By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal July 25, 2012

EDMONTON – Leading environmental economists say British Columbia’s demand for a “fair share” of Alberta’s oil money may be unprecedented and politically explosive, but it makes economic sense for Alberta to give compensation to B.C. for bearing the environmental risks of a heavy oil pipeline to the West Coast.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark said Monday B.C. won’t support the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline unless her province is compensated for shouldering all of the marine environmental risk and more than half of the risk related to a potential spill on land. Premier Alison Redford has rejected the idea.

Robert Mendelsohn, an environmental economist at Yale University in Connecticut, said offering compensation might get the Northern Gateway pipeline built and could also help secure approval of the Keystone pipeline to the United States.

“This (pipeline) is terribly important for Alberta, but not so much for B.C.; they are taking lots of risk and getting nothing for it. That idea — that nobody wants to take risk for no benefit — that’s an age-old phenomenon,” Mendelsohn said.

Government and industry typically respond to this problem by trying to reduce the risk as much as possible, he said, but “at some point it ends up becoming preposterously expensive to continue to reduce the risk further.

“And there is always a residual risk. The question is, how do you cope with that? Historically, people have gone too far on the risk reduction side, and they’ve not explored enough of the compensation side.

Mendelsohn said compensation is a good way of resolving that residual risk. While making a grab for Alberta’s royalties is likely to hit a raw political nerve, funding a public project, for example, could be “a political win-win for everybody.

“It’s certainly a way of resolving these political debates, where there are some people who are losing a little bit, but where if we don’t do the project, society loses in a big way. We’ve got to do better than allowing local groups to hold an entire society hostage, especially if the local people are making a reasonable claim.”

Mendelsohn added: “This debate might actually free up the American debate as well. The problems the Americans are having with the (Keystone) pipeline were minor, as far as I can tell, and should be easily compensatable.”

Utah State University environmental economist Arthur Caplan said economists first started working to quantify environmental risk after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, so the idea is relatively new. After the spill, a blue-ribbon panel of Nobel Prize winning economists tried for the first time to assign economic value to damaging something that is not consumable, such as a pristine wilderness.

The idea of compensating B.C. for taking environmental risks — instead of environmental damages — is a small but significant evolution of that idea.

“If the benefits of this pipeline are that great, then I don’t think this idea of compensation is far-fetched at all. But once you start factoring in the political history, then you’ve got an issue,” Caplan said. “Politically, people can’t accept that. People always say, well, I sacrificed and nobody ever compensated me. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

“I would think it would be even more in Alberta’s interest to compensate and say: ‘We’re not going to play this game.’ Just stand up and say: ‘If we can accurately quantify what the … risk of damages are to B.C., let’s break the pattern here, let’s break the mould.’

“Set a new precedent, a softer political path. … Isn’t that going to open the floodgates? That’s a really good comeback. But if you really believe … the benefits so far outweigh the costs, then there is room for compensation.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/ablegreporter

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Plans to raise issue over Northern Gateway revenues at Council of the Federation

By DARCY HENTON, Calgary Herald July 24, 2012 11:31 AM

Councillors more determined than ever to stop project after northern Alberta visit

By Gemma Karstens-Smith, edmontonjournal.com July 22, 2012

EDMONTON – A visit to northern Alberta last week left councillors from three B.C. First Nations feeling physically, emotionally and spiritually exhausted.

“My eyes are burning and my head’s spinning and I’m nauseated,” said Timothy Innes, councillor of the Gitxaala Nation on Porcher Island south of Prince Rupert, after three days of touring oilsands developments north of Fort McMurray. The tour was organized by Nikki Skuce of ForestEthics whose job as senior energy campaigner is to stop the Enbridge pipeline project.

The Gitxaala Nation is one of several First Nations whose traditional territory would be affected by Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. The $5.5 billion, 1,172-kilometre pipeline would stretch from Bruderheim outside Edmonton to Kitimat on B.C.’s northwest coast, from where tankers would take the product to Asian markets.

