[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Go to multi-category search »


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

Final arguments in wind turbine case  

Credit:  January 30th, 2018 by Mary Thomas | Quinte News | www.quintenews.com ~~

The civil court case, involving Prince Edward County residents fighting development of nine wind turbines in their neighbourhood, wrapped up at Quinte Courthouse in Belleville on Monday.

More than 50 people packed the courtroom as the Alliance for the Protection of Prince Edward County, the Independent Electricity System and WPD company, presented final arguments before Justice Stanley Kershman of the Ottawa area.

Much of the three hour hearing seemed to center on whether or not APPEC, or the public, had a right to have information or get involved in a commercial FIT (Feed-in-Tariff) contract between two commercial parties.

APPEC has been fighting the bid to put wind turbines in the Milford area of Prince Edward County for a number of years, citing damage to Blandings turtles and the brown bat, as well as noise issues.

The original FIT contract called for 27 turbines but this was dropped to nine.

APPEC alleges that the FIT contract for wind turbines between IESO and WPD should have been terminated as soon as it became evident that White Pines would be unable to fulfill all the contract terms.

APPEC lawyer Eric Gillespie told Justice Kershman it is a “public policy issue” regarding whether IESO should make the contract public. Gillespie said WPD failed to meet 75% of the FIT requirements, and a number of timeline milestones were missed by the company.

He said information between the two were not made public “as under rules of FIT process and required by law…It’s about major amendments to the contract that were not made public.”

Gillespie emphasized APPEC is not arguing for an injunction “at this point.”

Lawyer for IESO, the Systems Operator, Alan Mark, argued APPEC has no entitlement to the commercial FIT contract information. Mark said APPEC had no right to “insert itself between WPD and IESO” in the contract deal. He emphasized that APPEC had a right to go to the Environmental Review Tribunal but “APPEC has no rights in the contract between IESO and WPD.”

Mark told the judge WPD had a right to seek amendments to the contract and IESO had a right to grant that…the complaint about disclosure leads nowhere.”

He said, “There is no representation of any entitlement of the applicant (APPEC) to the particular bilateral commercial contract between IESO and WPD.” And he said there’s nothing to give the public that expectation.

Lawyer for WPD, Patrick Duffy, repeated much of the IESO argument indicating the applicant (APPEC) had “no right to insert itself in the contract between WPD and IESO.”

After three hours of arguments, Kershman reserved his judgement for another date.

One member of the public in the courtroom had travelled many miles to hear the case. Gord Benner of Toronto told Quinte News he visits Prince Edward County often, and had come down specifically for the hearing. He said, “I don’t vacation in an area with wind turbines. That’s not my idea of scenery.”

President of APPEC, Orville Walsh, told Quinte News he’s optimistic about the outcome of the case.

Source:  January 30th, 2018 by Mary Thomas | Quinte News | www.quintenews.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.