Our commitment: Prowind will design each project to meet applicable acoustic requirements, publish the project-specific noise assessment when the turbine model and preliminary layout have been established, and complete any required compliance testing after construction.We will maintain a clear complaint process and investigate substantive concerns using relevant operating information, weather data, acoustic information and qualified professionals. Where an investigation identifies a project-related compliance or operating issue, Prowind will take appropriate corrective action.

The most comprehensive Canadian study of wind-turbine noise found no evidence of a link between exposure to wind-turbine noise and any of the self-reported or objectively measured health outcomes it examined.Health Canada found no association with reported illnesses or chronic conditions, stress, blood pressure, resting heart rate, hair cortisol, self-reported or measured sleep quality, or overall quality of life. Although some participants reported health conditions, those conditions occurred across the study population and did not increase with higher levels of wind-turbine-noise exposure. The study did find that the percentage of people reporting high annoyance increased at higher calculated sound levels. Annoyance is therefore a legitimate consideration in project design and community engagement, but the study did not find that wind-turbine-noise exposure caused illness or measurable adverse health effects.

Health Canada and Statistics Canada studied 1,238 participating households near 399 wind turbines in 18 developments in Ontario and Prince Edward Island. The study combined randomly selected household interviews, objectively measured health indicators and more than 4,000 hours of wind-turbine sound measurements. It was the first wind-turbine study to combine self-reported information with physically measured health outcomes on this scale.The principal findings were:

• no evidence of a link with the self-reported illnesses and chronic conditions examined;
• no association with measured or self-reported stress;
• no association with measured or self-reported sleep quality;
• no association with measured blood pressure, resting heart rate or hair cortisol;
• no significant change in reported quality of life or satisfaction with health; and
• no association between increasing noise exposure and the health conditions reported by participants. Health Canada also found that the measured low-frequency noise and infrasound levels were below levels expected to harm human health. An independent Council of Canadian Academies review similarly found that annoyance was the only outcome forwhich sufficient evidence of causation had been established. It found evidence against a causal relationship with hearing loss and insufficient evidence to establish causation for most other health outcomes.

Our commitment: Prowind will listen carefully to concerns raised by residents, record substantive complaints and investigate them using the relevant project information, operating data and qualified technical expertise. We will not dismiss individual experiences.

The Huron study recorded the experiences of a very small, self-selected group of participants. Its authors stated that the results could not be generalized to the wider community, and the study was not designed to determine whether wind turbines caused illness.

Percentages such as 44% or 58% can sound as though they describe the wider population. In fact, they referred only to the small number of participating households. For example, the 58% figure was based on 11 of 19 participating households located within one kilometer of a turbine.

The findings are relevant as a record that some participants experienced annoyance. They are not evidence that the same proportion of the broader community was affected, nor do they demonstrate a causal relationship with adverse health effects.

The final report estimated that fewer than one per cent of eligible residents within ten kilometres participated and stated that selection bias was certain. It expressly cautioned that the results could not describe the experience ofall Huron County residents living within ten kilometres of a turbine.

Larger and more rigorous reviews recognize that turbine sound can cause annoyance for some people. They also conclude that very low participation rates, self-selection and reliance on self-reported experiences greatly limit conclusions about community prevalence or health causation.

Our commitment: Prowind will provide a private and respectful opportunity for an affected individual or family to explain relevantsensory concerns. Personal information will be treated confidentially and will not be shared without consent, except where required by law.We will take the concern seriously, provide clear information about the proposed project and discuss reasonable alternatives or accommodations where the concern may be relevant. These discussions may include meeting arrangements, communication methods, turbine sound, shadow flicker, aviation lighting, visual simulations, siting considerations and other practical measures appropriate to the circumstances.

Some autistic people and others with sensory sensitivities may be particularly affected by certain sounds, lighting, movement or changes in their surroundings. These responses are individual and acknowledged.The wind-turbine health research reviewed for this publication does not provide a reliable autism-specific conclusion. It does not establish that wind turbines create a particular health risk for autistic people, nor does it establish that every autistic person will experience turbine sound, lighting or visual movement in the same way.

Individuals and families generally understand their own sensory triggers, tolerances and accommodation needs better than a general population study can describe them. A lack of autism-specific research is not evidence of harm, but it means that individual concerns should be heard rather than answered with broad assurances that may not address the person’s circumstances.

Research involving autistic adults and children confirms that sensory differences can include increased sensitivity to sound and visual stimuli. It also shows considerable variation among individuals. These findings support an individualized response, but they do not establish a specific connection between autism and wind-turbine exposure. Health Canada’s wind-turbine study found no association between increasing turbine-noise exposure and the health outcomes it assessed beyond annoyance. However, autistic people were not studied as a separate group,so the results should not be presented as an autism-specific conclusion.

Our commitment: Before operation, Prowind will work with the local fire service to prepare a project-specific emergency-response plan. Prowind will provide site access information, 24-hour technical contacts, turbine shutdown and isolation procedures, turbine dimensions and the information needed to establish an appropriate safety perimeter. Prowind will remain responsible for project-related technical support, debris recovery, spill response and cleanup costs.

Turbine incidents require a project-specific emergency plan developed with local responders. The operator remains responsible for shutdown, technical isolation, access, specialized support, debris and spill management, investigation and project-related costs, subject to the final agreements and applicable law.

Ontario firefighter guidance identifies electrical equipment, combustible materials, hydraulic oil, falling components and possible structural collapse as the principal hazards of a turbine fire. For an elevated nacelle fire, fire personnel are directed to establish and maintain a safe perimeter and allow the fire to burn itself out. Theperimeter is determined by the turbine’s height, the size and weight of its components, wind conditions and the potential for falling debris or structural failure. Access to the nacelle is addressed separately in the guidance only in relation to the specialized rescue of a trapped worker. During a fire response, qualified project personnel are responsible for disconnecting and isolating the affected turbine and providing technical information to the incident commander. The project-specific emergency-response plan will therefore establish site access, emergency contacts, turbine shutdown and electrical-isolation procedures, safe perimeter considerations, management of falling debris, and responsibility for subsequent cleanup and environmental response. The local fire service remains responsible forincident command, securing the area and protecting public safety.

Prowind will record, acknowledge and investigate each substantive complaint using the informationrelevant to the concern. Prowind will not make a blanket legal or medical conclusion before the circumstances, operating data and applicable standards are reviewed.

Our commitment: Prowind will publish a complaint process with a contact, acknowledgement standard, investigation steps, escalation path and method for communicating the outcome.

An investigation may require turbine operating data, wind and weather data, acoustic measurements, maintenance records, photographs, site inspection or consultation with the regulator, insurer or another qualified professional.Prowind will protect personal and business information. Aggregate reporting can show the number and type of complaints without publishing identifying health or business infomation.

Ontario research has not identified a systematic reduction in property values attributable to turbine proximity or visibility across the transactions studied.

A University of Guelph study examined 5,414 rural residential sales and 1,590 farmland sales in and around Melancthon Township and did not find statistically significant effects on property values from turbine proximity or visibility. MPAC, Ontario’s property-assessment authority, compared actual residential sales near wind turbines with sales farther away. Its studies concluded that properties near turbines were being assessed consistently with market sales and that no separate reduction in assessed value was required because of turbine proximity. MPAC’s 2012analysis also found no statistically significant effect on residential sale prices in the market areas studied. The studies were independently reviewed.

Yes. Shadow flicker can be noticeable at a nearby home during limited periods when the sun, a moving turbine blade and a window are aligned. The effect is predictable, is not continuous and canbe reduced or prevented. Modern turbine controls can stop an individual turbine during identified periods if siting or simpler measures do not adequately address the concern.

Shadow flicker occurs only when several conditions coincide: the sun is sufficiently low and unobstructed, the turbine is operating, and the rotor lies between the sun and a window or occupied outdoor area. Its timing can therefore be calculated for each potentially affected location.Modelling normally distinguishes a theoretical worst case from a more realistic estimate that reflects sunshine and turbine operation. Health Canada found that annoyance related to shadow flicker can occur, but its national wind-turbine study did not identify a link between turbine exposure and the health outcomes it measured. Where a verified effect remains, practical measures can include a layout adjustment, screening, window treatment or programmed turbine shutdown during the specific dates and times when flicker would otherwise occur.

Our commitment: Prowind will complete project-specific shadow-flicker modelling when the turbine model and preliminary layout are known, provide the relevant results to potentially affected residents and respond to a documented concern. Where modelling or investigation confirms a material effect, Prowind will implement reasonable mitigation, including programmed curtailment where appropriate.

Loss of cellular service is not expected. Wind turbines do not transmit on cellular frequencies and are not a source of cellular jamming. Like other tall structures, however, a turbine can in uncommon, location-specific circumstances obstruct or reflect a particular radio path, especially where existing rural coverage is weak or a fixed microwave link is involved.

Canadian radiocommunication guidance uses a pre-construction coordination process to identify licensed broadcast, microwave, radar and other systems that could be affected by a proposed turbine layout. The relevantmechanisms are physical obstruction and reflection, not the turbine transmitting a competing cellular signal. For ordinary mobile service, a useful investigation compares signal strength, call and data performance, network coverage and the position of the user, turbine and cell towers. The mobile provider may need to participate because it controls the network and has access to the most complete operating information.

