A dedicated community group that believes the heart & soul of South Algonquin is worth protecting

Home

Maps

Sign Petition

The Facts

Write these people

Opinions

Articles

Photos

Contact

Donate

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ALGONQUIN: GREEN AGAINST GREEN

What if you can't see the forest for the wind farm?

MURRAY CAMPBELL  mcampbell@globeandmail.com   December 29, 2008

The only certain thing about the battle shaping up on the edge of Algonquin Park is that the green side will win. The question, however, is which green side will be the victor?

In a conflict suited to the times, the Ontario government is running into resistance from self-professed environmentalists over its plan to expand the use of wind turbines, which are the darling of other self-professed environmentalists.

The government, which wants to shut down all the province's polluting coal plants by 2014, seems determined to ignore the cries that plunking up to 60 giant wind turbines in the middle of nearly pristine forest is not the highest evolution of green philosophy. If there's any doubt about this, consider where George Smitherman stands.

The pugnacious Energy Minister believes that the green-minded opponents of the Whitney Wind Farm, north of Highway 60, are trying to suck and blow at the same time. He says he understands the "justifiable human reflex" to resist living near any kind of electricity infrastructure. But he insists he has a responsibility to provide a reliable supply of power to Ontarians and that removing the coal plants is the greenest move he can make. He says he is disappointed that some of the people who are insisting the government fight climate change by using more renewable energy are among his detractors.

"If an individual's opposition to a wind farm, as an example, is aesthetic, then I simply ask the question how do they feel about the aesthetics of a ring of smog?" he asked.

Mr. Smitherman's views certainly aren't winning many friends in the Township of South Algonquin, whose population of 1,500 people is scattered over 1,000 square kilometres. The township council has declared a 10-year moratorium on wind farms (which was endorsed as "a well-considered and prudent move" by the local newspaper) and residents (some of them cottagers) have started a website called "Keep Whitney Wild."

Brent Peterson, a cottager who speaks for 45 families with property on McCauley Lake, says this is not a case of NIMBYism, where people simply don't want to get too close to the necessary but obtrusive aspects of life. He says it's not about individuals but about an unspoiled area that is "about to be industrialized."

"It doesn't make sense to me to go and tear down a forest to put industry in the name of green," Mr. Peterson said. "Some areas don't make sense for the green industry, aesthetics or no aesthetics."

The focus of the looming battle is a proposal by Renewable Energy Systems Canada Inc. to spend up to $180-million on a 100-megawatt operation that would spread 40 to 60 turbines over 2,500 hectares. It would be the fourth-largest wind farm in Canada. About 100 hectares of the forest would be cleared for the 100-metre-high turbines and access roads.

The wind farm would be built on Crown land that surveys have identified as having good wind potential. It's in its early stages as about 30 government permits will be required. RES is testing the winds and has done an initial wildlife analysis while trying to counter the opposition.

"It's a new technology, it's a big technology and it takes some getting used to," said Stephen Cookson, the RES development manager. He is confident that people will become more comfortable the more they learn about the project.

An environmental assessment looking at everything from species and wildlife protection to avian flight paths will be key to the wind farm's future. Opponents will have a chance to talk about the social impact of the turbines but the indications are that they face an uphill climb.

Mr. Smitherman talks about the tough choices needed to ensure reliable electricity supplies. Even New Democrat critic Peter Tabuns, a former head of Greenpeace Canada, is on roughly the same page, saying there has to be a biological or ecological reason to stall the project. "If it's not there, then if people want power there are going to be wind turbines."

Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield, whose ministry is overseeing the project, seems to have figured out which green side she is supporting. "You have to reconcile ... the fact that renewable energy will be a part of the mixture in this province if in fact we're going to get off the reliance on coal," she said. "Those are the tough choices."
David Frum: Shut up and pay for your windmill
National Post: January 02, 2009, 3:00 PM by NP Editor
David Frum, environment, Canadian politics

 

Must we destroy the environment in order to save it? In the province of Ontario, the answer seems to be “yes.”

This month, the Liberal provincial government of Dalton McGuinty will finish drafting its proposed Green Energy Act. The Act’s early drafts call for a big increase in renewable energy production in Ontario. Sounds nice! How do we get there?

The plan contains two big elements: (1) a huge cash giveaway  and (2) a brusque slap-down of local democracy.

