn the entire exercise into a complete farce.

Meanwhile, interim Progressive Conservative Leader Bob Runciman said he was worried cap-and-trade will choke Ontario’s already reeling manufacturing sector with more government regulation and hike costs to consumers through a “cap-and-tax” program.

 

 

 

Arguing “the devil’s in the details,” Runciman seemed to be implying you could, in theory, devise a cap-and-trade program that doesn’t raise costs for industry and, ultimately, the consumer.

In reality, you can’t. Once you impose a new charge on emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on industry, there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay and inevitably that someone will be the public.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath criticized McGuinty for not moving faster on cap-and-trade, adding “let’s get something happening and let’s get it happening sooner rather than later.”

Does she not understand that if Ontario moves in advance of the Canadian and U. S. governments on cap-and-trade, it will be imposing a new burden on the province’s already reeling manufacturing sector, resulting in the loss of more jobs?

How can the NDP stand up in the Legislature day after day complaining about job losses and then urge the government to rush headlong into a policy that will make them even worse?

The government’s information package touted “tree planting” as a legitimate “carbon offset” project by which companies can earn the right to emit more carbon dioxide if they invest in environmentally responsible projects.

But tree planting has been widely discredited as an effective carbon offset because of the huge number of trees that have to be planted to offset emissions, the length of time it takes for trees to absorb carbon dioxide and the fact that when trees die they release their stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

The bottom line is the only thing a cap-and-trade market does — just like a carbon tax — is raise the price of burning fossil fuels for energy, which means raising the price of almost everything we buy, given that we use fossil fuels to generate electricity, grow food, manufacture goods, heat our homes and provide transportation.

It’s time for our politicians to come clean with the public about that.

May 19, 2009

Analysis of Proposed Content for the Renewable Energy Approval Regulation under the Environmental Protection Act

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:34 pm by sosren

Analysis of Proposed Content for the Renewable Energy Approval Regulation under the Environmental Protection Act

Download document here

General Observations

 On the Ministry Of Environment web site John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment implies the new regulations “meet human health and environment standards.”http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/news/2009/060901.php

There is no mention of human health and safety in the proposed regulations.

No Observations
1 The draft regulations are significantly incomplete, ambiguous and inadequate.  It is impossible for the public to comment on such an incomplete document. These inadequacies will open the regulations up to interpretation and exploitation.
2 The definition of receptors is unconstitutional and limits current and future use of a non-participant’s land. The proposed setbacks and noise guidelines for receptors must be based on property lines not buildings. Having wind turbines emitting 105+ dBA less than 150 m from a non-participant property boundary is unacceptable.  The combined noise levels of the turbines would be dangerously high to both humans and animals.In addition the proposed setbacks from a non-participant’s boundary are inadequate for safety issues such as runaway turbine disintegration and ice throw. The proposed setbacks and noise guidelines for receptors must be from lot lines as rural properties have ponds, walking trails, livestock, etc… that maximize the use of the property to the outer boundaries putting non-participants at risk.  Turbine fire is also a common risk putting non-participant woodlots and homes at risk.
3 Premier Dalton McGuinty promised Ontario families that“The province will be able to use the most up-to-date scientific research and information from other jurisdictions to develop best-in-class standards for wind farm setbacks.”The proposed regulations are not “best-in-class”.

 

The noise limit of 40 dBA is unacceptably high. To subject children and adults to this level of industrial noise pollution day and night is a risk to human health.

People will not be able to have windows open forcing them to use air conditioning increasing their carbon emissions.

To compare the 40 dBA of a wind turbine to a library may be technically accurate but it is deliberately misleading.  Wind turbines generate a broad spectrum of low-intensity noise.

In their noise guidance, The World Health Organization recommends 30 dBA as a limit for “a good night’s sleep”. However, they also suggest that guidance for noise with predominating low frequencies be less than 30 dBA.

The World Health Organization also recommends “less than 35 dBA in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions.”

4 The regulations for low frequency noise and infrasound are missing and hence public comment is impossible.
5 There is neither mandatory vigilance nor long term surveillance protocols for issues related to health.
6 There is no mandatory dispute or issue resolution protocol.
7 There are no criteria specified for the shut-down conditions for land-based wind energy facilities.
8 The approval process for Renewable Energy Approval is incomplete.
9 There is no resolution process established for dealing with existing turbine projects where victims are reporting adverse health effects.
10 There are no mechanisms are in place to deal with electrical pollution or shadow flicker?
11 The regulations must require proponents to use “Best Available Technology” (BAT) iethe use of remote noise monitoring stations that are located at strategic points along the adjacent property lines that can alter operating parameters such as blade angle, rpm, etc. to maintain compliance with the criteria.