Innes has been opposed to the project from the beginning, but wanted to see where the oil carried in the pipeline would come from so he joined Marilyn Slett, chief of the Heiltsuk First Nation in Bella Bella, and John Ridsdale, Chief Na’Moks of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation near Burns Lake, to explore the oilsands developments.

The visitors were surprised by the immensity and omnipresence of the operations.

“You can read as much as you want, listen to as much as you want, but until you see it, you won’t believe it,” said Ridsdale, whose title means head chief of the First Nation.

“You can smell it, you can taste it when you’re out there,” Slett added. “I was actually quite shocked by it.”

Enbridge has said they are engaging indigenous communities in designing the proposed pipeline, and have signed protocol agreements with some First Nations, including the Paul First Nation west of Edmonton.

But opposition from other indigenous groups has been staunch, and not everyone believes the pipeline will bring prosperity to the First Nations it would touch.

“There’s lots of money coming out of there, but the people there, they’re common people. They’ve got nothing. They’ve been left out,” Innes said. “And money is not going to bring back what’s going to be lost.”

Seeing the affects the oil operations have had on the traditional lands of the Fort McKay First Nation north of Fort McMurray was devastating for Slett.

“They don’t have their cultural way of life anymore,” she said. “To hear from an elder in Fort McKay that they can’t eat the fish there, they can’t hunt, berries don’t grow … it really hit home for me.”

First Nations people get their power from the land and the sea, Ridsdale said, and changing the landscape for a pipeline would destroy that special bond.

“What you’re doing is allowing them to commit cultural genocide,” Ridsdale said. “Without your culture, you have nothing.”

Ridsdale said Fort McKay elders warned him that allowing Northern Gateway to go ahead would open a Pandora’s box his community would never be able to close because the operations would continue to expand indefinitely and pipeline failures could occur.

Last week, Enbridge acknowledged safety concerns about the Northern Gateway pipeline, and pledged to invest $500 million in additional measures for the controversial project, including thicker pipeline walls at water crossings and more inspections.

“We have often been asked if we could guarantee that we would never have a significant pipeline failure over the years on Northern Gateway. These initiatives will put the project closer than any pipeline system in the world to providing that guarantee,” Enbridge vice-president Janet Holder said in a statement.

The changes don’t change Slett’s opinion on the pipeline because spills could still happen.

“They don’t mitigate our concerns,” she said. “An oil spill would be catastrophic for our community.”

Last week, B.C. premier Christy Clark also expressed doubts about the project, telling Postmedia News that the pipeline proposes a very large risk to the province with few benefits.

Slett agreed.

“The statements by Enbridge have overstated the benefits for British Columbians,” Slett said.

But the B.C. government has been too quiet for too long when it comes to the pipeline, she said, leaving environmental groups and First Nations to fill the gap. Innes, Ridsdale and Slett say their voices will only get louder after seeing the oilsands operations first-hand.

“Coming here made us stronger in our resolve,” Ridsdale said. “We’ve always spoken the truth and now we have a little bit of sugar to put on too.”

“We’re going to fight harder, going to keep saying no, until they understand what no means,” Innes said.

[email protected]

twitter.com/gkarstenssmith

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Canadian Press July 20, 2012

CALGARY — Enbridge Inc. is proposing to make up to $500 million worth of changes to the design of the Northern Gateway pipeline system to address safety concerns raised by Aboriginal groups and others.

The pipeline, which already had a $5.5-billion pricetag before Friday’s announcement, has been the focus of intense debate among local communities, environmental groups and politicians.

Critics of Northern Gateway — a paired system of pipelines between the oilsands in northern Alberta and a terminal near Kitimat, B.C. — have said they’re worried about the potential environmental risks it poses within B.C. and in coastal waters.

The Calgary-based company (TSX:ENB) said Friday it had listened to the feedback from public hearings and was prepared to address concerns with a combination of improved technology and monitoring.

“We recognize that there are concerns among aboriginal groups and the public around pipeline safety and integrity,” said Janet Holder, an Enbridge executive vice-president.