Our commitment: Before finalizing a layout, Prowind will complete the applicable radiocommunication review and consult identified system operators where required. We will investigate a credible, documented post-construction change in service. Where the investigation confirms that the project caused a material effect, Prowind will work with the service provider and affected user to implement reasonable technical mitigation.

This is an important question in an agricultural community like Minto.

Wind projects do have impacts on farmland, particularly during construction, and we think it is important to be open about those. Turbine foundations and access roads permanently take a relatively small amount of land out of production. During construction, heavy equipment can also create temporary issues such as soil compaction or disruption to drainage if the work is not carefully managed.

Ontario’s agricultural guidance specifically recognizes these concerns. It calls for access roads to be located so they minimize the amount of agricultural land affected and for agricultural productivity, drainage and irrigation systems to be protected.

Once construction is complete, normal farming generally continues around the turbines. Crops can be grown close to the turbine and livestock can continue to graze on the surrounding land. 

On crop production, research has not demonstrated a general reduction in yields caused by operating wind turbines. Some research has actually found small increases in certain crop yields, possibly because turbines slightly change air movement and temperature near the ground. We would not suggest that turbines improve crop yields, however — the research is still developing and effects can vary by crop and location.

The research specifically examining livestock is more limited, and we want to be transparent about that. Peer-reviewed research specifically examining farm animals does exist, although there is much more research on wildlife than on livestock.

The research we have reviewed does not demonstrate a pattern of adverse health or production effects in cattle associated with operating wind turbines. There is also considerable practical experience with cattle grazing and farming continuing around operating wind farms.

We also have our own local experience. Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm has been operating in the agricultural landscape of Oxford County since 2016. That experience gives us confidence that wind generation and active farming can coexist, but we would not use our experience alone as scientific proof that there can never be an impact.

Our responsibility in developing a project would be to work with each farm operation to minimize the land taken out of production, protect soils and drainage, maintain access for farm equipment and address any specific livestock or agricultural concerns identified during development.

Wind turbines are tall structures and lightning strikes are a normal and expected part of operating a wind farm.

Modern turbines are specifically designed with lightning-protection systems that provide a controlled path for the electrical energy to travel through the turbine and safely into the ground. These systems are designed to protect the turbine and reduce risk to the surrounding area.

Turbines also have monitoring and protection systems that can automatically shut them down if an abnormal condition is detected.

Occasionally, a strike can cause damage to a blade or another component. If that happens, the turbine can be taken out of service, inspected and repaired before it is returned to operation.

For the Minto project, the exact lightning-protection system would depend on the turbine manufacturer and model selected, but lightning protection is a standard part of modern utility-scale turbine design.

We understand why people would want reassurance about possible long-term health effects before a project is built.

Wind turbine noise and health have been studied in Canada and internationally. One of the most relevant Canadian studies was conducted by Health Canada in partnership with Statistics Canada. It included 1,238 households in Ontario and Prince Edward Island and more than 4,000 hours of wind-turbine noise measurements.

Health Canada found no association between increasing wind-turbine noise levels and the health conditions it examined, including headaches, migraines, dizziness and tinnitus. It also found no association with measured blood pressure, heart rate, cortisol levels or measured sleep.

The study did find that some people reported being annoyed by wind turbine noise and other turbine-related features, and that annoyance increased at higher sound levels. Health Canada treated that finding seriously and noted that prolonged high annoyance can affect well-being.

For that reason, wind projects in Ontario are not simply placed wherever a developer chooses. Large turbines are subject to provincial noise requirements and, under the current regulation, generally require a minimum 550-metre setback from noise receptors, with project-specific acoustic analysis used to determine whether greater separation is required.

For a Minto project, Prowind would have to complete detailed acoustic modelling using the actual turbine being proposed and demonstrate compliance with the applicable Ontario requirements before construction.

We also recognize that scientific knowledge continues to develop. If credible new evidence identified a health risk that is not understood today, the project would have to comply with any resulting changes to provincial standards or regulatory requirements.

And if residents raised concerns once a project was operating, we would take those concerns seriously and investigate them rather than simply dismissing them because existing studies have not established a health effect.

Based on the evidence available today, we are not aware of any cases showing that properly sited and regulated wind turbines cause the long-term health effects described in the question. At the same time, we believe residents deserve clear information, appropriate setbacks and a process for having concerns heard and investigated.

We do not yet know where a project in Minto might be located. No final turbine sites have been selected.

In general, where practical, we would prefer to locate project infrastructure on non-prime or secondary agricultural land and to minimize impacts on productive farmland, existing homes and farm operations.

Neighbouring properties would also be considered as part of the project design. Turbines must comply with Ontario’s applicable setback, noise and other regulatory requirements, and those requirements help determine where turbines can and cannot be located.

On property values, we do not believe it would be appropriate to assume in advance that neighbouring properties will decrease in value. We address the available research on that question separately.

That said, we are open to discussing a neighbour benefit or participation program for properties close to the project. The purpose would not be to compensate for an assumed loss in property value, but rather to recognize that neighbouring residents are part of the host community and should have an opportunity to share in some of the benefits of the project.

The details of any such program would need to be developed with the community if the project moves forward.

We agree that sound from a wind project needs to be evaluated carefully before turbines are located.

Ontario does not allow turbines to be placed simply on the basis of a minimum setback. A proposed project must also demonstrate compliance with provincial acoustic requirements at nearby homes and other noise-sensitive receptors.

For a Minto project, Prowind would be required to complete a detailed, project-specific acoustic assessment using the actual turbine model proposed for the project. That assessment would include the manufacturer’s certified sound-power data, the frequency spectrum of the turbine, the number and location of turbines, terrain, receptor locations, wind conditions and the combined sound from all relevant turbines.

For rural areas, Ontario’s current wind-farm noise guideline generally limits wind-turbine sound at a receptor to 40 dBA at wind speeds of 6 metres per second or less, with higher limits at higher wind speeds as natural background wind noise increases. Turbines must also meet Ontario’s minimum setback requirements, and depending on the turbine sound level and number of turbines, greater distances may be required.

The acoustic analysis does not look only at a single overall sound number. Ontario requires turbine acoustic information over a frequency range from 31.5 Hz to 8,000 Hz and considers tonal characteristics. The modelling also uses nighttime wind-profile assumptions intended to represent conditions when wind speeds at turbine height can be greater than those close to the ground.

Low-frequency sound from wind turbines has also been specifically investigated by Health Canada. Health Canada confirmed that turbines produce low-frequency sound and infrasound, but found that the levels measured in its Canadian study were below levels expected to cause harm to human health. The same study found no association between increasing wind-turbine noise exposure and either measured or self-reported sleep quality.

We do not think it would be responsible to promise that no individual will ever hear a turbine or that no person could ever find the sound annoying. Ontario’s standard is not based on turbines being completely inaudible. The requirement is that the project be designed and operated within established acoustic limits intended to protect neighbouring receptors.

Those limits are legally enforceable. Ontario also has a post-construction compliance protocol that allows measurements and acoustic audits to be required where concerns arise. If measurements establish that a project is not complying with its approval, corrective action can be required.

For Minto, our commitment would therefore be to model the actual project before construction, design turbine locations to comply with the applicable provincial sound limits, provide the acoustic study as part of the approval process, and respond to and investigate legitimate noise concerns if the project is ultimately built.

If the final project design warrants additional measures, such as increased setbacks, modified turbine locations or operating controls under particular conditions, those can be considered as part of the acoustic design before construction.

Shadow flicker is something that can be evaluated very precisely before a wind farm is built, and we believe it should be addressed through project design rather than asking neighbouring residents simply to accept it.

For a potential Minto project, we would expect to complete a site-specific shadow-flicker assessment before the turbine locations are finalized. The assessment would identify nearby residences and model when, for how long and at what time of year a turbine could potentially cast a moving shadow on a home.

The modelling considers the turbine location and dimensions, the location of each residence, the changing position of the sun throughout the year, terrain and other relevant site conditions. A conservative analysis can also assume that the turbine is operating and the sun is shining whenever the geometry allows shadow flicker to occur.

Ontario currently does not have a separate regulated shadow-flicker setback or numerical exposure limit, so we do not want to suggest that such a provincial requirement exists.

However, there are well-established benchmarks elsewhere. A commonly used standard is to limit shadow flicker at occupied residences to no more than 30 minutes on any day and 30 hours in a year. These limits are now specifically incorporated into regulations in jurisdictions such as British Columbia and Nova Scotia.

For Minto, we would be prepared to use that type of benchmark in designing and evaluating the project.

More importantly, if the modelling identified a residence where unacceptable shadow flicker could occur, there are practical ways to address it. These could include:

• changing the location of the turbine;
• increasing the separation from the residence; or
• programming the turbine’s control system to automatically stop the affected turbine during the specific minutes when shadow flicker could occur at that residence.

Modern turbine-control systems can do this automatically. Because the position of the sun is predictable, the affected dates and times can be calculated in advance. Some systems also use light sensors so that a turbine is curtailed only when the sun is actually bright enough to create a shadow.