General Questions 

1. Who drafted the regulations and what are their qualifications?
2. What risks to human health have been identified by MOE?
3 What risks to human health have been addressed by the proposed regulations?
4 What studies were conducted to ensure all risks to health are addressed in the regulations?
5 Are ESRs no longer required?  If so, what mechanism is in place to address adverse health concerns?
6 When can the public comment on future regulations that are not yet developed as detailed in the ‘Specific Issues’ portion of this document?
7 When will the missing criteria be established, before or after a project is operational?

 Specific Issues

No Section Page Description Issue
1 Part I 2 It is anticipated that the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure will bring forward a regulation under the Electricity Act, 1998 to clarify that “associated or ancillary equipment, systems, and technologies” will include transmission connecting a proposed renewable energy facility to the existing transmission or distribution electricity grid, and roads and other transportation infrastructure (e.g. access roads, ferry dock) required to connect the renewable energy project to existing transportation systems. These associated or ancillary equipment, systems, and technologies will be reviewed as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application. 1. Incomplete Regulations – when will these regulations be developed? Cannot develop new projects until regulations in place. 2. Clarification– Is this intended to deal with the issue of stray voltage and dirty electricity? 
2 Part I 2 It is anticipated that the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure will be defining the terms “biomass”, “biogas” and “biofuel” in a proposed regulation under theElectricity Act, 1998. In defining these terms it is expected that the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure will confirm existing usage of these terms to exclude energy generated from non-organic waste. 1. Incomplete Regulations – when will these regulations be developed? Cannot develop new projects until regulations in place. 
3 Part II 3 Renewable Energy Approval application form 1. Incomplete Regulations – No requirement that proponent identify and address of risks to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment.2.Clarification – Are ESRs no longer required?  If so, what is replacing it?
4 Part II 4 Posting of proposal notice on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry 1. Issue – No requirement that proponent notify public of proposal.  Public would have to monitor the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry on a daily basis.2.Incomplete Regulations – Length of public comment period not defined
5 Part II 4 Should a project be approved, notice of the decision will be given to the municipality where the project is located and to any aboriginal community that was consulted.It is proposed that additional public notification of the decision on the project be made in a suitable manner (e.g. a local newspaper). 1. Incomplete Regulations – Does not specify who is required to place notice to municipality or aboriginal community or public.2.  Incomplete Regulations – Does not specify time frame of when notice has to be given.
6 Part II 4 Transition 1. Clarification – Are these projects subject to new setback regulations?
7 Part II 5 A third party must request an appeal within 15 days of the notice of the decision respecting the Renewable Energy Approval being posted on the Environmental Registry.  Under the Environmental Protection Act the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) has a regulated timeline for making a decision on a third party appeal. Should the timeline for an Environmental Review Tribunal decision not be met, the Director’s decision is deemed to be confirmed.It is proposed that the time period be 9 months from the date that a hearing is requested to the issuance of a decision by the Tribunal. 1. Issue – A third party may not be aware that Renewable Energy Approval being posted on the Environmental Registry. Public would have to monitor the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry on a daily basis.See related Item No 5    2. Issue – Unacceptable that if timeline for an Environmental Review Tribunal decision not be met, the Director’s decision is deemed to be confirmed.
8 Part II 5 It is proposed that renewable energy project proponents will be required to provide public notice within no less than a 1.5 km radius of the proposed renewable energy generation facility at a preliminary stage of project planning. 1. Incomplete Regulations – does not specify where the 1.5 km radius is to be measured from?1.Inconsistent Regulation – See item 12. Should be required to provide public notice within no less than a 3.0 km radius of the proposed renewable energy generation facility at a preliminary stage of project planning.
9 Part II 5 The proponent will be required to provide documentation of all community consultation efforts, and explain how it attempted to address issues raised during the community consultation. 1. Incomplete Regulations  No minimum documentation specified related to this community consultation.There is however minimum documentation specified for Municipal Consultation andAboriginal Consultation see Part II page 6 and 7.This minimum documentation requirement should apply to the general public as well.
