Corrupt Liberal Gov’t Denies Tampering With Witness List….

Liberal government denies tampering with witness list for wind turbine hearing…

THE CANADIAN PRESS

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 

Glen Murray
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mark Blinch)

Ontario’s Liberal government denies Opposition charges that it interfered with the witness list for a hearing into a plan to install at least six, 152-metre-high wind turbines near the Collingwood airport.

Progressive Conservative house leader Jim Wilson says the province decided at the last minute to call a witness from NAVCanada instead of an expert from Transport Canada at an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing.

NAVCanada is a private corporation that owns and operates the country’s civil air navigation service, while Transport Canada is the federal government department responsible for transportation policies and programs.

Wilson says the witnesses were changed because Transport Canada has concerns about putting industrial wind turbines between the Collingwood Regional Airport and the Stayner aerodrome.

He says the Ontario government refuses to acknowledge that putting giant turbines so close to the small airports pose a hazard to aircraft operations.

But Environment Minister Glen Murray says it would be against the law for him to play any role in determining witnesses or influencing the environmental tribunal.

“I will keep it as a non-political process and let the experts choose the witnesses,” Murray told the legislature.

“I wish the member opposite would not be politicizing it in the way he’s trying to, because neither he nor I should be involved in this process.”

Wilson said a witness from Transport Canada “would have made much more sense” since it is the agency tasked with ensuring aviation safety.

“Minister, you can spin this all you want, but my people believe, and we have reason to believe — good reason to believe — that somebody in your ministry tampered with the witnesses,” he said.

Wilson said the Liberal government has agreed it could no longer support two of the eight proposed turbine locations near the airport because they pose a serious safety risk, and asked why officials “refuse to act on the serious risk posed by the other six turbines” when experts say they are also dangerous.

But again, Murray said he would stay out of the process.

“I had nothing to do with the decision to change the configuration of turbines,” he said. “Experts did that. I had no role, nor did any politician on this side or any other influencer, in who witnesses are.” 

Advertisements

Wind Company offers to buy out homes nearest wind turbines…3000 ft. or less.

St. Albans Messenger; August 9, 2016

Company offers to buy homes nearest turbines

By TOM BENTON

Messenger Staff Writer

SWANTON — The developers behind the Swanton Wind Project announced Thursday morning they have finally submitted their application for a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board (PSB).

Travis and Ashley Belisle, the developers, also announced the application includes a post-construction buy-out option for neighbors living within 3,000 feet of a turbine.

They estimated approximately 20 homes fall within that range.

Above, Swanton Wind developer Ashley Belisle, center, speaks at yesterday’s press conference, flanked by, from left, her husband and co-developer Travis Belisle, the project’s attorney, Anthony Iarrapino, and VERA Vice President Martha Staskus. Below, The Swanton Wind Project’s opponents stood by the roadside outside yesterday’s press conference, waving signs and giving honking drivers the thumbs-up.

TOM BENTON, St. Albans Messenger


Martha Staskus, the Vice President of Vermont Environmental Research Associates (VERA), called the buy-out option “unprecedented.” She said the option showed that the Belisles are listening to the project’s opponents.

“That’s what’s different from other wind project proposals,” she said.

Homeowners who purchased Rocky Ridge property from the Belisles were notified at the time of their purchase that the Belisles were considering building wind turbines.

The Belisles said they are confident they can quickly re-sell any homes vacated per the buy-out option. They said another home has sold since Swanton Wind issued their 45-day notice of intent to file their application about a year ago.

When asked why the filing process had taken so much longer than 45 days, Travis said, “Good things take time.”

He said the numerous environmental studies required for the project had delayed their filing, as well as public hearings and discussion in Swanton. Travis said the Swanton Wind developers had been “unfairly accused” of “fast-tracking” the project, so they slowed the application process to appease those concerned.

“There was fast-tracking only by opponents,” he said. The project may include up to seven wind turbines, clearing 35 acres of woodlands surrounding Rocky Ridge. The project’s lawyer, Anthony Iarrapino, said all but 10 of those acres would be allowed to re-grow after the construction.

The Belisles estimate they would annually contribute approximately $150,000 inpayments to the Town of Swanton, should the application be approved. That figure is based on similar payments made by Vermont’s five other wind projects to their “host communities.”

A press release issued by Swanton Wind, LLC noted that those financial contributions from the project could pay for all of the town’s police or library budgets, and 99 percent of the town’s fire department and fire truck replacement budget.

The project’s turbines would generate up to 20 megawatts (mW) of zero-emission power, enough to “meet the needs” of more than 7,000 Vermonters, according to the press release.

At yesterday’s press conference, held before the ridgeline where the turbines would stand, Iarrapino reiterated that the project has been engineered to avoid all wetlands.