The turbine can then restart automatically once the potential shadow-flicker period has passed.

If the project proceeds, we would be prepared to make the final shadow-flicker assessment and any required mitigation measures part of the project’s operating commitments rather than relying only on the provincial minimum setback requirements.

Our objective would be straightforward: identify potential impacts before construction and design or operate the project so that neighbouring residents are not left to deal with unreasonable shadow flicker in their homes.

Post-construction acoustic monitoring is already part of Ontario’s wind-energy approval and compliance framework, and we would expect a Minto project to be subject to those requirements.

Before construction, the project would have to complete detailed acoustic modelling that considers the combined sound from all relevant turbines, not simply each turbine individually. Nearby existing wind turbines or other relevant noise sources also have to be considered where applicable.

After the wind farm begins operating, Ontario’s Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise provides for post-construction acoustic audits at residential receptors to verify that the operating project actually complies with the approved sound limits. These audits are normally required as conditions of approval and are carried out at the project owner’s expense by qualified acoustic professionals.

The testing is designed to measure the turbines under representative operating conditions. Ontario’s protocol also requires relevant turbines from the project and, where applicable, nearby wind facilities to be considered so that cumulative turbine sound can be assessed.

If post-construction measurements demonstrate that the project is not complying with its approved noise limits, the project owner is required to bring the facility back into compliance. Depending on the cause, corrective measures could include changes to turbine operating modes, repairs, noise-reduced operation or curtailment of individual turbines under particular wind conditions.

Ontario’s compliance framework also provides for a Noise Abatement Action Plan where required to achieve compliance.

We would therefore not be relying only on computer modelling completed before construction. The predictions can be checked against actual sound measurements once the turbines are operating, and the operating project must continue to meet its approved acoustic limits.

With respect to health monitoring, Ontario does not currently require developers to conduct ongoing medical studies of neighbouring residents. We would be careful about promising a health-monitoring program that could not reliably determine whether an individual medical condition was caused by a turbine.

Our responsibility would instead be to comply with the health-protective acoustic standards established by the province, complete the required post-construction acoustic verification, investigate legitimate complaints and take corrective action if the project is found not to be in compliance.

Wind turbine fires are rare, but they require a different emergency response than a conventional building fire.

Specialized high-altitude firefighting equipment is not required to fight a fire in the nacelle of a wind turbine. Ontario’s firefighter guidance recommends that, where a turbine fire cannot be safely accessed, firefighters establish an appropriate safety perimeter, have the affected turbine electrically isolated by qualified personnel, and allow the fire to burn out rather than placing firefighters at risk by attempting to fight the fire at height.

For a Minto project, our responsibility would be to work directly with the Minto Fire Department, EMS and other emergency responders before the project begins operating so they understand the equipment, site layout and appropriate emergency procedures.

That planning would include:

• providing emergency responders with unrestricted emergency access to turbine sites and access roads;
• providing turbine locations, site maps and emergency contact information;
• establishing procedures for immediate turbine shutdown and electrical isolation;
• identifying appropriate safety and exclusion zones;
• planning for protection of surrounding agricultural land, buildings and other property if a fire or falling material creates a secondary risk;
• coordinating emergency procedures with the turbine manufacturer and qualified service personnel; and
• conducting pre-incident planning and appropriate familiarization or training with local emergency services.

Ontario specifically recommends that fire departments develop procedures for wind-turbine incidents, including site access, contact information, electrical isolation and establishment of safe collapse zones.

We would develop those procedures with the local fire department rather than assuming what equipment or resources they need. If that planning identifies reasonable project-specific training, communications equipment, access improvements or other resources required because of the wind project, those should be addressed as part of the project’s emergency-response planning.

The objective is not to expect volunteer firefighters to climb a turbine and fight a nacelle fire. Their primary role would be to secure the area, protect people and surrounding property, manage any fire that reaches the ground, and coordinate with Prowind and the turbine manufacturer’s emergency personnel.

The cost of preparing the project-specific emergency-response plan and providing the project information, access and coordination necessary for that response would be the responsibility of the project.

Would a local co-operative be independent, who could invest, and does membership count as support for the project?

Prowind will use the OCEC experience as a model while supporting an independent co-operative rooted in each host community. Subject to legal and offering requirements, residents and participating landowners will receive the first opportunity to invest. Prowind will not present membership or investment interest as municipal or community approval.

Community ownership can provide local participation and economic benefit, but it must be transparent. The co-operative’s public materials will explain who controls the co-operative, how directors are selected, who is eligible to invest, how risks are disclosed and how support for a specific project is measured.

A co-operative is governed through its own legislation, articles, by-laws, board and offering materials. It will makeits own membership and investment decisions and will not act as a marketing arm of the developer.Local investment priority will be implemented through lawful eligibility, disclosure and offering procedures. An investment opportunity does not guarantee a return, and each investor remains responsible for obtaining appropriate independent advice.

Our commitment: Prowind will support a host-community co-operative through practical experience and project information while respecting its independent governance. Future investment opportunities will first be directed to the host community and participating landowners, then to the wider region and Ontario if additional capital is required.

A land lease agreement is a significant long-term decision. Prowind will provide the full agreement, a plain-language term summary, adequate review time and access to independent legal and tax advice before signing. Material project representations will be confirmed in writing.

Land agreements can affect title, farm succession, access, financing, property sales and future land use. Prowind will not expect a landowner to rely on a short presentation or verbal assurance.

A plain-language summary is helpful but cannot replace the agreement. The summary will identify the term, renewal rights, title registration, access rights, location-change process, payment structure, confidentiality, assignment, insurance, indemnity, dispute resolution and end-of-term obligations.

Landowners will be able to consult appropriate family members, lenders, accountants and succession advisers, subject to reasonable confidentiality provisions in the agreement.

Our commitment: Prowind will provide adequate review time, encourage independent legal and tax advice, offer a reasonable allowance toward independent legal review, and confirm material project representations in writing. We have built respectful working relationships with more than 50 landowners and encourage prospective landowners to speak directly with existing host landowners about their experience working with us.

Prowind will answer disagreement through evidence, written clarification and a visible correction process rather than speculation about a person’s motives. Questions will be accepted whether theyare supportive, critical or anonymous, provided they can be assessed responsibly.

Distrust grows when residents do not know who will answer a question, whether a complaint was recorded or whether an error will be corrected publicly.

Prowind can answer only for its own representatives, projects and published materials. Prowind will not adopt or dismiss allegations concerning another company without the underlying facts.Anonymous questions may limit the ability to investigate an individual circumstance, but they can still identify a broader subject that requires a public response.

Our commitment: Prowind will maintain a public question and correction process, identify a senior Canadian contact, record substantive questions, publish material corrections and prohibit retaliation for good-faith concerns.

Choosing to host or support a wind project does not mean that a landowner is disloyal to neighbours or indifferent to community concerns. Landowners may support a project for different reasons, including farm-income stability, private property rights, local investment, environmental objectives and the need for new electricity supply. Neighbours may reasonably reach different conclusions without either side acting against the interests of the community.

A wind project supplies Ontario’s interconnected electricity system rather than only the municipality where it is located. Its value therefore extends beyond the host property and municipality to provincial supply, domestic energy security and reduced exposure to international fuel markets.

Wind projects can affect relationships within rural communities. Participating landowners may feel criticized for exercising their property rights, while neighbouring residents may feel that they are affected by a decision in which they did not directly participate. These concerns should be acknowledged without assigning motives or questioning anyone’s loyalty to the community.

A constructive public process does not require everyone to agree. It requires accurate information, respectful conduct, clear decision criteria and recognition that people may weigh landscape change, energy need, property rights, local benefits and environmental objectives differently.

Electricity from a local project flows into the provincial grid and is dispatched as part of the wider system. The immediate municipality does not need to consume the project’s full output for the project to contribute to provincial supply and reliability.Domestically produced renewable electricity can diversify the supply mix and reduce exposure to fuels whose prices and availability are influenced by international markets and geopolitical events. It does not eliminate the need for transmission, balancing resources or other forms of generation, but it can reduce fuel-price and import exposure at a system level.

At the local scale, benefits may include lease payments, municipal tax revenue, local procurement, community funds, neighbour benefits and opportunities for local co-operative investment. Prowind will disclose those benefits alongside the project’s local impacts and will not present them as a substitute for addressing concerns.

Our commitment: Prowind will not portray participating landowners as disloyal to their neighbours, nor will it characterize projectopponents as hostile to progress. We will encourage respectful discussion, explain both the broader energy value and the local implications of a proposed project, and disclose all proposed community benefit arrangements before asking a municipality for a project-support decision.

Wind turbines are physical structures and they will change the appearance of the surrounding landscape. Prowind will not minimize that fact. We recognize that an open horizon, familiar rural view and dark night sky can be important parts of how people experience their homes and community.

Visual impact cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be understood, reduced and considered in project design. Prowind will provide accurate mapping and representative visual simulations, disclose the proposed turbine dimensions and lighting requirements, and consider reasonable siting alternatives where changes could reduce impacts on nearby homes, important viewpoints or valued landscape features.