“With these enhanced measures, we will make what is already a very safe project even safer in order to provide further comfort to people who are concerned about the safety of sensitive habitats in remote areas.”

Among other things, Enbridge says its new design would increase the thickness of pipe walls at river crossings. Enbridge says it would also increase the number of inspections it does by at least 50 per cent and staff pumping stations in remote locations around the clock.

“After years of consultation with stakeholders and after personally attending many regulatory hearings for Northern Gateway, it has become clear — we have to do everything we can to ensure confidence in the project,” Holder said.

The Enbridge announcement comes on the same day the Alberta government launched a pipeline safety initiative.

There have been three pipeline leaks in Alberta this year, including the leak of up to 475,000 litres of oil into the Red Deer River, a major drinking water source in central Alberta.

The calls for the review grew louder earlier this month when the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board lambasted Enbridge for its handling of an oil spill in Michigan two years ago.

A report concluded Enbridge bungled its response when millions of litres of oil began to pour in and around the Kalamazoo River in July 2010, comparing the company’s handling of the spill to the “Keystone Kops.”

Enbridge has promised to apply the lessons from the Michigan spill to its other projects, including Northern Gateway.

The company said it has already made numerous changes and welcomes the opportunity to explain those to the B.C government and the public.

The Michigan spill affected more than 50 kilometres of waterways and wetlands and about 320 people reported symptoms from crude oil exposure.

Enbridge’s cleanup costs have exceeded $800 million.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Pipeline safety review latest reversal from Redford’s team

By Graham Thomson, edmontonjournal.com July 21, 2012 11:08 AM

Would the real Alberta government please stand up?

Or at least wave so we can recognize you?

It’s getting to the point where I’m not sure the Alberta government I spoke to last week will be the same Alberta government that I’ll speak to next week. Heck, I’m not even sure if it’s the same government day to day.

On Friday, for example, the Alberta government announced it had ordered an independent review into pipeline safety. The announcement made by Energy Minister Ken Hughes is an idea that could help restore the public’s confidence in a system that has suffered three recent accidents, including the spill of 475,000 litres into the Red Deer River.

But the government that made Friday’s announcement of an independent review is not the same government that said just last month a review wasn’t needed. “The systems that we have in place today are appropriate,” said Hughes in June. “The energy industry currently is accountable already for every foot of pipeline that they have, and they conduct themselves with that accountability under the regulatory framework that we have in Alberta.”

At the time, Premier Alison Redford said she was “certainly not opposed” to a review of pipeline safety but, like Hughes, she didn’t want to do anything until after the Energy Resources Conservation Board had completed its investigation into the three recent spills.

The government stuck to its guns the past month, saying a review wasn’t needed. As late as Thursday, Redford seemed to be rejecting the notion. “I will tell you that I am not going through the next four years of this government responding every single time that something happens to a call for an independent inquiry,” Redford told reporters. “We have to have confidence in the institutions that are part of government. They’re there for a reason and they’ve done a good job up until now.”

That was Redford on Thursday.

This was Hughes on Friday: “It’s actually quite timely right now to look at the pipeline issue.”

What happened? Why “no” one day and “yes” another?

There are at least three reasons. One is public pressure, notably a coalition of landowner and environmental groups that published an open letter to the premier in newspapers demanding an independent review of pipeline safety after this year’s spills.

Then there was the damning report from the United States government on how Enbridge bungled a huge spill of oil from its transcontinental pipeline in Michigan. Even though that spill didn’t occur in Alberta, the pipeline’s operations are headquartered in Edmonton, and it didn’t help the industry or Enbridge in particular to have the company’s staff referred to as the “Keystone Kops.”

Of particular concern to the Alberta government was Enbridge’s role as operator of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would ship Alberta’s bitumen to Kitimat, B.C., for transport to Asia.

Public confidence was being undermined and the government had to do something. So, Hughes called a meeting a few days ago with leaders in the pipeline industry. “We had a very candid conversation about how we all need to up our game to set the bar higher when it comes to pipelines,” said Hughes. “The key outcome of that meeting earlier this week was that we all need to do more.

