With a few exceptions …

With a few exceptions (please see below), I applaud the general approach of the proposed amendment to the existing conditional exemption for the operation of wind facilities (section 23.20 of O. Reg. 242/08).
Ontario’s previous approaches to mitigating bat mortality at wind farms set a high standard for other jurisdictions, and set Ontario ahead in our ability to track bat population trends. This current proposal sets up Ontario to also be a leader in mitigation methods to protect endangered bats, and in building and maintaining capacity for renewable energy. So, thank you for prioritizing SAR conservation AND the development of renewable energy. Both are extremely important, and we can do both at the same time.
However, three key points are unclear in the current proposal. If implemented with the current wording, these points are likely to lead to continued, avoidable mortality of bats, and cause frustration for wind operators navigating the requirements set by the Province.
1) The current phrasing of the common approach has a vague exemption built into it.
2) Free-wheeling is not explicitly prohibited by the current proposal (e.g., it is not clear that turbine blades must be kept immobile at wind speeds below the cut-in wind speed).
3) It is not clear how bat mortality should be monitored under the common or custom approaches, or whether they would be compared against one another. More on each point below.
Concern 1: The common approach already contains an exemption, and it is not clear which facilities will qualify for it.

The proposal applies a minimum cut-in speed of 7 m/sec to “wind facilities impacting bat species at risk”. However, any turbine spinning in Ontario during the active season of the endangered bats can impact bat species at risk, so it is not clear why this additional specificity is included or how a facility demonstrates that it does or does not “impact bat species at risk”.

Turbines that are no longer under post-construction monitoring requirements can be impacting zero or hundreds of bats – no monitoring is happening, so it is not possible to monitor this. To protect endangered bats (now seven of Ontario’s eight bat species!) the common approach should apply to all turbines, except those using the proposed custom approach.

Consider revising to “During the time period from May 15 to October 15, wind facilities must adhere to a minimum cut-in speed of 7 meters per second.”

Concern 2: Setting the cut-in speed does not automatically stop a turbine from spinning at lower wind speeds.
The current Ontario bat-wind guidelines were drafted under the expectation that turbines would not turn until the cut-in wind speed was reached. However, that is not the case. Cut-in speed is the wind speed at which turbines begin producing electricity, but unless the turbine blades are locked below that wind speed, the turbine can still spin, and kill flying bats. This is called “free-wheeling” and it can (and does) cause significant bat mortality.
Consider revising to: “During the time period from May 15 to October 15, wind facilities must adhere to a minimum cut-in speed of 7 meters per second (i.e., the speed at which the blades begin generating power) from dusk to dawn (e.g., 7pm to 5am), and prevent blades from turning below the cut-in speed during these times.”

Concern 3: The custom approach does not include a requirement to meet the same reductions in mortality as the common approach.
It is not clear what reporting is required to allow comparisons of bat mortality under the common and custom approaches. What happens if a custom approach does not reduce mortality at a facility?
A possible revision to provide clarity to wind operators could look like this:
“Wind facility operators choosing to pursue a custom approach to minimizing adverse effects on bat species at risk would be required to submit monitoring reports annually to the ministry for three successive years after preparing or updating their associated mitigation plan. Approval of continuation of a custom approach depends on demonstration that the custom approach is not causing greater mortality than the common approach would cause.”
The effects of this new approach on recovery of endangered bats can only be assessed if the standard of data collection required at Ontario wind farms is maintained. This is similar to the due diligence required from any other type of energy infrastructure, and is not an unreasonable ask.
Any changes made to the monitoring requirements for bat mortalities at wind farms should ensure that data collected in future can be compared against data collected in the past. Ontario’s evidence-based approach to assessing and mitigating bat mortality at wind turbines is one of the best in the world, and this standard should be upheld.
Once again, thank you for your work on this proposed amendment, and thank you for considering my comments. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if anything is unclear.