A landscape is more than a technical planning consideration. It can be connected to a person’s home, farming history, sense of place and enjoyment of the surrounding area. A statement that visual change is not a regulated health effect does not answer a resident who is concerned about losing an open horizon or experiencing a familiar landscape differently.People will not all respond to that change in the same way. Some may view turbines as a positive sign of local energy production, while others may find them intrusive. Both reactions are legitimate and should be treated respectfully.

The visual experience of a wind project depends on several factors, including turbine height, distance, topography, vegetation, weather, the number and arrangement of turbines, and the location of homes, roads andpublic viewpoints.Visual simulations can help residents understand the likely view, but they must be prepared and presented carefully. Prowind will identify the viewpoint, camera settings, weather conditions, turbine dimensions and limitations of each simulation.Visual simulations are not a substitute for community input. Where residents identify important views or landscape features, Prowind will consider that information during layout development and will explain whether changes are practical and what trade-offs they may create.

Our commitment: Prowind will be open about the visual change associated with a proposed project. We will provide realistic visual information early enough for it to inform public discussion, consider reasonable layout alternatives, andexplain where visual impacts can be reduced and where they cannot.

Potential benefits include municipal tax revenue, community benefit agreements, construction jobs, local purchasing and contracting, employment opportunities, and lease payments to participating landowners. Ontario itself identifies employment opportunities, energy to support local industry and potential community benefit agreements as examples of benefits that may accompany new electricity projects. 

For the Minto project, no final community benefit agreement has been negotiated, so it would be premature to put a dollar value on the benefit to the Town.

If the project proceeds, Prowind would expect to discuss potential community benefits with the Town of Minto as part of the development process.

Importantly, the Town can consider those potential benefits when deciding whether it wishes to support the project.

The cost depends on the size and type of turbine, the site, foundations, roads, electrical infrastructure and the cost of connecting the project to the grid.

As a Canadian benchmark, the Canada Energy Regulator uses a 2024 capital-cost assumption of approximately C$1,994 per kilowatt for onshore wind generation. Using that benchmark, 5 MW of installed wind capacity would represent roughly C$10 million in total project capital cost. This is not simply the purchase price of the turbine; it includes the broader cost of developing and constructing the wind project.

Annual electricity production also varies considerably from site to site because it depends on the wind resource, turbine design, availability and operating conditions.

A useful local example is the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm in Oxford County. Gunn’s Hill has an installed capacity of 18 MW and produces approximately 50 million kilowatt-hours of electricity in a typical year.

That works out to roughly 2.8 million kWh per year for each MW of installed capacity. On the same basis, a modern 5 MW turbine at a site with similar performance would produce approximately 14 million kWh per year.

This is only an illustration. A new turbine at another location could produce more or less depending on the wind resource and the specific turbine selected.

That is a fair question.

Prowind is here because we are still at an early stage of evaluating whether a wind project in Minto is feasible and whether there is enough community and municipal support for it to move forward.

Nothing has been approved. The August 6 meeting was part of that early process which is to provide information, hear questions and concerns, and better understand how residents feel about a potential project.

We also recognize that the Town has previously expressed opposition to wind development. We are not ignoring that position.

Under Ontario’s current electricity procurement framework, a project would need a municipal council resolution of support in order to submit a qualifying proposal to the IESO. In practical terms, that means a project cannot move forward through the procurement process without municipal support.

So our reason for being here is simply to have an open conversation, provide information, listen to residents and determine whether there is any basis for a project to continue to be considered.

If the Town of Minto ultimately does not provide the municipal support required by the IESO process, Prowind would have to respect that decision.

Yes. There are a number of alternative ways of capturing energy from the wind, and these technologies have been researched for many years.

Some examples include:

Vertical-axis turbines rotate around a vertical shaft rather than facing into the wind. Two common designs are the Darrieus, sometimes described as an “eggbeater” design, and the Savonius, which uses curved surfaces to catch the wind. An advantage is that they can accept wind from different directions without having to turn the turbine to face the wind. However, vertical-axis turbines have generally not matched conventional utility-scale turbines in overall power production, durability and cost effectiveness.

Savonius-type turbines are particularly simple and can start easily in relatively low winds. However, they rely largely on the wind pushing against the rotor rather than using aerodynamic lift. This makes them substantially less efficient at extracting energy from the wind and better suited to small or specialized applications.

Bladeless or oscillating wind systems have also been developed. Instead of a rotating rotor, these devices use the movement or vibration of a mast caused by the wind to generate electricity. They may have advantages such as fewer moving parts, but the technology is still under development and captures energy over a much smaller effective area than a large conventional rotor.

The familiar three-blade horizontal-axis turbine has become the standard for large wind projects because the blades work much like aircraft wings. They use aerodynamic lift rather than simply being pushed by the wind, allowing the blade tips to travel considerably faster than the wind itself and extract energy efficiently. Large rotors also sweep a very large area and are mounted high above the ground where winds are generally stronger and more consistent.

After decades of testing and development, the three-blade design has become the accepted standard for utility-scale wind generation because it provides a very effective balance of energy production, reliability, structural loads, noise and cost.

That does not mean alternative technologies will never become competitive. We continue to see innovation in wind technology, but today the three-blade horizontal-axis turbine remains the proven technology for projects of this scale.

At this point, we cannot honestly put a percentage on that.

Prowind is investigating whether a wind project in Minto is possible, but there are still several important questions that have to be answered before we would know whether a project can move forward.

We would need to confirm the wind resource through actual site-specific measurements, determine whether suitable land and grid capacity are available, complete environmental, noise and other technical studies, and determine whether the project is economically viable.

Just as importantly, the project would require municipal support. Under Ontario’s current IESO procurement process, a project located on municipal lands must have the required municipal support in order to submit a qualifying proposal. Even receiving municipal support does not guarantee that a project will receive an IESO contract.

So the most accurate answer today is: a wind project in Minto is possible, which is why we are doing the work to investigate it, but it is far from a certainty.

We believe residents should have an opportunity to understand the proposal and ask questions while those decisions are still being made — not after everything has already been decided.

Yes. We heard that feedback and agree that future community meetings should include evening hours.

Our goal is to make it as practical as possible for residents, including farmers and others who are working during the day, to attend and participate. There is no benefit to us in holding meetings at times that make participation difficult.

We are also open to suggestions about meeting times and formats and will continue to listen to community feedback as we plan future meetings.

Wind turbine blades are designed to operate for many years, but like other mechanical and structural components, they are regularly inspected and may require maintenance, repair or eventual replacement.

Minor damage, such as surface erosion or localized cracking, can often be repaired while the blade remains in service. More significant damage may require the turbine to be taken out of operation while the blade is repaired or replaced. Turbine operators use scheduled inspections and increasingly use technologies such as drones and remote monitoring to identify deterioration before it becomes a larger problem.

At the end of a blade’s useful life, several options are possible, including reuse or repurposing, recycling, recovery of materials, or disposal where no practical recycling option is available.

Recycling turbine blades is more challenging than recycling many other parts of a wind turbine because blades are typically made from composite materials such as fibreglass or carbon fibre combined with resins. In contrast, much of the turbine’s steel, copper, aluminum and other metallic components can enter established recycling streams.

It is important to distinguish between “technically recyclable” and “currently recyclable through a readily available local commercial recycling system.” Not every component of every blade can currently be economically recycled in Ontario.

If a Minto project proceeds, Prowind would be responsible for developing an appropriate plan for maintaining, replacing and ultimately managing turbine components at the end of their useful lives. As the project advances, more information can be provided about the selected turbine model, blade materials and the recycling or disposal options available at that time.

No. A wind project earns revenue from the electricity it produces, but that revenue is shared across many parts of the project and does not simply become profit for the developer.

A large portion goes toward the cost of building, financing, operating and maintaining the project over its lifetime. That includes equipment, construction, roads, electrical infrastructure, insurance, maintenance, financing, property taxes, landowner payments and eventual decommissioning.

Just as importantly, Prowind’s preferred approach is to create opportunities for local participation in the ownership and benefits of the project.

For a potential Minto project, that could include:

• payments to participating landowners;
• municipal property taxes and potentially other community benefits;
• local contractors, suppliers and employment;
• participation by a community energy co-operative; and
• the opportunity for First Nations partners to participate financially or as project partners.

The exact structure has not been decided and would depend on discussions with the municipality, community, First Nations and other potential partners.

Prowind and other project investors would also expect to earn a reasonable return on the money they invest. That is necessary for a privately financed project to proceed.

So the goal is not for all of the economic benefit to leave the community. If the project moves forward, we would want a meaningful portion of the long-term economic benefits and ownership opportunities to be shared locally.

Yes. Our position is that local taxpayers should not be responsible for repairing damage caused by construction of the project.

If the project proceeds, we would expect to enter into legally binding road-use agreements with the Town of Minto and the County of Wellington, as applicable, before heavy construction and turbine-delivery traffic begins.

The details would be negotiated with the municipalities and their engineers, but we would expect those agreements to address matters such as:

• approved construction and heavy-haul routes;
• pre-construction inspections and documentation of the condition of affected roads, bridges and culverts;
• engineering review of bridges and other structures where exceptionally heavy loads are proposed;
• traffic management and road maintenance during construction;
• repair of damage attributable to project construction;
• insurance and indemnification requirements; and
• appropriate financial security, such as a letter of credit or other security acceptable to the municipality, that remains in place until the required work has been completed and accepted.