By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News July 20, 2012

“This study was finally released in January 2011 and argued that Canadian oilsands crude created 23 per cent more GHGs (greenhouse gases) than other fuels consumed in the EU and should be treated differently,” said a March 10, 2011, memo sent to former natural resources minister Christian Paradis from deputy minister Serge Dupont. “Canada believes the study has serious scientific and methodological flaws and will be passing on formal comments to the EU shortly.”

The memo, marked secret but declassified prior to release through access to information legislation, noted that the European Union commissioned the study after being pressured by lobbying from Canada to change its fuel quality directive (FQD).

“NRCan has been working with Canada’s mission in EU member states to engage in sustained advocacy opposing the discriminatory treatment of oilsands in an FQD policy, insisting on sound science and transparent tracking and traceability for all EU oil suppliers (e.g., Nigeria and Russia), not just Canada,” said the memo.

Marc Huot, an oilsands policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental policy research group, acknowledged that some aspects of the EU policy need to be improved to better assess the footprint of all sources of fuels, but he suggested that the Canadian government’s lobbying efforts could completely derail the European climate change plan to reduce pollution from transportation fuels.

“There might be other ways of doing the same thing, but we don’t want to see the baby being thrown out with the bath water, so to speak,” said Huot.

A March 16 memo sent to the deputy minister, Dupont, also recommended additional arguments to be sent through Canada’s European ambassador, noting an absence of information in the Brandt study on some current sources of European fuels.

A spokesman for Natural Resources Canada, Paul Duchesne, explained that the Brandt study examined the difference between the footprints of oilsands crude and other fuels consumed in Europe, but it didn’t provide evidence supporting its proposal to put bitumen, the heavy oil from Alberta and other parts of the world, in a separate category from other crude oil.

“Heavy crude is heavy crude, and the GHG intensity of the oilsands (a heavy crude) is comparable to many other heavy crudes, some of which are currently imported into the EU,” said Duchesne.

One of the contacts on the memos, Paul Khanna, a Natural Resources Canada oilsands policy adviser, was also prominently featured in previously released internal emails exchanged with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an industry lobby group.

Those exchanges, reported by Postmedia News in April, revealed that the lobby group had asked Khanna to remove pictures of oilsands surface mining from a promotional oilsands brochure to be distributed by the government at a global economic summit in 2009, recommending that he use a list of “proposed common shared facts” along with an “aesthetic” picture to use in the marketing material.

Previously released internal documents from Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Privy Council Office all acknowledge that oilsands producers need large amounts of energy and water to extract heavy oil from Alberta’s natural bitumen deposits. As a result, the government departments say the sector is the fastest growing source of global warming pollution in Canada and also needs better monitoring to address water contamination concerns, along with other potential damage to land and endangered species.

European officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the memos, but they have said that they have faced significant lobbying from Canadian government officials and are still reviewing the fuel quality directive.

Brandt was not immediately available to comment.

[email protected]

twitter.com/mikedesouza

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Original source article: Bureaucrats found flaws in oilsands study for European Parliament: Memos

But Calgary-based pipeline boss disagrees with chairman of U.S. National Transportation Safety Board

July 18, 2012

CALGARY – It will be tougher to convince Canadians to support Enbridge Inc’s plan to build a $5.5 billion oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast after a U.S. regulator compared the company’s response to a Michigan oil spill with the “Keystone Kops,” Enbridge’s chief executive said on Wednesday.

CEO Pat Daniel said he disagreed with the chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board in her harsh characterization of his company’s culture at the start of the 2010 disaster, but conceded it has complicated efforts to push ahead with the Northern Gateway oil pipeline through British Columbia.

“To cast doubt on the operational capability of a company that’s considered to be best in the world does create additional challenges for us,” Daniel said in an interview before taking a canoe trip on the Kalamazoo River, which was fouled by oil that spewed from an Enbridge pipeline.

“We just have to ensure that we explain fully to (British Columbia) residents that that was not representative of the culture and outline … the changes that we have made.”