10 Part III 13 Land-based Wind Turbine Facilities – Noise Setbacks 1. Ambiguous Regulation – Unclear if noise limit of 40dBA is the test or if the specified setback distance is the test. Are the setback distances minimum requirements and may be further back to meet the 40dBA limit?2. Ambiguous Regulation – Unclear if the proponent is required to demonstrate project is in compliance with noise limit of 40dBA.Why is a noise study not required for all projects? When does the noise study take place, before or after the project is launched?3.Inadequate Regulation – Point of reception must be border of non participating property.  People not structures are receptors and are at risk. Protecting only structures limits human use of land.
11 Part III 13 Proposed setbacks in the noise matrix are consistent with the Ministry of the Environment’sNoise Guidelines for Wind Farms(October 2008) 1. Ambiguous Statement – What does this statement mean?
12 Part III 13 In order to account for the combined contribution from neighbouring wind farms when determining the setback, it is proposed that the number of turbines considered for determining the appropriate setback include all wind turbines found within the 3 km radius of the Point of Reception, including those turbines by other proponents existing or planned. Inconsistent Regulation – See item 8. It is proposed that renewable energy project proponents will be required to provide public notice within no less than a 1.5 km radius of the proposed renewable energy generation facility at a preliminary stage of project planning.
13 Part III 13 Setback Matrix 1. Inadequate Regulation – How is this matrix affected with a mix of turbine models with different sound power levels?
14 Part III 13 “Setback” refers to the distance in metres separating the centre of a structure, referred to as a Point of Reception in the Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (October 2008), and the base of the closest wind turbine. 1. Inadequate Regulation – Point of reception must be border of non participating property.  Humans not structures are receptors that are at risk. Children and adults must be able to enjoy all of their property without be subjected to over 105 dBA of industrial noise pollution.Protecting only structures limits human use of land.
15 Part III 14 The noise emission level of a wind turbine must be the guaranteed values of the Sound Power Level corresponding to 95% rated power output. Should a Sound Power Level rating for a turbine fall between categories, it should be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. Clarification – Who is responsible for verifying guaranteed values of the Sound Power Level?  Is there an independent third party certification using an approved international standard.2.Inadequate Regulation – Why only 95% rated power output. Should be 100% rate power output. 
16 Part III 14 It is proposed that if a proposed wind energy generation facility has 26 or more turbines or has turbines with sound power level rating of more than 107 dBA, the proponent shall submit a noise study to the Ministry of the Environment consistent with Ministry of the Environment’sNoise Guidelines for Wind Farms(October 2008). 1. Inadequate Regulation – A once size fits all approach to siting of wind turbines cannot be used.  Terrains, siting, and atmospheric conditions can have a significant impact on wind turbine noise.  All proposed wind energy generation facilities must be required to submit a noise study to the Ministry of the Environment consistent with Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (October 2008).
16 Part III 14 It is proposed that if the wind turbine project proponent should be interested in obtaining a lower setback than indicated for turbines it would have the option to complete a site-specific noise study consistent with the Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms(October 2008) and the noise level limit of 40 dBA at the nearest Point of Reception. Under no circumstances can a site-specific study result in a setback lower than the minimum 550 metres. 1. Inadequate Regulation – wind turbine project proponent should not be allowed to obtain a lower setback than indicated in the matrix. 
16 Part III 14 It is proposed that the proponent will provide a frequency chart from the turbine manufacturer showing all tones generated by the turbine. 1. Incomplete Regulation – There is no acceptance criteria specified regarding this frequency chart.  What is the intended purpose?1.Clarification – Who is responsible for verifying guaranteed values of the frequency chart?  Is there an independent third party certification using an approved international standard.
17 Part III 14 Small-Scale Wind Turbine Noise RequirementsIt is also proposed that wind energy generation facilities with a name plate capacity greater than 3 kW with a sound power level rating less than 102 dBA will be required to submit the following information to allow the Ministry of the Environment to evaluate impacts: make, model, and year of turbine; turbine height; description of setting (e.g. rural, urban); proposed distance to nearest Point of Reception; and acoustic emissions of the wind turbine. 1. Clarification – Who is responsible for verifying information provided?  Is there an independent third party certification using approved international standards.  Point of reception must be border of non participating property.  Humans not structures are receptors that are at risk. Children and adults must be able to enjoy all of their property without be subjected to over 105 dBA of industrial noise pollution.Protecting only structures limits human use of land.2.Clarification – What is the acceptance criteria?