Let’s talk about local democracy first. Communities often resist wind and solar power for the simple reason that they ruin the beauty of local landscapes. When you think of wind power, for example, don’t think of the solitary turbine that overtops the CNE grounds in Toronto. To meet the goals set out in the Green Energy Act, Ontario will have to build tens of thousands of these massive turbines, linked by a vast network of electrical transmission wires. Many hundreds of these turbines are proposed for my own beloved Prince Edward County.  

When people in places such as Prince Edward County hear about “the environment,” they think of their environment. They think responsible stewardship means protecting what is lovely and natural. To them, it seems perverse to ruin the landscape in the name of preserving the environment. So they resist.
To deal with this resistance, the Green Energy Act proposes to strip local governments of their zoning powers. (In the draft’s own words, the province will propose: “Streamlined regulatory and approvals processes that enable the rapid but prudent development of green energy projects across the province, reducing uncertainty and transaction costs to all involved.”)

It is important to realize that local scrutiny is often the only scrutiny a wind project gets. Unless a project uses federal money or land, there is no federal environmental assessment. Smaller projects are exempt from provincial assessment as well, and bigger projects can count on a very friendly hearing.
Not all localities will be ignored. There will be special consultation with First Nations/Métis communities (and a special piece of the action for them as well). But for everybody else, Ontario’s message is: Shut up and eat your peas.

It’s not only local landowners and vacationers who are expected to shut up. It’s taxpayers as well. 
Here we come to item (1), the huge cash giveaway.

The big inconvenient truth about “green power” is that it is hugely costly — triple the cost of coal power, almost double the cost of nuclear. Advocates of green power insist that the price will soon decline. This promise never comes to pass, for reasons that should be obvious after a moment’s thought.

The big costs involved in a wind and solar projects are not the turbines and solar panels, although they are very expensive in their own right. The big costs are (i) acquisition of the vast amounts of land required to site the turbines and panels and (ii) the stringing of wires from thousands of small-scale power generators to the power distribution grid. These costs are more likely to rise than to fall.

Wind and solar suffer from inherent diseconomies of scale that can never be corrected. Unable to correct these costs, the province has decided instead to conceal them.

In the United States, wind power has been incentivized with lucrative tax credits: 2 US cents per kilowatt hour. (To put that subsidy in perspective, electricity from coal costs about 3 US cents per kilowatt hour.) America’s lavish wind subsidy has been in place since 1992, yet even so, wind cannot compete: In 2007, wind provided less than 5% of America’s electricity supply.

 Ontario, however, has no need of tax credits. In Ontario, power generation is monopolized by a government owned corporation. Ontario can simply order its power generation company to buy wind power at a price profitable to the producer — and then average that cost invisibly into Hydro bills.

The new act will offer producers even more. Not only will the province buy their power at a guaranteed profit — not only will it index that profit for inflation — but it will guarantee producers the financing necessary to build the wind turbines in the first place!

Good deal? It gets better. The dreary part about borrowing money, even from the government, is that you do sooner or later have to repay it. Or do you? The explanatory language treats repayment as more a suggestion or guideline than an obligation: “The intent is that over time the market and community will meet all financial requirements for these projects.”

In the name of the environment, the McGuinty government proposes to despoil the province’s beauty and pillage the province’s power consumers.

That’s not green. That’s dumb.

© David Frum 2008
dfrum@aei.org

Will we see (one thousand and) six wind turbines in our valley?


To the editor,

 

Look out, here they come. When I first heard about the wind turbines coming to the Valley, I did not have many thoughts on the subject. It all sounded interesting – good, clean renewable energy. It showed that the Valley was concerned about global warming and showing the world that we wanted to help. I did not have time at that moment to have any other view on the matter because I (and many others) were very busy promoting and celebrating our rich valley heritage.

Then I started reading the signs – “Get informed, know the facts – know the risks.” There were letters to the local newspapers stating the dangers of turbines in our area and the negative impact they will have on us. Neighbouring townships opposed them; one from the west and the other from the east.

Our neighbours to the east have the million-dollar view and are asking themselves: Do we want the skyline to be destroyed. Our councils have to ask themselves: should we be neighbourly? People who have a chance to generate some money by having them built on their land are saying we can do whatever we want with our land and that their neighbors have no say when it comes to the health and environmental issues that arise out of their neighbour’s land use.