The County of Wellington already requires permits and route approval for oversize and overweight vehicles and can require engineering studies for exceptionally heavy loads. Any project would have to comply with those requirements as well as any additional conditions established specifically for the wind project.

The amount and form of the financial security should ultimately be determined with the Town and County based on the actual construction routes, existing road conditions and engineering assessment. We would expect the security to be in place before project-related heavy construction traffic begins.

To be precise, the project should be responsible for damage attributable to the project, rather than ordinary road deterioration that would have occurred regardless of the project. Establishing the condition of the roads before construction gives both the municipality and the project a clear and fair basis for making that determination.

The objective is straightforward: the municipality should not be left with a repair bill for road or infrastructure damage caused by construction of the wind project.

Our position is that the cost of decommissioning and restoring the project site should be the responsibility of the project, not local taxpayers.

Ontario already requires applicable renewable-energy projects to prepare a formal decommissioning plan addressing removal of the facility, site restoration and management of materials and waste. The province also has the authority to require financial assurance for a project.

For a Minto project, we would also be prepared to work with the Town and the landowner to establish a legally binding decommissioning and financial-security arrangement before construction.

Although the exact mechanism cannot responsibly be determined before the project layout, turbine type and restoration requirements are known, we would expect an appropriate arrangement to include:

• an independent estimate of the cost of decommissioning and site restoration;
• financial security acceptable to the municipality, such as an irrevocable letter of credit, surety bond, cash security or another legally enforceable instrument;
• periodic review of the estimated decommissioning cost so that the security reflects inflation and current construction and restoration costs;
• requirements that the security remain in place throughout the operating life of the project;
• provisions preventing a transfer of the project from eliminating the decommissioning obligation, with any successor owner required to assume those obligations and maintain the required security; and
• the ability for the appropriate authority to access the financial security if the project owner fails to carry out its decommissioning obligations.

The financial security should be separate from ordinary municipal tax revenues so that the municipality is not expected to finance decommissioning first and attempt to recover the money later.

Decommissioning would include removal of turbines and associated infrastructure and restoration of the land in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan and any agreements with the municipality and landowners. On agricultural land, the objective would be to return the affected area to productive agricultural use.

The precise depth to which turbine foundations would be removed should be established in the approved decommissioning plan based on the future agricultural use of the land and applicable provincial and municipal requirements. Ontario’s current guidance requires foundation removal to an extent consistent with the future use of the property.

We cannot honestly specify today whether the final security will be an escrow account, letter of credit, surety bond or another acceptable instrument, or what its dollar amount will be. Those details should be established once the actual project and decommissioning costs are known.

What we can commit to as a principle is that a future change in ownership, corporate structure or energy policy should not transfer the project’s decommissioning responsibility to the taxpayers of Minto.

No developer can honestly guarantee that a large infrastructure project will create no disagreement within a community. People can have different views about wind energy, and we recognize that those differences can sometimes become difficult.

What we can control is how the project is developed. Our approach is to provide information early, listen to concerns, make changes where concerns can reasonably be addressed, share economic benefits more broadly than only with participating landowners, and give residents opportunities to participate before major decisions are made.

The municipality also has a meaningful role in the process.

Under Ontario’s current IESO procurement framework, Prowind cannot submit a qualifying proposal for a project on municipal lands without the required Municipal Support Confirmation. Council decides whether to provide that support. The IESO has also confirmed that a municipal support resolution can be revoked before the proposal submission deadline; it must still be valid when the proposal is submitted.

A municipal support resolution does not mean that every approval has been granted or that Council has given up its normal legal authority. The project would still have to meet applicable provincial approvals, planning requirements, municipal agreements and other legal obligations.

It is important, however, to be equally clear about the other side of the question. Once a project has received its required approvals, entered into an IESO contract and made significant contractual and financial commitments, Council would not necessarily have an unrestricted right to cancel the project simply by passing another resolution. At that stage, the rights and obligations of the municipality, the project owner and the IESO would be governed by the applicable laws, approvals and contracts.

So when we say the municipality is “in the driver’s seat,” we primarily mean that Minto has an important decision to make before Prowind can submit a project into the provincial procurement process.

Our preference is not to reach that decision quickly. We expect further discussions with Council and additional community engagement before asking Council to consider formal support.

If there is not sufficient municipal support to proceed at that stage, we would have to respect that decision.

We want future events to be easy to find and not rely on just one communication channel.

We expect to use a combination of local newspapers, social media, community notices and direct updates through this project website. We are also open to using local radio or other channels if residents feel that would help reach more people.

We welcome suggestions about the best ways to communicate in Minto, particularly with residents who may not regularly use social media.

Our goal is simple: if we are holding a public meeting or sharing important project information, people should have a reasonable opportunity to hear about it in advance.

Prowind was the sole organizer of this community meeting and is responsible for organizing our project-related public events.

We believe it is our responsibility to engage directly with the community, provide information, hear questions and concerns, and listen to residents as the project evaluation continues. We do not outsource that responsibility to a third party.

The Town of Minto did not organize or sponsor the meeting.

Confidentiality protects legitimate commercial terms and third-party information, but it will not prevent a landowner from obtaining independent legal, tax, accounting or financial advice, consulting a lender, discussing succession with appropriate family advisers, reporting a concern toa regulator or describing the landowner’s own experience.

A long agreement can be difficult to evaluate, and broad confidentiality language can discourage a landowner from asking for the advice needed to make an informed decision. The permitted disclosures must be clear in the agreement itself.

The confidentiality clause will include express exceptions for professional advisers, lenders, insurers, appropriatefamily and succession advisers, government and regulatory authorities, and disclosures required by law.Confidentiality may continue to protect negotiated commercial information, technical information belonging to another party and personal information. It will not be used to prevent a landowner from raising a safety, environmental, contractual or conduct concern.

Our commitment: Prowind will give landowners adequate review time, provide a reasonable allowance toward independent legal review and explain the confidentiality provisions in plain language. We will not ask a landowner to rely on a verbal explanation that is inconsistent with the written agreement.

The project will be responsible for repairing verified construction damage and compensating documented crop loss or other direct agricultural loss caused by the work. Tile damage is a foreseeable construction risk and will be managed through pre-construction documentation, qualified repair, verification and clear response procedures—not left for the landowner to resolve.

Ontario’s 2026 Agricultural guidance documents call for projects to identify agricultural systems and assess drainage, soil and construction effects before work begins. Before construction, known tiles, outlets, municipal drains, surface-flow patterns, farm access and relevant infrastructure will be reviewed with the landowner. Repairs will be completed by qualified contractors using appropriate materials, grades and connections, followed by verification and documentation.The construction process will also address crop damage, temporary crossings, fencing, gates, access, topsoil handling, restoration and later-discovered impacts that can reasonably be traced to project work.

Our commitment: Prowind will prepare a project-specific Agricultural Protection Protocol before construction. It will define drainage documentation, notification, repair standards, response times, crop-loss compensation, verification and an independent escalation process for unresolved agricultural damage.

Heavy equipment can compact agricultural soil if work is poorly timed or controlled, but permanent productivity loss is not an unavoidable result of wind construction. The project will use soil-specificconstruction controls and will restore affected temporary work areas to agricultural use. The standard is restored function—not simply a surface that looks level when construction ends.

Ontario agricultural guidance identifies soil compaction, topsoil separation, drainage and soil replacement as matters to be assessed and managed for infrastructure projects on agricultural land. Controls can include defined traffic routes, wet-soil stop-work criteria, matting or load-spreading methods, separate handling of topsoil and subsoil, limits on unnecessary traffic, soil testing and appropriate mechanical remediation where compaction is confirmed.Post-construction monitoring is needed because drainage or crop effects may become apparent only after normal farming resumes.

Our commitment: Prowind will establish soil-handling, wet-weather and compaction standards before construction and will not continue non-essential work in field conditions that do not meet those standards. We will document restoration, investigate verified post-construction concerns and complete reasonable remediation and compensation where project work caused the effect.

Preliminary locations can change while environmental, engineering and grid studies are completed,but Prowind cannot place facilities anywhere it chooses. The agreement will define the area and process within which locations can be refined. A change outside the agreed rights, or a material change to the land occupied or the farm impact, will require written agreement with the landowner.

Early layouts are used to test wind resource, setbacks, environmental constraints, constructability and interconnection. They are not permission to construct.The final layout must remain within the legal rights granted by the land agreement and comply with the applicableapproval process. The agreement will state the notice, consultation, consent and compensation provisions for location changes.Final facility areas will be surveyed and documented before construction so the landowner can see the turbine, road, crane-pad, cable and other permanent and temporary areas.

Our commitment: Prowind will provide current maps, label conceptual and preliminary locations clearly, explain why changes are proposed and consult the landowner before finalizing facilities on the property. Where a change requires additional land rights or materially changes the agreed farm impact, Prowind will obtain written agreement and address compensation before construction.

