[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Appeal of South Kent Wind Project’s approval rejected  

Credit:  Article by Patrick G. Duffy and Kyle Lamothe | 18 December 2012 | www.mondaq.com ~~

The Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) recently issued its first major decision of a renewable energy approval appeal related to human health concerns since Erickson v Director, Ministry of Environment (see our post on that decision here). In Chatham-Kent Wind Action Inc v Director, Ministry of the Environment, the ERT found that there was no evidence before it that the South Kent Wind Project (Project) will, cause serious harm to human health.

The appeal challenged the Minister of the Environment’s (MOE) approval of the planned 270 megawatt wind generation farm in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The MOE issued the Project’s Renewable Energy Approval on June 15, 2012, which prompted Chatham-Kent Wind Action Inc. to launch the appeal. One individual was granted status to participate and another individual to make a presentation.

The ERT found that the decision in Erickson has settled the evidentiary test that appellants must meet to demonstrate that a project will cause serious harm to human health. A participant in the appeal challenged the test because of the difficulty in demonstrating some alleged harm from wind turbines, such as harm to emotional and mental health. The ERT rejected this challenge and found that there was “no evidentiary basis whatsoever” presented to find that the Project will adversely affect human health.

Also at issue was the methodology that the MOE requires REA applicants to use to predict noise from a planned wind project. A presenter argued that the MOE’s guidelines led to inaccurate results. However, the ERT was clear that it requires evidence of what the impact of a project could be and that the project would harm human health. A challenge of the testing approach in the absence of evidence is insufficient on an appeal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

Source:  Article by Patrick G. Duffy and Kyle Lamothe | 18 December 2012 | www.mondaq.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.