The press release further notes that the project meets all applicable state stormwater management standards, that a comprehensive study found no rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species within or near the project’s limits and that sound studies indicate the project will adhere to the PSB’s recently adopted sound limits — which the press release notes are “more stringent than those recommended by the World Health Organization.”

Iarrapino said the highest exterior sound level modeled by sound studies on the proposed project site was 43 decibels (dB). The PSB’s sound standards prohibit exterior sound above 45 dB.

Iarrapino said those conducting the study couldn’t “model every resident’s interior [sound levels] at the moment,” but he assumed interior sound levels would hover around 30 dB.

Staskus pointed to a “sound level” application on her phone, which said the average sound level throughout the press conference was 55 dB, thanks to a strong wind that at one point tossed the developers’ visual aids to the dirt.

“As you can see, it’s a great spot for wind,” Ashley quipped.

The press conference including something publicly unseen since the Belisles announced the project in summer 2015: a neighbor in favor of the turbines.

“One of the things we say in the navy is semper Gumby,” Chris Maynard said. “It means ‘always flexible.’” Maynard lives along the ridgeline. The idea of several turbines stretching nearly 500-feet into the air doesn’t faze him.

“It’s change,” he said. “It doesn’t bother me. You know? You make a little sacrifice for the greater good.”

Maynard told reporters that when his family bought the nearby land in 2011, there were “two things” all Vermonters could expect — short summers and cold winters. Now, Maynard said, that’s changed.

He praised the state’s “ambitious approach” to fighting climate change, and said what the Belisles are trying to accomplish “is in the spirit of Vermont.”

Maynard even celebrated the controversy surrounding the project, saying “Vermonters openly debating and expressing their opinions” was another Green Mountain tradition of which to be proud.

That controversy included a “symbolic vote” in the town of Swanton in November 2015, when residents voted 731 to 160 against the project. Travis pointed out that less than 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in that vote.

“A large majority had no opinion or were in favor and didn’t come out,” he said.

He estimated it will cost $40 million to construct the turbines, if their application is approved. That figure is “a big nut to chew,” he said.

Travis noted the Belisles have invested a “large portion” of their life savings in the project, and said they would need to seek investors in the project from here on forward.

Iarrapino said he expects a pre-hearing conference from the PSB within the next 30 days. Interested parties can seek formal party status during that conference and provide input on scheduling the series of hearings required by the application process.

Iarrapino said that based on past projects, he expected it could take up to a year before the PSB makes a final decision.

At the foot of the hill below the press conference, opponents of the project stood waiting, bearing signs opposing the project and industrial wind itself — among them, Christine and Dustin Lang, Rocky Ridge residents and the project’s most outspoken opponents.

Christine called the buy-out option a “huge step,” but Dustin said it was “fractioning.”

“They’re leaving Fairfield out to dry,” he said.

Patty Rainville, who stood at the roadside giving thumbs up to passing vehicles honking in support, said offering the buyout to residents within 3,000 feet of the turbines “doesn’t include hardly anybody.”

“It’s a token offering,” she said. “It’s a WTF thing to me.”

Chris Maynard, whose property lies in close proximity to the proposed project, speaks out in favor of it at a press conference Thursday. Before him sits the application document for the Certificate of Public Good.

TOM BENTON, St. Albans Messenger

Wind Pushers Struggle to Avoid Accountability….

Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property


Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

In Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring illegally permitted wind turbines be placed away from their properties.

The Massachusetts court system recently this week showed one of multiple lawsuits filed over the wind turbines was scheduled to be heard from September 12 to September 16. The trial has been postponed again and the only thing on the court website is: ” On 09/12/2016 Opposition to to Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney filed by Town of Falmouth”

A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.

The town is asking to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney ? Isn’t Dr. Robert McCunney the expert witness for the Town of Falmouth wind turbine number one ?

The original court file date is June 5, 2013. The case number is 1372CV00281 Town of Falmouth vs. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals et al.

I am no legal scholar but it appears from the posting on the court docket the Town of Falmouth is asking the courts to throw out testimony from their own wind turbine expert a doctor ?

Over time as the Falmouth wind turbine lawsuits have dragged through the court system for six years worldwide the setbacks are increasing and even doctors have changed their views on setbacks because of human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise.

Nils Bolgen the wind turbine director at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center uses 2000 feet as the standard setbacks today.

Falmouth taxpayers are paying up to $300,000.00 every six months for wind turbine litigation and this is the strategy ?

It appears today that the safe setbacks to commercial megawatt wind turbines is five times the height of the turbines or in the case of one wind turbine such as Falmouth it would be 3000 feet. The Town of Falmouth has two wind turbines. Dr. Robert J. McCunney, a medical doctor and a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology an expert witness for the Town of Falmouth Wind turbine number 1 permit . Wind turbines should be five ( 5 ) times the height of the turbines

Quote : “He said any measurable health effects, referred to in some circles as “wind turbine syndrome,” are in fact the result of stress reactions to a sound an individual finds objectionable or annoying. For that reason, he noted, some communities in the US observe a noise mitigation setback standard of five times the height of the turbine – more than three times the distance recommended by the CCC.”