(Reporting by Jeffrey Jones; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Original source article: Enbridge CEO acknowledges ‘Keystone Kops’ remark may hurt Canadian support for Northern Gateway route

By Paula Simons, edmontonjournal.com July 11, 2012

EDMONTON – Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

It’s an adage I keep in mind, when conspiracy theories beckon.

It’s easy to understand why many politicians, consumer advocates, and other people are suspicious about Monday’s extraordinary rolling blackouts, triggered when five major power plants went off-line during the heat wave, sending power prices skyrocketing to the maximum ceiling price, $1,000 per megawatt-hour. That several plants would shut down at a time of peak demand does seem fishy, especially when AESO, the Alberta Electrical System Operator, refuses to reveal why they failed. Gaming the system isn’t new: six months ago, TransAlta, one of the province’s biggest generators, was fined $370,000 for creating an artificial energy shortage and inflating electricity prices, for which TransAlta benefited to the tune of $5.5 million.

But Monday’s mess had less to do with collusion than with structural weaknesses in our electrical system.

Records provided Wednesday by AESO and Capital Power, show power prices began to sharply climb because of record temperatures and record power use, well before three of the power plants in question broke down.

The price was already at $597.53 MWh at noon before Atco’s 385 MW Battle River 5 generator failed just after 1 p.m.

The price hit $999.99 before Capital Power’s 400 MW Genesee 2 plant went down.

Far from profiteering, it looks as if power producers actually blew an opportunity to cash in on our insatiable demand for air conditioning.

Who were the real conspirators driving up prices? Perhaps we were.

Martin Kennedy, Capital Power’s vice-president of external relations, says their plant failed because of a malfunctioning heat sensor, which threw the plant into automatic shutdown.

“We had absolutely no financial incentive for that unit to go down. The maximum price had already been reached.”

On top of that, he says, Capital Power must now pay contractual penalties to its clients for failing to produce the power promised to them.

Richard Dixon, executive director of the Centre for Applied Business Research in Energy and the Environment at the University of Alberta, also laughs off talk of conspiracy, especially because Alberta’s electricity market isn’t a regulated monopoly, but a competitive enterprise.

“The way to look at it from an economist’s point of view is to see if they were capturing maximum profit. You’re not benefiting from the fact you went off-line. Who’s going to make money? The guy down the road. Economically, that doesn’t make sense.”

Dixon’s research into Monday’s blackouts suggests at least three plants failed because of problems with their heat sensors, which reacted to the hot weather.

Wind power also failed dramatically. At peak, wind adds 939 MW to our electrical supply Monday, the air was so calm, there were 6 MW of wind power available.

Just because there was no nefarious scheme to drive up prices doesn’t mean there aren’t problems. When electricity was a regulated utility, companies could overbuild to create excess generation capacity to be fired up in the event of a crisis. They were guaranteed a rate of return, and in exchange, promised supply stability.

Now, in a free market system, where private companies assume all risk, there’s no incentive to build anything that isn’t practically profitable. That makes the system less elastic and could lead us into occasional darkness.

According to an AESO report published this May, by 2013 Alberta’s electric system daily supply cushion — its ability to meet peak demand — won’t be adequate to handle power usage spikes. For the period between May 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014, the supply shortfall was estimated to be 686 MWh. Some pressure will be reduced when Enmax’s major new 800 MW gas power plant opens in 2015. Until then, however, there may be more days when Alberta’s system strains to meet demand.

Dixon thinks it’s time we stopped gorging on electricity and started thinking about conservation.

“We haven’t had a serious demand-side discussion in this province for years. If you want your air conditioning on, maybe you have to turn your lights off.”

Monday, it was 33 C, not 43 C; still, our electricity use spiked at 9885 MW. That’s 333 MW more than we used at our peak last July — almost a power plant’s worth of juice.

If our free market model, growing reliance on wind, and growing energy appetite mean we won’t have enough electricity on demand to cushion us through a supply crisis, maybe it’s time to have a serious conversation about just how much how much we’re demanding.