The land agreement will allocate project-related taxes, insurance and liability clearly. Prowind’s project entity will carry insurance for project activities, indemnify the landowner for qualifying project-caused claims and pay incremental property taxes directly attributable to project facilities as set out in the agreement. The landowner remains responsible for personal income-tax consequences arising from land payments.

MPAC determines property assessments and municipalities apply their tax rates; assessment and property tax are related but are not the same decision. Land payments are generally taxable, but the result can differ depending on ownership, farm structure, HST status, estate planning and other circumstances. Prowind cannot provide personal tax advice and will encourage each landowner to obtain it.The agreement will address project insurance, evidence of coverage, indemnity, claims handling, additional-insured provisions where appropriate and obligations that continue while project infrastructure or a project-caused impact remains.

Our commitment: Prowind will provide a plain-language summary of tax allocation, insurance, indemnity and continuing obligations before signing. We will provide evidence of required project insurance and a clear contact and process for project-related claims.

A wind project needs legal rights across a broad area for turbine spacing, access and underground cables, while the permanent facilities occupy only a small part of a host farm. Leasing allows the landowner to retain ownership and continue farming most of the property while receiving agreed payments. It does not make the landowner responsible for owning, operating or decommissioning the turbine.

The agreement will identify the specific rights needed for investigation, construction, access, operation, cables and decommissioning. Permanent and temporary areas will be distinguished, and compensation will reflect the rights granted and the impacts on the property.Ownership of the project facilities, operational responsibility, insurance and decommissioning obligations remain with the project entity as set out in the project documents.

Our commitment: Prowind will explain why each land right is required, limit permanent facility areas to what is reasonably necessary and preserve normal agricultural use outside those areas. Landowners will receive adequate time and independent legal support to decide whether the arrangement is suitable for them.

The claim that every turbine permanently removes several acres is not a reliable general estimate. Construction temporarily uses a larger area, but most of that land is restored. The permanent footprint normally consists of the foundation, crane pad and access road and depends mainly on the road length and final design.

An illustrative layout previously prepared for a Vestas V162 turbine used approximately 0.12 acre for the foundation, 0.14 acre for the crane pad and 0.49 acre for a 400-metre access road, for a total permanent footprint of approximately 0.76 acre. Temporary crane assembly, laydown, turning and construction areas can be larger. Those areas will be identified separately and restored to agricultural use.

Ontario’s Agricultural Impact Assessment guidance requires the project to assess agricultural systems and identify avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. Siting will consider field configuration, drainage, access, soil, farm operations and the possibility of using field edges or existing access where practical.

Our commitment: Prowind will publish a project-specific land-use table and maps showing permanent facilities, temporary construction areas and areas to be restored. We will work with host landowners to reduce unnecessary fragmentation and interference with normal farming.

Operating wind turbines do not use or discharge groundwater and are not an inherent source of well contamination. Construction can affect a well only where a credible site-specific pathway exists, such as pile driving, dewatering or work in sensitive shallow or fractured geology. That risk must be assessed before construction rather than assumed to exist—or assumed to be impossible.

A private well is essential to a rural home and farm. Residents need a clear process that protects the existing supply, documents baseline conditions where warranted and responds promptly if a material change occurs.

Ontario’s renewable-energy approval guidance requires assessment of water features and mitigation where project activities could affect water resources. The North Kent investigation involved unusual concerns in a shallow bedrock setting. The expert panel found poorer well-water quality and changes that were consistent with interference during the period of construction and early operation, but it did not establish a single definitive cause or conclude that wind projects generally affect wells. It also did not identify a widespread health risk and recommended further investigation. The appropriate conclusion is not that every complaint was disproven or that every project presents the same risk. It is that geology, well construction and proposed construction methods must be evaluated for the specific site.

Our commitment: Prowind will assess the hydrogeological setting and identify construction activities that could create a plausible pathway to nearby wells. Where that pathway exists, we will offer reasonable baseline testing, establish a complaint and investigation process and provide temporary water while a material project-related interruption is investigated. Where the project is confirmed as the cause, Prowind will implement an appropriate remedy.

Wind turbines are not GPS jammers and loss of satellite positioning is not expected. A tall structurecan, in a narrow and location-specific situation, contribute to signal reflection or obstruct a radio correction link used by some RTK systems. The concern is therefore practical and testable, not a reason to assume that precision agriculture will stop working near turbines.

Precision guidance can be important for planting, spraying, drainage and harvest. Even an intermittent problem can disrupt farm operations, so the type of equipment and correction service must be understood before assessing the risk. 

GPS receivers use satellite signals, while high-accuracy RTK systems also rely on correction information delivered by a local radio base station, cellular network or commercial service. Turbines do not transmit on GPS frequencies. A potential issue would more commonly involve line-of-sight, multipath reflection or an existing weakcorrection link.

Canadian radiocommunication coordination guidance provides a useful framework for identifying nearby licensedradio links before finalizing a layout. A farm-specific review also needs the equipment manufacturer, correction method and actual field geometry.

Our commitment: Prowind will identify host farms that rely on high-precision guidance and discuss the equipment and correction method before final layout and construction. Where a credible pathway exists, we will document baseline performance. We will investigate a documented post-construction change and implement reasonable technical mitigation where the project is confirmed as the cause.

The important comparison is annual electricity production rather than simply the rated capacity of the equipment.

We can use our local experience at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm in Oxford County as an example. Gunn’s Hill has 18 MW of installed wind capacity and produces approximately 50 million kilowatt-hours of electricity in a typical year.

On that basis, 5 MW of wind capacity would produce approximately 14 million kilowatt-hours per year.

Solar panels produce electricity differently because they generate primarily during daylight hours and their annual output depends on the amount of sunshine available. Based on typical Ontario solar production, producing the same approximately 14 million kilowatt-hours annually would require roughly 12 MW of solar-panel capacity.

Using modern utility-scale panels of approximately 600 to 650 watts each, that would mean roughly 18,000 to 20,000 solar panels.

There is also a significant difference in land use.

After construction, a wind turbine typically removes only a relatively small area from agricultural production. Based on our experience, the turbine area, permanent crane pad and access road would generally occupy about one acre or less, while farming can continue on most of the surrounding land.

A solar installation capable of producing the same annual amount of electricity would typically require approximately 60 to 70 acres of land, depending on the panels, spacing, site layout and whether fixed or tracking systems are used.

That does not mean the entire wind-project area has no impact. Turbines require appropriate spacing, setbacks and access, but most of the land between turbines remains available for farming. With a conventional utility-scale solar project, much more of the project area is occupied by the solar array and associated infrastructure.

Both technologies can make an important contribution to the electricity system. The comparison simply illustrates that wind and solar use land and renewable resources quite differently.

Potential turbine locations for the Minto project have not yet been finalized.

Given Minto’s rural and agricultural landscape, it is possible that some turbines and associated infrastructure would be located on privately owned agricultural properties where landowners have voluntarily entered into agreements with Prowind.

A wind turbine does not require the entire host property to be removed from agricultural production. Permanent infrastructure consists of the turbine foundation and pad, access road and electrical or related infrastructure. Farming will continue on the remainder of the property.

Potential locations would also have to account for environmental features, neighbouring residences, property boundaries, roads, electrical infrastructure and other regulatory and technical constraints.

Ontario’s regulations establish setbacks not only from residences but also from neighbouring property boundaries. For applicable large turbines, the standard property-line setback is generally equivalent to the hub height of the turbine, unless specified conditions or agreements apply. 

As the Minto project progresses, Prowind will be able to provide more detailed mapping showing the proposed project area and, eventually, proposed turbine locations. No turbine can be constructed simply because an area has been identified as potentially suitable; individual sites must satisfy the applicable technical, environmental and regulatory requirements.

There are two different ways to answer this question, and the distinction is important.

A wind farm can extend across a large project area because turbines need to be separated from one another and from homes, roads and other features. However, only a relatively small percentage of that overall project area is permanently occupied by wind-energy infrastructure.

For example, turbines may be distributed across hundreds or thousands of acres of agricultural land, but the land between the turbines remains available for farming.

The permanent footprint associated with an individual turbine can include:

• the turbine foundation and surrounding pad;
• permanent access roads;
• underground or overhead electrical infrastructure where required; and
• other project infrastructure such as a substation.

Additional land is only disturbed temporarily during construction for crane operations, equipment movement, material storage and construction access. Much of that temporary construction area will subsequently be restored to agricultural use.

The precise land requirement varies substantially depending on the turbine selected, road layout, existing farm lanes, electrical connection, topography, environmental constraints and number of turbines but is on average less than 1 acre per turbine.

Prowind has not yet completed a final layout for Minto, so we cannot accurately state how many acres would be permanently removed from agricultural production. Once a preliminary layout is developed, Prowind should be able to identify both the total project area and, importantly, the number of acres that would actually be occupied by permanent infrastructure.

No. Prowind has not approached landowners in Minto to discuss or secure lease agreements.

We have, however, been contacted by some landowners who are interested in the project or want more information. We have kept those conversations open and are happy to answer questions, but we have not asked anyone to enter into a lease or other land agreement.

Our intention is to continue the public and municipal discussion first. We expect to meet with the new Council and hold another community event before beginning any broader landowner outreach.

