| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Appeal of South Kent Wind Project’s approval rejected
Credit: Article by Patrick G. Duffy and Kyle Lamothe | 18 December 2012 | www.mondaq.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
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.
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 educational 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 |
 (via Paypal) |
 (via Stripe) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=31241 ]