Blackout timeline

8 a.m. — Electrical system demand in Alberta is 8589 MW. The price per $14.29 per megawatt hour. The temperature is 24 degrees Celsius

8:34 a.m. — ATCO Power’s coal-fired Battle River Plant 5, with a capacity of 385 MW, goes off-line.

10 a.m. — The temperature climbs to 28 degrees C. Electricity use climbs to 9355 MW. The price rises to $125.64 per MWh.

11 a.m. — Electricity use hits 9589 MW, a new summertime record for Alberta. The price hits $502.59.

1 p.m. — Electricity use climbs to 9842 MW. The price hits $899.52.

1:06 p.m. — TransAlta’s Keephills 1 power plant, with 406 MW generation capacity goes off-line.

1:08 p.m. — The price of electricity hits $999.99 per MWh

1:37 p.m.  — AESO, the Alberta Electrical Systems Operator, issues a Level 1 alert.

2 p.m. — The temperature climbs to 32 degrees C. Electricity use climbs to 9885 MW, a record. The price stays at $999.99 per MWh

2:06 p.m. — AESO declares a Level 2 electricity alert.

2:07 p.m. — A heat sensor malfunctions at Capital Power’s Genesee 2 plant, with a capacity of 400 MW.

2:10 p.m. — AESO declares a Level 3 alert, orders major distributors including Enmax and Epcor, to shed electricity load. The price hits the maximum $1000.00 MWh

2:58 p.m. — TransAlta’s 362 megawatt Sundance 3 generator, which had been off-line for servicing since Friday, comes back into service.

3 p.m. — The temperature hits 32 degrees. Thanks to rolling blackouts, electricity use drops slightly to 9654 MW. Price remains at $1000 per MWh

3:46 p.m. — ATCO Power’s 385 MW Joffre natural gas power plant goes off-line.

4 p.m. — The temperature is 33 degrees C. Electricity use declines to 9573 MW. Price remains at $1000.

5 p.m. — AESO reduces alert status to level two. Power use rises to 9606 MW. The price stays at $1000.

5:13 p.m. — ATCO’s Joffre plant comes back on line.

5:14 p.m. — Capital Power’s Genesee 2 back on line

5:41 p.m. — AESO reduces power alert status to level 1

11 p.m. — The price of electricity falls sharply to $19.74 MWh. Demand levels to 8936 MW.

July 16, 2012

EDMONTON – The NDP Opposition will be asking Alberta’s Auditor General to investigate the how often oil pipelines Alberta are inspected to prevent oil spills, perform cleanup, and how often penalties are given to companies that fail to make repairs or cleanup. This call comes after auditors for both the Federal and Saskatchewan governments found that their pipelines weren’t being monitored closely enough.

“Both of those reports found that pipelines in their jurisdictions weren’t being inspected enough.” said NDP MLA David Eggen. “We’ve had three spills in Alberta already this year. Clearly Alberta needs the same investigation.”

Both the Federal and Saskatchewan systems audits were performed in the last year. The Saskatchewan Auditor General found that no one followed up to ensure that needed repairs were being made. The Federal Auditor General found the same problem with pipelines under that government’s watch. The NDP are asking Alberta’s Auditor General to make the same investigation.

“Now is the time for a complete systems audit of our pipeline safety policy.” Said Eggen. “Our energy economy depends on a secure system, as does the integrity of our land and water.”

The Alberta government is responsible for 411,000 Km of pipeline, compared to 23,500 Km for Saskatchewan.

Alberta’s NDP Opposition – On Your Side.

#501 Legislature Annex, 9718-107 St, Edmonton, AB. T5K 1E4

www.NDPopposition.ab.ca

Sheryl Ubelacker, The Canadian Press Jul 10, 2012 18:24:00 PM

TORONTO – Opponents of wind farms are hailing Health Canada’s decision to study the possible connection between noise generated by the towering turbines and adverse health effects reported by people living close to them.

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced Tuesday that Ottawa will conduct the study, which “is in response to questions from residents living near wind farms about possible health effects of low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines.”