Above quote from Enterprise Published: 01/28/11http://archive.capenews.net/communities/region/news/827

The Cape Cod Commissions wind turbine rules today are nearly identical to expert testimony which is hard evidence to overcome.Dr. Robert McCunney (expert witness for the Town Of Falmouth) graphical presented to the board why nearly 3000’ was necessary between industrial wind turbines and residents.

As a paid consultant by the Town of Falmouth , Dr. McCunney’s recently updated power point presentation appeared in conflict with his personal sentiments offered to the board. Contradictions and compromises to previously held positions by the good doctor are notable.As matter of note regarding Dr. McCunney’s power power presentation almost 200 residential homes are within 3000’ of Wind 1 and Wind 2

——————————————————————————————————

Falmouth, Massachusetts 2010

Article :

The next time McCunney appeared on my radar was his July 15, 2010 appearance in Falmouth .

It was a meeting before a number of people, some of whom had experienced first-hand the effects of living close to (in this case, just one!) a wind turbine. They were curious if their symptoms – all of which should be familiar to us by now – were due to the noise or were “in their heads”.

His explanation indicated their symptoms were due to annoyance, which in turn was due to their dislike of turbines. He had no explanation why presumably disinterested kids as well as people on record as supporting turbines were also having problems. He also ignores the possibility that maybe the annoyance leads to the dislike instead of the wind industry’s preferred other way around.I thought his statements were disingenuous enough that I started a posting on his activities.

File under annoyance. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center is aware of two distinct types of noise from wind turbines. First regulatory noise measured in decibels and second human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise

http://windfarmrealities.org/?p=548

Note # Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty interviews

Linda from Billings, Montana, Tells the Truth about Wind Turbines…

Casper Star-Tribune

Prescott: Wind an unreliable source of energy

Editor:

So-called “fossil” fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) provide cheap, plentiful and reliable energy, have helped to lift billions of people out of poverty, provided fertilizers to increase the food supply, and contribute to over half of the products in our homes, offices and elsewhere. They are the primary energy source for over 80 percent of the world’s population. These fuels are found in abundance in Wyoming and Montana.

On the other hand — wind, solar, geothermal and a few others provide perhaps 5 percent of our energy needs. They owe their existence to the truckloads of cash (your cash) shoveled out of D.C. to support them. So, as I read the recent article (“Proposed Wyoming wind tax increase draws local opposition”), I thought, who did not see this coming.

Albany County Commissioner Tim Chestnut is quoted: “While [wind] is expensive right now, it is the future.” Yes, and Kathleen Hartnett White (the director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the TX Public Policy Foundation) can show you the future. Germany, with heavily subsidized wind and solar projects, has electricity rates triple that of the U.S., and electricity is now deemed a “luxury good” by a million households. They are now burning wood. Germany is deemed to be in an “energy regression.”

In addition to the extremely high cost of installation, there is the noise of the blades, the visual impact, unreliability and their notorious ability to act as “avian Cuisinarts.” It is highly likely that the motor on the windmill/turbine will burn out before it ever turns a profit. And what backs up these unreliable wind projects? Reliable coal-fired plants using cheap and abundant coal. The only way the wind energy scam can continue is through the use of never-ending subsidies, increasing rates and taxes from you. Think of that big windmill as Obamacare for your HVAC.

LINDA PRESCOTT, Billings, Montana

Nobody signed Up for This, When the Decided to Live in the Country!

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/k8mfojy3tcdqpd5/AADYUon4071P3nQ3CKwS3oNra?oref=e&n=486001235

My son and I went for a drive into town.  He took some pics along the way.  At one time, these would have been beautiful shots of a rural, peaceful countryside.  Today, they are documenting the ongoing destruction of rural Ontario, by the Liberal Party, and their Green/greed Energy Act!

 

When the wind turbines do start up, it will be more than visual assaults, they will be emitting noise/infrasound.

A Breakdown on How Badly the Wind Fiasco is Hurting us…Financially.

Ontario electricity has never been cheaper, but bills have never been higher

The province signed long-term contracts with a handful of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar.

Tyler Brownbridge / Postmedia News files
 
The province signed long-term contracts with a handful of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar.  The more the wind blows, the bigger the losses and the higher the hit to consumers.

You may be surprised to learn that electricity is now cheaper to generate in Ontario than it has been for decades. The wholesale price, called the Hourly Ontario Electricity Price or HOEP, used to bounce around between five and eight cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but over the last decade, thanks in large part to the shale gas revolution, it has trended down to below three cents, and on a typical day is now as low as two cents per kWh. Good news, right?

