Wind Farms In Court: Ontario Leads The Pack

Condensed from Mike Barnard's report:


Interestingly, Canada is by far the most litigious, and Ontario had almost 30% of the cases by itself. Belief in health impacts varies substantially by geography; where anti-wind groups are strongly pushing the idea, people get afraid and try to prevent wind farms based on their health fears. They fail.

This is just in regards to cases involving alleged harm to health.  Harm to property values has been another area of complaint. So far cases that have pressed that concern have also, generally speaking, failed.

MPAC Turbines And Property Values Study Update

I almost wasn't going to write about Wind Concerns Ontario's "refutation" of MPAC's study re the effects of wind turbines on property values.  However, the most interesting bit of it got rehashed in John Speer's story on the study this morning:

[Jane Wilson, of Wind Concerns Ontario]... pointed to an appendix in the MPAC report containing bar charts showing the relationship between property values and proximity to wind turbines.  She said the charts show that properties five kilometres or more from wind turbines generally have higher sale prices and assessments than those within five kilometres of turbines.

Here's the chart in question:

Now, this doesn't tell us very There maybe a zillion possible reasons, geographic or otherwise, besides the presence of wind turbines (IWTs in the parlance of the study) that may be causing sale prices in areas 5 km or up from those turbines to be higher than those properties located within 1 km.  One thing to consider: the vast majority of properties used MPAC employed in its studies were in fact located more than 5 km from an IWT.  Look at this table from the study:

About 90% of the sample of properties were located further than 5 KM from one of the IWTs at issue. Now take a look a this map of the study area (red are sales within 1 KM; green beyond 5 KM):

And compare that with a map of the same part of Ontario:

I would submit that greater than 5 km from a IWT is likely to mean closer to an urban area of one size or another, and that much of the difference in median value could be due to this fact alone.   (In other words, properties closer to an IWT--which are usually set up, according to MPAC, on farms or vacant lots--are typically further out of town than properties further away from the IWT).

Or at least: I would suggest my explanation is as likely as the one given by WCO.

MPAC Report: Wind Turbines Have NO Negative Effect On Home Values

MPAC is the Municpal Property Assessment Corporation.  They determine what each piece of property in Ontario is worth so that the various local governments can hit you up for taxes.  Several years ago they were asked to do a study to determine what if any effect the placement of wind turbines had on the value of neighboring properties.  They released their report yesterday.  From its executive summary:

Conclusions 

Following MPAC’s review, it was concluded that 2012 CVAs of properties located within proximity of an IWT are assessed at their current value and are equitably assessed in relation to homes at greater distances. No adjustments are required for 2012 CVAs. This finding is consistent with MPAC’s 2008 CVA report. 

MPAC’s findings also concluded that there is no statistically significant impact on sale prices of residential properties in these market areas resulting from proximity to an IWT, when analysing sale prices. 

I'll give the thing a good read, and may write more on it later.  But this result should be unsurprising.  In almost every case where MPAC has been taken to the Assessment Review Board on this issue, the same determination has been made.  Wind turbines do not bring down the value of adjacent properties.  This one can serve as an example.  What the MPAC study shows is that, overall, their assessors know their job. 

Why Ontario Anti-Wind Forces Keep Losing Their ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal) Appeals

They want the Tribunal to take their word at face value:

“There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the project will cause serious physical or any other serious harm,” [the tribunal] ruled.

A number of witnesses who live close to existing wind farms testified that the turbines had damaged their health.

But the tribunal said that they did not provide professional medical opinions that would establish a “causal link” between their ailments and the turbines.

This is not the first time that appellants protesting nearby wind farms have made health claims while refusing to provide the medical documentation needed to back those claims.  And it is only recently that they ERT has begun to consistently demand that they produce such records.  In addition, as noted here, if appellants are testifying re reductions in property values due to nearby turbines, they will now be asked to turn over all relevant real estate records.   I expect most of those appeals to fail as a result of this change in procedures.

They Are Appalled

A kind of follow-up to this post.  Anti-wind activists out in Adelaide have been asked by the provincial  MOE (Ministry of the Environment) to, if they are testifying re the allegedly deleterious health effects of wind-turbines, turn over ten years worth of health records, and to, if they are testifying re the allegedly deleterious effects of wind turbines on property values, turn over all relevant real estate records. 

The story, however, is in the tone of the piece itself, and in the comments.  Out there in Adelaide, they are shocked, shocked that the MOE would make such demands.  "Jack-booted government thugs" and yada yada yada.  Apparently, when you're trying to stop a wind development, the courts are supposed to take your claims at face value.

Wind Farm Opponents Out Six Figures

A group of landowners who unsuccessfully sued a wind power developer and the farm corporation that leased it land have been ordered to pay legal costs of $107,370.78.

The 21 landowners near Collingwood sued wpd Canada Corp. and Beattie Brothers Farms for more than $17 million over the plans to develop the wind farm, arguing that it had decreased their property values.

Madam Justice S.E. Healey dismissed the action, ruling that while the landowners’ property value may have been diminished, it was not caused by any misconduct by wpd or Beattie Brothers.

Actually this last bit is misleading.  It is fairer to say that the judge offered no opinion on whether the property values may have been diminished, but decided that, regardless, the developer had not engaged in misconduct.  I wrote about the decision at greater length here.

