Comments on the second…

Comments on the second posting of the proposal: Amendments to the Renewable Energy Approvals Regulation (Ontario Regulation 359/09)
ERO number 013-3800. https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-3800

Submitted on January 17, 2019.

The posting on the ERO contains the following statements REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT:

“Renewable energy approvals and the environment
Renewable energy projects (as with all construction and human activity) may impact the environment. Projects could impact:
- natural heritage (e.g.animals, birds, insects, trees, and vegetation)
- noise
- groundwater
- surface water.
We require project developers to REDUCE THESE EFFECTS THROUGH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVALS PROCESS (capitals are my emphasis) so that the benefits of the energy outweigh the impacts to the environment.”

DISCUSSION ITEM 1: NOISE AUDITS AND NOISE COMPLAINT HANDLING
I will not repeat the lengthy commentary I submitted on the earlier posting for this proposal on November 2, 2018, but I will review and emphasize one of the problems related to noise and noise audits.

The terms and conditions in the wind projects’ REA’s require that the project owners investigate and mitigate problems, including noise. The current practice of measuring noise levels obtained under specific wind speeds, at narrowly defined wind directions and turbine output, then declaring the project is in compliance, is NOT mitigation. It merely measures noise levels under very specific and restrictive conditions.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have shown that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, as it was then known, recorded over 4500 noise complaints from wind projects up to the end of 2016. The majority of these complaints did not elicit any response from the ministry managers or directors.

Wind projects are allowed to continue operations, in some cases for several years, despite numerous noise complaints. For example, the Underwood Wind project in Huron Bruce County started operations in 2009, and was the subject of over 500 noise complaints up to the end of 2016. Despite the complaints, there were no noise audits initiated until 2015, 6 years after the start of operations, and the final report was not issued until January 2018, nearly 9 years after the start of operation.

RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO ITEM 1:
1.1 For new projects, the REA requirements should be amended so that the initial noise audit be completed and submitted to the ministry within 6 months of the start of operations. The second noise audit should be completed and submitted to the ministry within 12 months of the start of operations.

1.2 The REA requirements should be amended so that audits in response to noise complaints MUST be initiated as soon as weather conditions permit and no later than 4 months after required by the ministry.

1.3 The REA requirements should be amended so that any wind project that fails to meet the timelines in 1.1 and 1.2 above is required to reduce power output by an amount that results in a predicted reduction in noise of -5 dBA until a noise audit is completed and approved by the ministry, or until the project operator institutes mitigation procedures and can demonstrate compliance.

1.4. The REA requirements should be amended so that any wind project that surpasses a threshold of 10 noise complaints is required to reduce power output by an amount that results in a predicted reduction in noise of -5 dBA until a noise audit is completed and approved by the ministry, or until the project operator institutes mitigation procedures and can demonstrate compliance.

1.5 The “Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise” should be completely revised so that:
- In order to capture amplitude modulated and turbulence noise, noise audits conducted as part of the REA conditions, present the noise data not only in integer wind speed bins, but also by the 4 quadrants representing the wind direction relative to the test location: i.e. 0 to 90 degrees, 90 to 180 degrees, 180 to 270 degrees, and 270 to 360 degrees.

- For audits initiated by noise complaints, the conditions at the times the complainants identify as problematic MUST BE INCLUDED in the noise data collected for the audits regardless of wind direction and turbine output, and MUST be considered to determine compliance.

THE POSTING ON THE ERO ALSO CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS REGARDING "DEMONSTRATING DEMAND" AND "NET METERING":
“Draft criteria for demonstrating demand
We are proposing that in order to be issued a renewable energy approval, proponents must demonstrate demand by submitting documentation showing that they meet one or more of the following criteria:
- having an agreement to supply electricity to one or more persons. This would include having a contract with the Independent Electricity System Operator;
- proposing to generate the electricity for their own use;
- having a net-metering agreement with their local distribution company;
- proposing to sell the electricity generated at market rates in the Independent Electricity System Operator-administered market.

These criteria would also apply when a project is being changed if there is both
- an increase in the facility’s nameplate capacity, and
- a change to the infrastructure or equipment at the facility.
Demand would need to be shown only for the new capacity.”

NET-METERING and GENERATING ELECTRICITY FOR THEIR OWN USE
According to the Ontario Energy Board, net-metering is an initiative for electricity consumers in Ontario who produce some of their own power from a renewable resource to send excess electricity from renewable resources to the local distribution company (LDC) for a credit towards their own electricity costs.

This assumes that a net-metering energy project is primarily for an individual's own use, such as a roof-top solar project, and not for the purpose of selling the majority of the output to a local distribution company.

RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO “NET METERING” AND “GENERATING ELECTRICITY FOR THEIR OWN USE”:
1. Submitting documentation for a net-metering agreement with an LDC on its own should not be considered sufficient proof of demand. The project proponents should be required to demonstrate that a proposed net-metering project meets the OEB’s eligibility criteria and is consistent with their personal electricity requirements.

2. The size and output of a project proposed “for their own use” or to “one or more persons” should be consistent with the number of persons in the agreement and their projected electricity requirements. For example, a 100 MW project with an agreement to supply 1 or 2 households, or a small commercial building, should not be considered as a personal use or a net-metering proposal, but an industrial scale project and any electricity produced must be considered in the context of the province’s overall demand.