It would be, except that this is Ontario. A hidden tax on Ontario’s electricity has pushed the actual purchase price in the opposite direction, to the highest it’s ever been. The tax, called the Global Adjustment (GA), is levied on electricity purchases to cover a massive provincial slush fund for green energy, conservation programs, nuclear plant repairs and other central planning boondoggles. As these spending commitments soar, so does the GA.

In the latter part of the last decade when the HOEP was around five cents per kWh and the government had not yet begun tinkering, the GA was negligible, so it hardly affected the price. In 2009, when the Green Energy Act kicked in with massive revenue guarantees for wind and solar generators, the GA jumped to about 3.5 cents per kWh, and has been trending up since — now it is regularly above 9.5 cents. In April it even topped 11 cents, triple the average HOEP.

So while the marginal production cost for generation is the lowest in decades, electricity bills have never been higher. And the way the system is structured, costs will keep rising.

The province signed long-term contracts with a handful of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar. Obviously, if the wholesale price is around 2.5 cents, and the wind turbines are guaranteed 13.5 cents, someone has to kick in 11 cents to make up the difference. That’s where the GA comes in. The more the wind blows, and the more turbines get built, the bigger the losses and the higher the GA.

Just to make the story more exquisitely painful, if the HOEP goes down further, for instance through technological innovation, power rates won’t go down. A drop in the HOEP widens the gap between the market price and the wind farm’s guaranteed price, which means the GA has to go up to cover the losses.

Ontario’s policy disaster goes many layers further. If people conserve power and demand drops, the GA per kWh goes up, so if everyone tries to save money by cutting usage, the price will just increase, defeating the effort. Nor do Ontarians benefit through exports. Because the renewables sector is guaranteed the sale, Ontario often ends up exporting surplus power at a loss.

The story only gets worse if you try to find any benefits from all this spending. Ontario doesn’t get more electricity than before, it gets less.

Despite the hype, all this tinkering produced no special environmental benefits. The province said it needed to close its coal-fired power plants to reduce air pollution. But prior to 2005, these plants were responsible for less than two per cent of annual fine particulate emissions in Ontario, about the same as meat packing plants, and far less than construction or agriculture. Moreover, engineering studies showed that improvements in air quality equivalent to shutting the plants down could be obtained by simply completing the pollution control retrofit then underway, and at a fraction of the cost. Greenhouse gas emissions could have been netted to zero by purchasing carbon credits on the open market, again at a fraction of the cost. The environmental benefits exist only in provincial propaganda.

And on the subject of environmental protection, mention must be made of the ruin of so many scenic vistas in the province, especially long stretches of the Great Lakes shores, the once-pristine recreational areas of the central highlands, and the formerly pastoral landscapes of the southwestern farmlands; and we have not even mentioned yet the well-documented ordeal for people living with the noise and disturbance of wind turbines in their backyards. We will look in vain for benefits in Ontario even remotely commensurate to the damage that has been done.

The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector.

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at University of Guelph, is Research Chair, Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Donald Trump Tells the Unvarnished Truth About Renewable Energy!

 http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wind-power-kills-all-your-birds

Donald Trump bashed renewable energy sources Monday night, saying solar power doesn’t work well and wind turbines kill birds.

The GOP presidential nominee has stated his preference for coal and natural gas, and has previously said that solar power is unreliable and wind turbines are unsightly and harmful to wildlife.

“It’s so expensive,” Trump said of alternative energy at a rally in Pennsylvania.“And honestly, it’s not working so good. I know a lot about solar. I love solar. But the payback is what, 18 years? Oh great, let me do it. Eighteen years,” he said, turning to wind power. “The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that.”

Solar power has historically been expensive, but its costs have fallen dramatically in recent years.

The Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that the cost to install solar panels has dropped by 70 percent since 2009 to just over $2 per watt for photovoltaic technology.

The wind industry has challenged Trump’s previous statements about wildlife deaths, including his contention earlier this year that turbines kill more than a million birds a year.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that wind turbines kill about 500,000 birds annually in total, much less than other bird threats like cats and buildings.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has set a goal to expand the country’s solar power capacity sevenfold and generate enough renewable electricity in the United States to power every home by 2027.

At the Pennsylvania rally Monday, Trump also promised to reduce the frequency of coal mine inspections.

“I have friends that own the mines. I mean, they can’t live,” he said.

“The restrictions environmentally are so unbelievable where inspectors come two and three times a day, and they can’t afford it any longer and they’re closing all the mines. … It’s not going to happen anymore, folks. We’re going to use our heads.”

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

PolitiSite

24 Years of Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Media Appearances.

Birds and Blades

Broken Wing, The Book

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

“Edgar County Watchdogs"

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem