I appreciate the opportunity…

I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments and concerns regarding this proposal. I am a citizen of North Stormont. I attended and participated as a witness in the recent Environmental Review Tribunal process pertaining to the NationRise Wind project. The Conservative government promised us that if we voted for them, "Help is on the way". We helped you to get your majority but we are still waiting for help in return. NationRise IS PRE-CONSTRUCTION. Yet somehow it is still moving forward AND this proposal would grandfather it under the old rules leaving our municipality and our citizens without any democratic rights. We are being stripped of the basic human right to enjoy good health and the peaceful enjoyment of our properties that we worked very hard to establish.

The following was prepared by a fellow citizen in our Township and, with his permission, I am adding it here as it accurately reflects my concerns as well.

In General:
 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Repeal of the GEA, demonstrating need for electricity, and restoration of planning authority to municipalities going forward is welcomed in general. Grandfathering of existing negative aspects IS NOT in the public interest and perpetuates significant harm to the detriment of the current government and the citizens who voted for change.
 While beneficial to future proposals this proposal is lacking in scope / applicability therefore actually harmful to citizens of Ontario and NOT in the public interest for pre-construction or existing operational projects.
 It would be advantageous for the policy, regulations and laws, to reflect exactly what “renewables” mean in legislative and real terms for the people of Ontario. For example, I have heard that hydroelectric generation / water source was removed from the definition of renewables by the former government yet what could be more green and cost effective than paid-for existing hydroelectric generation?
 This ERO goes against the core themes of what Progressive Conservative Party MPP’s have been saying and promising since 2009, while in opposition.
Demonstrating Demand:
 This EBR, if approved, would continue to revoke local municipal control over major maintenance, future expansion or repowering of the as yet pre-construction Nation Rise Wind Farm as well as operational projects already built over their 20 – 40 year potential lifespan and with multiple owners. That should not be allowed in the public interest as understanding of negative health effects, safeguards and noise standards have already evolved since these contracts were first offered and they will continue to evolve.
 The process needs to encourage innovative means of energy production for small scale producers, homeowners, industry and manufacturers; that returns benefit without government subsidy.
 Since Ontario’s baseload generation system is already largely free of carbon emissions, promotion of large-scale, private renewable generation must be deferred until the added capacity is actually required, however small scale homeowner or community energy independence should be encouraged.
 The requirement to demonstrate demand should also apply to both increases in rated capacity and any extensions beyond the initial term
 Any projects grandfathered under outdated noise models must demonstrate demand for all capacity in order to be extended beyond the initial term and if granted;
 Repowering must automatically invoke most current noise regulations regardless of new or existing capacity
 A review of demand should be triggered by changes of ownership with focus on the percentage of capacity in a region and province-wide under the control of a single non-government owner.
Changes to Existing Contracts:
 The Minister has an obligation to act in the public interest; which may not necessarily be in the best interests of a specific commercial entity operating in violation of, or in the absence of measurable controls, especially if that continues through changes to existing contracts, which would itself be an opportunity lost to make proponents accountable to current regulations and financial reality.
 The large number of unresolved complaints due to Industrial Wind Turbines clearly demonstrates that allowing projects to continue in any form under the old terms of the Green Energy Act would clearly not be in the public interest.
 Regulations should consider that Projects should be publicly certified, with supporting detail, as fully compliant with the terms of their REA and vis-à-vis current legislation (and a plan and timeline to correct any gaps) before any changes to ownership are approved and as a condition of change of ownership.
 Ownership change s/b regulated in the electricity industry so that no single proponent can own more than XX% (a small percentage) of total capacity in a region and hold Ontario hostage or at risk from their failure.
 The wind industry is the only energy industry not licensed and closely regulated in operation. Licenses should be established to recover approval, oversight, monitoring, administrative and complaint processing costs from those deriving the business benefit. It should not be borne by taxpayers nor hydro ratepayers.
 Expeditious resolution of complaints must be a condition of an annual license to operate, for existing and be a standard condition of all future contracts.
Impact on the Environment:
 Current set-backs for wind turbines need to be increased based on learning from complaints from existing projects, other jurisdictions around the world, new research into wind turbine noise, and actions that other jurisdictions have taken to protect the health of people living near the projects.
 The current review process outlined in Regulation 359/09 needs to be completely revamped measurable, and adequately supported to ensure that their goals of protecting the environment will be achieved as they have not evolved with current understanding and the increasing size of turbines.
 Regulations to protect human health, the natural environment, wildlife, birds and bats have not evolved, being rooted in the last decade without change and applicable to smaller turbines. They are ineffective and increasingly irrelevant considering increases in height, size and power of current turbine technology, nor are they designed to consider future evolution. E.g. what is the relevance of
requiring a proponent to self-monitor a 50 metre radius around the centre-line of a turbine tower for endangered species, bird and bat kills when a single blade is 68M or more and the swept area is double that.
 The very limited public and municipal consultation process needs to be completely revamped to bring it in line with the government’s commitment to openness and transparency. The local public is in the best position to identify unique local environmental aspects and changes to older studies that may be broad rather than specific in nature. Source water protection maps are a specific example where eskers, aquifers, underground streams and other hydrological and geological features may extend far beyond the estimated borders of maps and studies often from many decades ago.
 Changes to the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) are required to expand the scope for appeals of REA decisions and the standards for successful appeal need to be made more realistic with the onus on the developer (rather than citizens) to prove the expanded criteria including prevention of serious and irreversible harm to human health and/or the natural environment including birds and bats.
 Regulations must provide greater emphasis on the geological nature within the subject area (nature of soil, impacts of drilling, susceptibility of landslides, etc.)
 Regulations must provide greater emphasis on the hydrological nature within the project area and address measures to protect municipal and private wells and sensitive or highly sensitive aquifers.
 Groundwater monitoring procedures and sufficient escrow accounts must be in place for pre and post construction, as a condition of operational license.
 Regulations must address potential impacts of a proposed project on prime agricultural lands (Class 1-3 agricultural soils). No new turbines can be allowed on this shrinking resource and a moratorium established to prevent expansion onto prime farmland.
 Going forward, this process needs to be extensively revised so that it provides for an open and transparent process that facilitates input from municipalities and local residents on the impacts that each project will have on their community and at all stages in the process. Most critical are expansion of grounds for appeal and the revision to the almost impossible standards for a successful appeal by citizen that are included in the Environmental Protection Act.
 Municipal concerns about these projects go beyond human health and impact on the natural environment and include the impact on the wider economy of the municipality and the impact on municipal infrastructure. ERT grounds for appeal must also allow municipalities to appeal based on the impact of the project on the economy of the municipality and/or the impact on infrastructure managed by the municipality.
 ERT decisions indicate that the standard of proof needed for a successful appeal of industrial wind turbines generally means that the project needs to be built and operating before the need to demonstrate “will cause” serious harm. ERT decisions assume that a project will be “in compliance” with regulations, once built.
 Modify ERT appeal wording to remove special exemptions for industrial wind turbines. One suggestion is to replace “will cause’ with wording that aligns with EPA Section 12 which requires only “reasonable and probable grounds” for the director to take action to modify or revoke the renewable energy approval.