How could something that I thought didn’t sound too bad touch so many people in different ways? I needed to ask more questions and I ended up talking to friends, neighbours, cottagers and tourists. They could not believe that we would let the power companies come in to rape our landscape and destroy the beauty of our Valley. There are, of course, a few in the Valley who have no opinion, just like me at the beginning. To them, I say, please get informed!

At first, I thought these wind turbines were 40 feet high, but no – they can be nearly 400 feet high – the height of Parliament’s Peace Tower. They can catch on fire (and how do you fight a fire 400 feet in the air?) Turbine blades can break off and can travel a large distance and maybe hit a house along the way. Ice can build up and the chunks then fly like missiles. How would you like that next to your home?

They produce constant noise day and night. And when the sun is behind the turbine, a strobe effect occurs – this is very disturbing to those living nearby.

How about your property values going down because living near a turbine is not the most attractive investment for buyers? In fact, I believe we will see a decrease in folks wanting to move to our area – and will possibly see many leave. Taxes will have to go up in order to compensate for lower property values and less tax revenue from homeowners.

How would you like to take a picture of a century-old roadside cross with a huge turbine in the background? That is what my wife and I will be looking at.

Our local government is in a tight little corner; they have been asked to rezone a lot of our area for commercial use. Then why not rezone the whole Valley? Here is what I believe is going to happen: right now they say they want to construct six turbines. Once the land is rezoned and the turbines are completed they’ll have their foot in the door. Because of the unattractive landscape and environmental issues, the land next door will go up for sale and the only people who will buy it will be people who want an income property in order to put up more turbines. This will go on and on... These people will not live here; they will take their money and spend it outside the area. You will not see them in our stores, volunteer or participate in any of our community events. It will be a great investment for them and that is it.

Is this the economic development we desire? The white monsters will replace our tree lines and turbines will begin to spring up in droves all through our township. The view from Shrine Hill and the historic St. Mary’s Church, Canada’s First Polish parish, will be destroyed.

Councillors are in a difficult situation. I hope for the sake of all of us, that they listen to everyone and make the right decision. If they feel that the turbines are good for us and will enhance the beauty and attractiveness that makes the Madawaska Valley a tourist destination then so be it. Hills of turbines and the destruction of the historically beautiful landscape of our township will be their legacy. Forget tourism – embrace the power industry.

Is it possible that the power company is setting up these turbines in order to grab cash from the government, which is committed to going green and needs credits to offset the pollution caused by other industries? The company can go bankrupt anytime after they receive our tax dollars and the landowners will be stuck with a white elephant on their property. And these days, when banks and companies all over the world are going bankrupt, there are no guarantees. If money is the only positive thing to come out of this venture, then we are selling ourselves very cheap.

If we feel like we should be part of the global solution to save the planet, then we have a 100-foot drop at Bark Lake that could generate enough power to supply the Valley. Wind farms are not for this area. The people of the Valley have worked too hard to promote and preserve our heritage. Stop, look and listen.

David Shulist

Ontario eyes speeding up wind turbine approvals; Green proposals would limit municipal powers
A draft provincial government proposal to “streamline” the approval of green energy projects such as industrial wind turbines would effectively strip Ontario’s municipal governments of much of their power to decide whether they want such facilities to be established in their communities.

The document, a first draft of a proposed new Green Energy Act for Ontario, is dated Dec. 10, 2008. Its full title is a bit of a mouthful: “A Proposal for An Act Granting Priority to Renewable Energy Sources to Manage Global Climate Change, Protect the Environment and Streamline Project Approvals.”

It’s the “Streamline Project Approvals” part of the title that will be of the most interest to residents of this region, where a series of proposed wind farm projects in the Townships of Madawaska Valley, South Algonquin, Bonnechere Valley and elsewhere are now before municipal councils.

The document surfaces as proposed industrial wind turbine operations are meeting with resistance in several communities across the province. Last fall, the council of the Township of South Algonquin voted to impose a 10-year moratorium on the approval of any wind farm proposals. RES Canada Inc. wants to build between 40 and 60 such turbines in the township on Crown land just outside the south-eastern edge of Algonquin Provincial Park. The plans are strongly opposed by many year-round and seasonal residents. Plans by the SkyPower company for six turbines on the hills north of Wilno are also running into well-organized opposition. Farther afield, the town council of Essex, near Windsor, is considering a ban on such projects until all health questions and other concerns raised by residents are clearly answered by the province.

Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman, who has a reputation for being both outspoken and confrontational, has made it clear that he is frustrated at public opposition to wind energy projects, which are a big part of his government’s Green Energy Act plans. Last fall, after South Algonquin imposed a moratorium on wind turbines, he sent a letter to Barry’s Bay This Week outlining his “disappointment” at council’s move.

In its preamble, the draft provincial document says “Ontario is a world leader in the effort to arrest global climate change and the protection of greenspace.” The paper then lays out the many benefits to the environment of green energy, and outlines plans to “make Ontario a global leader in the development of renewable energy, clean distributed energy and conservation.”

Scattered throughout the 10-page draft are references to “streamlining” the approval process for green energy projects. But it is near the end of the document, in a section obliquely titled “Protecting the Environment,” where the reader gets some idea of just what streamlining measures are being proposed. The document urges amending the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act by making the following changes:

• Implementing what the document calls a “one project, one process” approach that would do away with requirements that green energy projects obtain approval under the Planning Act. It also favours doing away with any Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings into new or existing projects if they “have already been approved (or exempted) under the Environmental Assessment Act.” The OMB is widely considered to be the final avenue of appeal for disputes over municipal government actions.

• The government, by way of Orders in Council signed by the Lieutenant Governor, should make regulations that set down “clear, prescriptive provincial standards for the siting of green energy projects (e.g. “no go” areas, setback requirements, etc.) and that determine areas in need of protection.”

The document goes on to say that those restrictions “should be technology specific and based on legitimate and peer-reviewed scientific data.” This would appear to rule out objections based on whether or not a project is appropriate for an area. For example, many opponents of the South Algonquin wind farm proposal object to the plans because the wind turbines would be located near Whitney beside the border with Algonquin Park, the province’s largest provincial park and a national treasure in the eyes of many Canadians.

• The act should“streamline” environmental assessments and use “class environmental assessments” wherever possible. The class assessment sets down the planning process through which the environmental impact and benefits of projects are considered. Such a move would appear to limit the scope of individual assessment of the environmental impact of a particular project at a particular site.

• “Streamline” and co-ordinate the planning and building permit process for green energy projects.

The document goes on to recommend other measures to speed up the Environmental Assessment approval process for green energy projects. It urges “adjusting project categories or thresholds under approved class environmental assessments “so that a greater number of renewable energy projects are fully exempt under the EA Act (but they must still obtain other federal or provincial approvals where applicable).”

It also calls for shorter time frames, giving six months as an example, and clearer deadlines for the completion of the planning/review process under approved class environmental assessments.

The draft document does contain some recommended restrictions on the location of green energy projects. For example, it says that such projects “should not be located in, or cause adverse impacts upon,” critical habitat of endangered or threatened species; provincially significant wetlands, valleys, woodlands or wildlife habitat; sites of cultural heritage or archaeological value; lands designated under legislation to protect the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and in provincial parks and reserves.

It also recommends amending the Environmental Assessment Act to enhance the requirements for public notice of green energy projects to ensure that all parties have adequate notice and an opportunity to participate in the process.

Wilno resident Carl Bromwich emailed copies of the draft provincial document to the Township of Madawaska Valley council this week. In his letter, Bromwich charged that the Ontario government is moving “to virtually eliminate the Environmental Assessment Process that is presently in place.”

“First Nations Groups will be afforded a front-row seat for any wind proposal, so that it appears the government is sensitive to this group of people,” Bromwich says. “Of course, the Ontario landowner outside this group will not have a seat.”

“I am just mailing this into municipal council to make sure there is a record of ‘what may be’ and offer up a suggestion that, as a municipal resident, I believe we should all stick together here and work together to make sure our local council retains the power to represent us, protect us and speak on our behalf during what may possibly be a tearing down of what few democratic rights we still have in this province.”

Lou Eyamie, president of Save Our Skyline, or SOS, a group opposed to wind turbine construction in the area, warned Madawaska Valley Councillors at Monday’s meeting that the draft proposal would, when implemented, mean that “you are going to lose your say on energy matters.

“I want to make sure that you know that they’re going to go all the way around you,” Eyamie said.

By Douglas Gloin

Barry’s Bay This Week

7 January 2009