18 Part III 14 Transformer Substation Noise SetbacksIt is proposed that transformer substations serving the wind turbine project without noise abatement are to be located at least 1000 metres from the nearest Point of Reception, and transformer substations with an acoustic barrier at least 500 metres from the nearest Point of Reception. It is proposed that the acoustic barrier should break the line of sight from the transformer to Points of Reception – a solid barrier with a surface density at least 20 kg/m2 (kilograms per square metre. 1. Inadequate Regulation – Point of reception must be border of non participating property.  Humans not structures are receptors that are at risk. Children and adults must be able to enjoy all of their property without be subjected to unsafe levels of industrial noise pollution.Protecting only structures limits human use of land.2. Clarification – what scientific evidence was used to determine ‘a solid barrier with a surface density at least 20 kg/m2 (kilograms per square metre.
19  Part III 14 It is also proposed that if the wind turbine project proponent should be interested in obtaining a lower setback than indicated for transformer substations it would have the option to complete a site-specific noise study consistent with the Ministry of the Environment’s NPC-233 Noise Guideline and the noise level limit of 40 dBA at the Point of Reception. 1. Inadequate Regulation – wind turbine project proponent should not be allowed to obtain a lower setback than indicated for transformer substations.  Point of reception must be border of non participating property.  Humans not structures are receptors that are at risk. Children and adults must be able to enjoy all of their property without be subjected to unsafe levels of industrial noise pollution.Protecting only structures limits human use of land.
20  Part III 14 Setbacks from Roads, Railways, and Property LinesIt is also proposed that wind turbines must be setback a distance equal to or more than the turbine hub height plus blade length from all roads, railways, and property side and rear lot lines. 1. Inadequate Regulation – Setback for non participating property line must be the minimum setbacks specified for points of reception. See setback matrix chart Part III page 13.2.Clarification – No mention of setback from property front lot lines.3. Clarification– What is the distinction between property and lot lines?
21  Part III 15 It is proposed that land-based wind turbine projects must collect preliminary information about bird and bat habitat, determine and document site sensitivity through field investigation and identify proposed mitigation measures that may be required to address these impacts, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment on natural heritage (see Part III, section 5). 1. Inadequate Regulation – No minimum acceptance criteria detailed.  There is no reference to collection risks to the health of the population.
22  Part III 15 It is proposed that proponents will be required to submit a decommissioning plan, which would address, among other matters, procedures for equipment/building, dismantling and demolition, site restoration and final residue disposal. 1. Inadequate Regulation – Does not address issue of proponent not being in operation when decommissioning is required.  ie Change of ownership of the wind turbine facility, bankruptcy etc.Adecommissioning bond bank letter of credit must be posted by the proponent for the value required for each turbine,transmission station,etc.
23  Part III 15 Conditions of ApprovalIt is proposed that proponents would be required to monitor and address any perceptible infrasound (vibration) or low frequency noise as a condition of the Renewable Energy Approval. The Ministry of the Environment intends to develop technical guidance on the monitoring of infrasound and low frequency noise to assist proponents in this.   1. Incomplete Regulation – No minimum acceptance criteria or guidelines for perceptible infrasound (vibration) or low frequency noise. Cannot develop new projects until regulations in place.2. Inadequate Regulation – Appears to assume infrasound is the only cause of vibration.3.Incomplete Regulation – Does not define the term “perceptible”.4.Incomplete Regulation – Does not define the term “monitor and address”.
24 Part III 15 It is anticipated that in appropriate circumstances shut-down conditions for land-based wind energy facilities may also be addressed through conditions of approval. 1. Incomplete Regulation –Definition of the appropriate circumstances for shut-down conditions for land-based wind energy facilities is not detailed. Cannot develop new projects until regulations in place.2. Incomplete Regulation – No mention of a mandatory vigilance protocol where proponents are obligated by law to report and investigate all issues that are reported by participating and non participating residents.Formal vigilance and issue resolution protocols must be established.Long term surveillance must be established (up to 30 years) due to many unanswered questions about long term exposure to infants, children, the unborn whose mothers are exposed, families, workers such and technicians and farmers who work near wind turbines.