If the project continues to show potential, we would likely begin more formal landowner discussions over the winter months. Any such discussions would be voluntary and would take place only with landowners who are interested in considering participation.

Yes.

Protection of agricultural drainage and soils would form part of the agreements with participating landowners.

Before construction, existing tile drainage systems in affected areas would be identified and documented as thoroughly as practical. Where construction crosses or affects tile drainage, qualified agricultural drainage contractors or specialists would be involved in the work.

If project construction damages a tile drainage system, the project would be responsible for having it repaired at its expense and restoring proper drainage. The same principle would apply to soil compaction or other construction-related impacts on agricultural land.

Where appropriate, this work would include:

• documenting known tile drainage before construction;
• involving qualified agricultural drainage specialists during construction;
• repairing damaged or interrupted tile systems;
• monitoring drainage performance following construction;
• relieving soil compaction and restoring topsoil where required; and
• continuing to address construction-related drainage issues that become apparent after the initial restoration work.

These obligations would be addressed in the participating landowner lease agreements and, where applicable, coordinated with municipal drainage requirements.

The basic principle is straightforward: if the project causes damage to agricultural drainage or soils, the project is responsible for correcting it, not the landowner.

We recognize that this is a legitimate concern.

A wind project can affect more people than only the landowners who host turbines or other project infrastructure. While participating landowners receive lease payments because their land is being used by the project, neighbouring residents may also see the turbines and may hear them under certain conditions.

We do not believe the benefits of a project should be limited only to the landowners who host equipment.

If the Minto project moves forward, we would be open to establishing a Neighbour Benefit or Neighbour Participation Program for qualifying properties located near the project. The purpose would be to recognize that neighbouring residents are also part of the host community and should have an opportunity to share in the project’s economic benefits.

The details have not yet been established, but a program could include:

• annual payments to qualifying neighbouring properties based on clear and consistent distance or location criteria;
• opportunities for neighbours to participate voluntarily in project-related agreements;
• broader community-benefit payments through the municipality or community organizations;
• opportunities for local ownership through a community energy co-operative; 

Any neighbour-benefit program should use transparent eligibility criteria so that residents understand who qualifies and why.

We would also want participation in such a program to remain separate from the project’s regulatory obligations. Receiving a neighbour benefit can not be used as a substitute for meeting Ontario’s noise, setback, shadow-flicker or other environmental requirements.

No agreement or payment can guarantee that everyone in a community will support a wind project, and we do not want to suggest otherwise. Our responsibility is to provide accurate information, listen to differing views, design the project responsibly and look for ways to share the economic benefits more broadly than only with turbine-hosting landowners.

If the project proceeds, we would like to develop the neighbour-benefit structure in consultation with the community rather than impose a model before those discussions have taken place.

No. Some turbine generator designs use rare-earth permanent magnets, while other designs do not.Rare-earth use is therefore a turbine-specific question, not a characteristic that can accurately be attributed to every wind project.

Rare-earth mining and processing can create environmental and supply-chain concerns. A responsible responseis to identify the selected technology and available supplier information rather than deny the issue or assume a material is present before the turbine is selected.

Permanent-magnet synchronous generators can use neodymium and related materials. Other turbine designs use geared induction or electrically excited generator systems that do not rely on the same rare-earth magnets. The U.S. Department of Energy identifies permanent magnets as particularly relevant to some direct-drive designs and notes continuing work to reduce or replace rare-earth content. [10]Rare-earth materials are also used in electric motors, electronics and many other industrial applications. That broader use does not remove the need for supplier due diligence in a wind project.

Our commitment: Once a turbine is selected, Prowind will identify whether its generator uses rare-earth permanent magnets and will disclose available manufacturer information about material content, supplier standards and recovery or recycling options. We will not claim that a project is rare-earth-free unless the selected technology supports that statement.

Are wind-turbine blades impossible to recycle, and does a 20- to 30-year operating life make the project environmentally unsound?

No. It is inaccurate to say that an entire wind turbine is non-recyclable. Approximately 85% to 90% of turbine mass consists of metals and other materials with established recycling routes. Composite blades are more difficult to recycle but reuse, cement co-processing, mechanical recycling and newer recovery technologies are available and developing.

Blade disposal is a legitimate environmental concern and should not be hidden behind the high recyclability of the tower and other components. At the same time, the difficulty of recycling one component does not mean that the full turbine becomes waste.

Towers and many nacelle components contain steel, copper, aluminum and iron that are routinely recovered. Composite blades and covers represent a smaller portion of turbine mass and are currently the most challenging components. An expected operating life of roughly two to three decades is typical for major energy infrastructure. Componentscan be repaired or replaced, and some sites may later be repowered subject to new agreements and approvals. A finite operating life is already included in lifecycle assessments and does not negate wind’s low lifecycle emissions.

The available recycling route at decommissioning will depend on the blade material, condition, transportation andthe facilities operating at that future date.

Our commitment: Prowind will prepare an end-of-life materials plan before decommissioning, document where major components are sent and prioritize reuse and recycling where technically and commercially available. If a material cannot reasonably be recycled, Prowind will identify the disposal route and the alternatives considered.

Wind turbines can cause bird and bat fatalities, and that impact must be taken seriously. The evidence does not support treating wind turbines as a leading overall cause of bird mortality, but risk can be significant for particular species, habitats or migration routes. Proper siting, study, monitoring and mitigation are therefore more important than broad comparisons with other causes of mortality.

A low average impact across many projects does not protect a sensitive species at a poorly chosen site. Residents and regulators need to know which species and habitats are present and how the layout and operationrespond to those findings.

Ontario’s 2026 Natural Heritage Assessment Guide sets out current requirements and methods for identifying bird and bat habitats, assessing effects and applying monitoring and mitigation to onshore wind projects. Federal migratory-bird protections can apply to indirect killing through collisions, and provincial species-at-risk and habitat requirements may also apply.

Mitigation can include avoiding sensitive habitat, changing turbine locations, timing construction, operational curtailment and additional monitoring where required. The appropriate measure depends on the species, site and observed results.

Our commitment: Prowind will use qualified specialists to complete the required natural-heritage work, design the layout to avoid or minimize identified sensitive areas and implement the monitoring and mitigation required by the applicable approvals. Where monitoring identifies a project-related threshold or material species risk, Prowindwill take the required corrective action.

If a host municipality does not consume all of a project’s electricity, is the project stillneeded?

Yes. Ontario’s electricity planner forecasts substantial long-term demand growth and is procuring new resources to meet provincial needs. A wind project serves the interconnected Ontario grid, not only the municipality where it is located. The host municipality does not need to consume the project’s full output for it to contribute to provincial supply.

Large electricity infrastructure is located in particular communities but supports homes, farms, businesses and industry across the province. Local impacts must be considered, but local consumption is not the test used to determine provincial electricity need.

The IESO’s 2026 Annual Planning Outlook forecasts net annual energy demand in its reference scenario to growfrom approximately 152 terawatt-hours in 2026 to 250 terawatt-hours in 2050—about 65% growth. The forecast reflects industrial expansion, data centres, housing, transportation and heating electrification and other economicactivity. Ontario is responding with a portfolio that includes nuclear refurbishment and expansion, transmission, conservation, storage, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Wind is not available at full output at all times and is not presented as a replacement for every other resource. Its role is to provide competitively procured energy when wind conditions are available.The IESO’s LT2 process awards long-term contracts through competition and includes new wind and solar resources as part of the wider supply plan. 

Our commitment: Prowind will use current IESO planning information, explain the difference between energy and dependable capacity and describe wind’s role as part of a diversified system.

Does a wind turbine generate more energy than is used to manufacture and install it, and can a wind project pay for itself?

Yes, these are achievable and well-established outcomes, but they are two different questions. Lifecycle studies show that wind turbines generate far more energy over their operating lives than is used to manufacture, construct, maintain and decommission them. Financially, a project must still have an adequate wind resource, manageable construction and connection costs, financing and a viable electricity contract.

“Energy payback” measures physical energy over the lifecycle. “Financial payback” depends on costs, financing and revenue. Confusing the two can make a technically efficient project appear uneconomic—or imply that everywindy site will be profitable.

Wind’s low lifecycle greenhouse-gas emissions are possible because the energy used to manufacture and installthe equipment is a small portion of the electricity generated over its life.

New Ontario projects seeking an IESO contract must compete through the applicable procurement process. Developers, lenders and investors also test the wind resource, expected production, construction cost, connection cost, curtailment, operating cost and contract terms before committing capital. Not every proposed location proceeds. A project that cannot demonstrate a viable resource, connection and commercial structure will not reach construction merely because it has land agreements.

Our commitment: Prowind will distinguish lifecycle energy performance from project finances and will use realistic production and cost assumptions in project decisions.

Is wind energy expensive compared with other new sources of electricity, and can Ontario’s subsidy costs be attributed mainly to wind?