Property Assessments On Wind Turbines To Rise

Reading between the lines, its been clear that the various players in the green energy energy business haven't been too happy with the Wynne government's wind-down of the feed-in tariff (FIT) for large-scale projects. This article makes their discomfort a little more obvious.  One bit from it mentions something I had not been previously aware of:

There is one change that existing contract holders will have to deal with as the province tries to make sure municipalities see financial benefit from wind projects within their borders. 

"Work with the Ministry of Finance is currently under way to increase the property tax assessment for existing and future wind turbines, and we expect to make an announcement this year," said the 

This has been an issue for the municipalities asked to host wind-farms for awhile now.  They don't think they're getting much out of the deal per turbine:

 St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold says the artificially low assessment means lower tax revenue for the municipality estimating a turbine would generate $500 to $1,000 in taxes. “That’s not a lot of dollars for the local municipalities; that’s what has driven a lot of municipalities to put extra costs onto the projects.”

Arnold says municipalities were led to believe it would up to $10,000 per turbine. “There is a lot of miscommunication.”

Some problems can be solved with money.  We'll see if this is one of them, I guess.  Presumably the cost will fall on the developer, not the land owner.

Wind Energy And Property Values In Ontario, Part Whatever...

An interesting decision came down this week re wind energy and property values in Ontario.  Before getting to the actual contents of it, though, lets see how the thing is being spun.  This piece from Farms.com  is fairly typical:

An Ontario Superior Court of Justice has determined that landowners living near industrial wind turbine projects do suffer from diminished property values. The court accepts that 22% to 55% loss of property values is occurring today. 


It also gets things terribly wrong,  misreading the meaning of accepts in the relevant context.

What actually happened is that the wind developer, wpd. Canada Corporation, and the farm that has agreed to host the nascent project--Fairview Wind has not been built or even approved yet--moved a motion that the claims against them by nearby property owners be "dismissed in their entirety". They won, hands down.  However, as part of their legal strategy (all these screen shots are easier read if you click on them, by the way):

In other words, wpd. Canada said; "Lets conditionally accept the plaintiff's evidence of diminuation for the purpose of the motion so we can  get on to the legal issues that would arise even if they were true."  The judge said OK, and  found that even if the plaintiffs had suffered the diminuation of value  claimed, there was no case:

Even accepting the plaintiffs' claims, which the Judge did provisionally, the plaintiffs can't sue wpd. Canada just for announcing the publication of a Notice of Draft Site Plan, which is as far as Fairview Wind had ever got.  You can't sue somebody over environmental/health risks that do not yet exist.

So the judge handed a win to the wpd. Canada and invited the plaintiffs to come back when if ever the project had been taken further along in the approvals process.  At that point their evidence will be tested, challenged, and evaluated.  Contrary to the various newspaper stories, this has not happened yet.

Just a final note as to why wpd. Canada chose to go this route.  This is speculating, but I imagine challenging the plaintiff's evidence would have involved wading through tons of crap science and eventually hiring expert witnesses to go up against the other side's expert witnesses.  Fairview Wind is pretty early along in the approvals process to lay out that kind of money when a cheaper route to victory is available.

Do Wind Turbines Affect Property Values?

I recently found the decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board related to this story.  From the story:


Ed and Gail Kenney are calling it a setback, not a defeat.


The Wolfe Island couple learned this week that the potentially precedent-setting challenge to their home property assessment - based on the proximity of wind turbines - was unsuccessful.


Well, if you read it through, the ARB decision pretty thoroughly demolishes the Kenney's position.  


For example, re the noise of the turbines:

Ms. Kenney is the only witness who testified with respect to the noise level at the Kenneys’ property interfering with the enjoyment of the property. Under cross-examination by Mr. Fleming, Ms. Kenney agreed that she could carry on a normal conversation, watch television, sit outside, and listen to music and that she continues to garden although sometimes she chooses not to if bothered by the noise.


There is no evidence that the noise from the turbines has restricted the Kenneys’ activities. Ms. Kenney did testify that she sometimes wakens at night and can hear noise from the turbines.


In response to questioning by Mr. Fleming, it became clear that the noise complained about is not a problem to the extent that the Kenneys have felt compelled to do something about it such as putting in air conditioning so that they can keep their windows closed.


And re. the Kenney's inability to enjoy the view from their property:


Photographs of the wind turbines’ proximity to the Kenneys’ property were entered into evidence by both the Kenneys and MPAC. The Board finds that the Kenneys’ main view of Lake Ontario and Simcoe Island is unobstructed by the location of the turbines. The turbines are located on the road side of the property and not in the direction that the Kenneys would usually be looking out from inside their home (Page 4, Exhibit 14 and Page 14, Tab 2, Exhibit 10).


[...]


While the Kenneys did submit a photograph (Page 6, Exhibit 14) taken from a boat out on the Bateau Channel showing the Island windmills in the background, the Board is not satisfied that the Kenneys’ enjoyment of their property is from a boat on Lake Ontario.


In answer to the most pertinent complaint, that the value of the Kenney's property fell after the turbine's construction, after looking at comparable sales in the area between about 2005 and 2010 the Board found this:


The Board finds that there is nothing in the MPAC evidence of sales in proximity to or abutting wind farms to lead to the conclusion that property values on the Island or of the Kenneys’ property have been adversely affected by the wind farm.


While their methodology is a bit complicated, in essence the Board was able to locate properties that are, like the Kenny's,  currently in sight of wind-turbines that had sold both before and after the turbines had been built.  Since these properties did not lose value, it was inferred that the Kenny's would not.

So there you have it.