The $1.8-million study will initially focus on residents in 2,000 dwellings near eight to 12 wind-turbine installations. There are about 140 such land-based wind farms in Canada, most of them in Ontario and Quebec.

Sherri Lange, CEO of North American Platform Against Wind Power (NA-PAW), said she is encouraged to see the federal government is finally undertaking a study on the safety of wind turbines.

“I hope it will be independent and at an arm’s length” from the government, said Lange, whose opposition to wind farms began with a fight to stop a proposed installation of the energy-producing towers in Lake Ontario, offshore from her east Toronto neighbourhood.

The study is being conducted by a team of more than 25 experts in acoustics, health assessment and medicine, including four international advisers.

“This study will contribute to an area of ongoing global research,” Health Canada said.

“Currently, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not there is a relationship between exposure to the noise from wind turbines and adverse human health effects, although community annoyance and other concerns have been reported to Health Canada and in the scientific literature.”

Lange contends that exposure to low-frequency noise and vibrations — in particular, inaudible infrasound — from wind turbines can lead to sleep disorders, headaches, depression, anxiety and even blood pressure changes.

“The house vibrates, it becomes like a guitar. The noise and the vibration enters the home and it actually increases the effect,” she said.

“People have to go in their basements to sleep or they have to take a pup tent and sleep in the yard. But they can only go on doing that for so long,” she said, noting that up to 40 families in Ontario have left their rural homes as a result of turbines erected nearby.

Lange said she hopes researchers conducting the study will listen to the stories of people, many of them farmers, who say they are suffering ill health linked to wind-energy towers.

“During the process of the study, they need to go and talk to these people as I have,” she said.

“These are ordinary, hard-working people. They would not make up these stories in a million years. They’re trying to protect their land, their homes, their children, the legacy that they’ve built and received from their families.”

Health Canada said researchers will be conducting face-to-face interviews with residents, as well as taking physical measurements such as blood pressure and heart rate, and assessing noise levels both inside and outside some of the homes.

Some residents will be fitted with devices to monitor sleep disturbances for seven consecutive nights, and hair samples will be taken to measure levels of the stress hormone cortisol over the previous 90 days, said a Health Canada scientist involved in the study.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association, representing organizations and individuals involved in the development and application of wind energy products and services, said scientific evidence “clearly demonstrates” that energy-capturing turbines do not have an impact on human health.

“CanWEA supports the responsible and sustainable development of wind energy in Canada and we continue to monitor ongoing scientific research in this area,” president Robert Hornung said in a statement.

“Health Canada’s new study will contribute to the scientific literature and our knowledge base, and we appreciate the opportunity for stakeholders to review the draft methodology and study design and we look forward to undertaking such a review and providing our feedback.”

Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, welcomed the study announcement and called for an immediate halt to approvals for large-scale wind-turbine projects in the province.

“We have been saying this for years as people in Ontario exposed to turbine noise and infrasound are being made ill,” Wilson, a registered nurse, said in a release Tuesday.

“We have demanded health studies, we have demanded research to back up the province’s assertion that its setbacks are safe. And yet the province issued approvals for these projects with no scientific evidence to prove they were safe. Now, Health Canada’s admission that research is needed is confirming that.”

Ontario PC Party energy critic Vic Fedeli also called for an immediate moratorium on further wind power development in Ontario.

“I’ve been to dozens of town halls across the province and have heard the painful stories of those who’ve reported these adverse health effects,” Fedeli said. “The fact the federal government feels this study is necessary is reason enough to put a halt to any more wind turbines being built in Ontario right now.”

During Ontario’s last legislative session, the Conservatives put forth a proposal calling for a moratorium on wind turbines, but it was rejected by the Liberal government and the NDP.

The proposed health-effects study design is posted on Health Canada’s website for a 30-day public comment period, and feedback will be reviewed by the committee putting together the study. Canadians can voice their opinions at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2012/wind_turbine-eoliennes/index-eng.php.

Specific details about study locations and timing will be made public on Health Canada’s website upon completion of the study, with results expected to be published in 2014.