Premier “Insults and antagonizes” Citizens

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:54 am by sosren

On November 24, 2004, the McGuinty Liberals proudly announced the results of its Request for Proposals for 300 megawatts of renewable energy.  With noise guidelines developed from the advice of the wind energy industry the McGuinty Liberals started their assault on rural Ontario families. 

Soon emerged the first of many reports which described families suffering from adverse health effects related to wind turbine complexes.  

What did the McGuinty Liberals do in response to these reports?  The McGuinty Liberals ignored them and built more wind turbine complexes.  

Next were media reports of Ontario families forced to abandon their homes to save their health. 

Again the McGuinty Liberals ignored them and built more wind turbine complexes. 

Then Ontario families expressed their concerns regarding reported adverse health effects from wind turbine complex exposure.  

In response Premier McGuinty labelled these children, adults and seniors as NIMBYs and built more wind turbine complexes. 

Then 36 Ontario municipalities expressed their concern by passing resolutions requesting that the McGuinty Liberals study issues such as health risks associated with wind turbine complexes. 

The McGuinty Liberals ignored them and built more wind turbine complexes. 

Then a community based health survey was tabled which detailed 53 (now 77) victims reporting adverse health effect. 

The McGuinty Liberals ignored this and built more wind turbines.  

Then Victims of Wind, a community based victims support group was formed.  

The McGuinty Liberals ignored them and built more wind turbines.  

Now suddenly, again with the help of the wind energy industry, the McGuinty Liberals have developed new draft regulations which in the words of the Ministry of the Environment John Gerretsen “… best protect the health and safety of Ontarians”. 

Let it be known here and now that Ontario families will not accept regulations which have been developed based on the self serving opinions of the wind energy industry and the McGuinty Liberals. Ontario families demand that setbacks and noise regulations be based on independent epidemiology studies. 

It is time that the public know the truth about the harm the McGuinty Liberals have knowingly caused Ontario families.  It is time for a public inquiry.

May 18, 2009

Beware ‘cosy relationships’

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:00 pm by sosren

Climate hysterics need to stop focusing on foolish criticism, beware of hot air pushers 

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN 
Last Updated: 28th June 2009, 3:38am 

Often, when climate hysterics and global warming alarmists don’t like what I write — but don’t know what they’re talking about and thus have nothing intelligent to say in response — they come back with what they think is their knock-out punch. 

It’s always words to the effect of: “I hope you’re happy getting your blood money from the oil companies, Mr. Goldstein. How can you look at yourself in the mirror every morning? Don’t you care about your grandchildren? What happened to journalistic integrity?” 

Sometimes, they include in their missives their membership in some obscure organization, usually built around the idea that if we would all just give all our money to the government, or to some other collection of wise elites, and let them spend it for us on our behalf, the world would be a cleaner, safer and “cooler” (pardon the pun) place. 

That’s pretty much the theory behind carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, by the way. 

However, I’m afraid these rants don’t have the desired effect, because while their obvious aim is to make me angry via cheap smears, they just give me the giggles. 

That’s because the idea that I’ve been sitting here for over two years reading book after book, doing hours upon hours of independent research and pounding out column after column, trying to get people to calm down about anthropogenic climate change before we do something really stupid, all because I’m secretly in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, is simply, utterly, laughably absurd. Plus, it’s a lie. 

Besides, if you really want to skim the fiscal cream on the issue of man-made global warming these days, the last place you want to be is in the camp of the so-called skeptics, or, as I prefer to call us — sane. 

No, where you want to be if you’re in it for the money, is in like flint with the politicians, environmentalists and energy companies who constantly preach that they’re all about saving the planet, even if it costs us every last cent we own. 

Tom Adams, now an independent energy and environmental consultant, who for 11 years until 2007 was the highly respected executive director of Energy Probe, explains it all on a video he’s posted on YouTube titled the “Green Energy Act Paradox.” 

While we agree his presentation skills need work (sorry, Tom), Adams, intimately familiar with the passage of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Green Energy Act, succinctly lays out what’s going on. 

He describes the “cosy relationship” that exists among governments that want power, energy companies that want profits and environmental organizations that want more renewable energy, but also consulting fees and government funding. 

The way it works is governments hand out money to environmental organizations, who consult with and for energy companies, who together advise the government on what green energy laws should look like, and who then praise the government — ad nauseam — for the legislation they helped design when the government unveils it. 

And who are the losers in this neat little drama, you ask? 

Why, the public, of course, who are increasingly being presented with so-called “green” legislation in which all the key decisions have been made behind closed doors, long before the so-called public consultations begin. 

BLOWING CONCERN 

Take, for example, the increasing number of rural communities suddenly finding themselves prospective sites for industrial wind farms, while their concerns about the possible health affects from noise are ridiculed, requests for adequate setbacks dismissed as “nimbyism” (not-in-my-backyard-syndrome) and demands for full planning and environmental hearings ignored. 

Why? Usually because a bunch of politicians who don’t know the first thing about climate change, have convinced themselves they’ve somehow magically become experts in the field. 

Take Premier McGuinty. When he promised to close Ontario’s coal-fired power generating stations in the 2003 election — a promise he’s broken so many times since we’ve all lost count — the only problem he identified with those plants was their contribution to air pollution. Not a word about greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, which is just about all he talks about now. 

In reality, McGuinty could reduce the air pollution from those plants he now says he’ll close by 2014 — honest — by installing scrubbers. But the government’s argument now is this isn’t worth it, because that won’t simultaneously lower greenhouse gas emissions, the issue he didn’t mention in 2003. 

And these folks are going to “fix” our climate? Sure they are. 

When pigs fly. 

LORRIE.GOLDSTEIN@SUNMEDIA.CA