No. Ontario’s electricity bills and provincial subsidy programs cannot accurately be attributed mainly to wind energy.Some earlier renewable-energy contracts were signed under procurement programs that paid substantially more than today’s competitive prices. Those legacy contracts do not represent the cost of building new wind generation today.Current Ontario and international assessments identify onshore wind as one of the lowest-cost—and often the lowest-cost—sources of new electricity generation. The IESO forecasts that wind and utility-scale solar have the lowest levelized cost of electricity of all new resource types it assessed. International comparisons similarly placenew onshore wind below new natural gas, coal, oil-fired and nuclear generation on the cost of producing electricity. 

Public discussions often combine four different matters:

• older Feed-in Tariff contracts;
• present competitive procurement prices;
• Ontario’s wholesale electricity-market price; and
• government programs that reduce customer bills.

These figures are not interchangeable. A historical contract price does not establish what a new wind project costs today, and the amount spent on provincial electricity rebates is not a measure of wind-generation costs alone. Wind also has no fuel cost. Once operating, its electricity price is not directly exposed to changes in the international price of natural gas, coal or oil. This provides a predictable long-term source of electricity and reduces the amount of fuel-fired generation required when wind energy is available.

Our commitmentProwind will use current IESO, Ontario and FAO information, identify the year and metric for cost figures and distinguish legacy contracts from current competitive procurements. We will correct inaccurate comparisons without suggesting that wind has no cost or that past policy choices are irrelevant.

Wind turbines are complex pieces of equipment whose major components, including blades, towers, nacelles, generators and electrical equipment may be manufactured in different locations before being transported to the project site.

Prowind has experience working with several major turbine manufacturers. Its existing projects include turbines manufactured by Vestas, Enercon, Nordex, Siemens, Senvion and GE. 

If a project in Minto advances, turbine selection would occur later in the development process and would consider factors including turbine performance, suitability for the local wind resource, availability, cost, transportation requirements, regulatory compliance and project economics.

Once a manufacturer and turbine model have been selected, Prowind will be able to provide more specific information about where the major components will be manufactured and assembled.

Modern wind turbines are generally designed for an operating life of approximately 25 to 30 years, although the actual service life depends on the turbine model, operating conditions, maintenance and individual components.

At the end of a project’s operating life, there are generally two possibilities:

Repowering involves replacing some or all of the existing turbine parts with newer equipment, subject to whatever approvals are required at that time.

Decommissioning involves taking the project out of service, removing infrastructure as required and restoring the affected land. The company is required to set aside funds for these two options.

The specific turbine model and expected operating life for a Minto project have not yet been determined. If the project proceeds, information about the selected turbine’s design life, maintenance requirements and eventual decommissioning would be provided as the project advances.

Yes. Solar panels are recyclable, although Canada’s solar-panel recycling industry is still developing as the number of panels reaching the end of their useful lives increases.

The Canadian Renewable Energy Association (CanREA) estimates that a solar panel is approximately 90% recyclable by mass. Solar energy systems contain materials with established recycling markets, including glass, aluminum, steel and copper. Panels can also contain smaller quantities of valuable materials such as silver. 

The challenge is less about whether the materials themselves can be recycled and more about separating them economically. Solar panels are manufactured as durable, laminated products designed to withstand decades outdoors. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada identifies separating the individual materials for recovery as one of the principal challenges facing solar-panel recycling in Canada. 

Canada’s recycling infrastructure for solar panels is consequently not yet as mature as recycling systems for materials such as aluminum, steel or conventional glass. CSA Group research has found that North America has relatively few specific rules governing end-of-life photovoltaic modules compared with Europe and that requirements can vary depending on the type of panel and materials it contains. 

This is expected to become increasingly important because solar panels typically operate for 25 years or longer, and Canada’s solar fleet is comparatively young. CanREA notes that relatively few Canadian renewable-energy projects have yet reached decommissioning, but the industry is developing the recycling and end-of-life supply chains that will be required as more projects reach that stage. 

Before recycling, there may also be opportunities to reuse, repair or refurbish functioning panels rather than dispose of them simply because a project is being upgraded or repowered. 

For a proposed Minto solar project, Prowind would address end-of-life management as part of project planning and decommissioning. As the project advances, more specific information can be provided about the panels selected, their anticipated lifespan, recycling options available in Ontario, and responsibility for the cost of removing and processing the equipment at the end of the project’s life.

Ontario has had commercial-scale wind turbines for more than 25 years, while large utility-scale wind farms have been operating in the province for approximately 20 years.

One of Ontario’s early commercial wind turbines began operating at Pickering in 2001. It operated for approximately 18 years before being decommissioned following a gearbox failure as it approached the end of its useful life. 

A particularly useful example is the Melancthon wind facility near Shelburne, because it was Ontario’s first utility-scale wind development. Phase I began commercial operation in 2006, followed by Phase II in 2008. The facility contains 133 turbines with a combined generating capacity of approximately 200 MW. 

Nearly 20 years later, those turbines are still operating.

In fact, TransAlta reports that the Melancthon facility remains operational and capable of generating approximately 545,000 MWh of electricity annually. Phase I has received a new capacity contract extending to 2031, while TransAlta lists contract expiry for Phase II in 2034. 

Ontario therefore now has experience with wind projects at several different stages of their lifecycle. Some early individual turbines have been decommissioned, while many of the larger wind farms constructed in the 2000s and 2010s remain in operation. As projects age, owners must decide whether continued operation, refurbishment or component replacement, repowering with newer technology, or eventual decommissioning is appropriate.

For a potential Minto project, Prowind would be proposing a new generation of turbine technology rather than the equipment installed in Ontario 20 or 25 years ago. The specific turbine manufacturer and model have not yet been selected.

The turbines commonly referred to as the “Shelburne turbines” are actually part of the Melancthon wind facility, located in Melancthon and Amaranth townships near Shelburne.

The facility uses GE 1.5 MW turbines on 80-metre towers. There are 133 turbines in total—45 from the first phase and 88 from the second. 

The 80 metres refers to the tower/hub height, not the maximum height reached by the blade tip.

The GE turbines used at Melancthon have a rotor diameter of approximately 77 metres. That means each blade is approximately 38.5 metres long. When a blade is pointing straight upward, the maximum tip height is therefore approximately:

80 m hub height + 38.5 m blade = 118.5 metres

So, the turbines near Shelburne are approximately 119 metres (390 feet) tall at the highest point of the blade rotation.

Modern utility-scale turbines can be considerably larger than the equipment installed at Melancthon almost 20 years ago.

Prowind has not yet selected a turbine model for Minto. Consequently, we cannot yet provide an exact height for a potential Minto turbine. Once a turbine model is being considered, Prowind will publish its hub height, rotor diameter and maximum blade-tip height so residents can make an accurate comparison with existing Ontario wind farms.

That is exactly one of the questions we still need to answer.

Prowind has not concluded that Minto has enough wind for a viable project. At this stage, we believe the area has enough potential to justify further investigation, but a proper wind-resource assessment would be required before we could make that determination.

Regional wind maps and historical weather information are useful for initial screening, but they are not enough to design or finance a wind project. Before moving forward, we would need to carry out a site-specific wind measurement campaign, using equipment such as a meteorological mast or LiDAR system to measure wind speed, direction, turbulence and other conditions over an extended period at or near turbine hub height.

That measured data would then be used together with the characteristics of the turbine being considered to estimate how much electricity the project could actually produce.

It is also important to recognize that wind-turbine technology has changed considerably over the past 10 to 20 years. Modern turbines have much larger rotors, taller towers and improved controls, allowing them to capture energy more effectively at lower and more moderate wind speeds than older generations of turbines.

For that reason, the average wind speeds that may have been considered necessary for a commercial wind project many years ago are not necessarily the same as those required with today’s technology.

Wind speed alone is also not the only consideration. We would need to look at the full wind-speed distribution, turbine power curve, turbulence, wake effects, environmental constraints, setbacks, available land, grid connection and overall project economics.

Our experience at Gunn’s Hill in Oxford County demonstrates that commercial wind generation can work successfully in southwestern Ontario, but we would not assume that Minto has the same wind resource.

So the straightforward answer is that we do not yet know whether Minto has sufficient wind for a viable project. That is something we would have to establish through actual site-specific wind measurements and detailed engineering before making a decision to proceed.

The economic impact of a wind project has several components, and the effects are different at the municipal, community, landowner and provincial levels.

Locally, a wind project can generate economic activity during development, construction and operation. Construction can create demand for contractors, equipment, accommodations, food services and other local businesses. Once operating, a wind farm requires fewer workers than during construction but continues to require maintenance and technical services.

Participating landowners can receive lease or other contractual payments for hosting turbines, access roads and project infrastructure. Those payments can provide a long-term additional source of farm income.

There can also be direct financial benefits to the municipality through property taxation and community benefit agreements negotiated between the project developer and municipality.

There are also economic costs that need to be considered. Construction can affect roads and agricultural operations, and the municipality should ensure that responsibility for road damage and restoration is clearly established. A municipality should also understand potential emergency-service requirements and ensure that eventual decommissioning costs remain the responsibility of the project.

At the provincial level, wind energy competes alongside nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, solar and other resources to help meet Ontario’s growing electricity needs.

One of the economic advantages of wind is that, once a project is built, there is no fuel cost. The cost of the wind itself does not change with natural-gas prices or other commodity markets. Most of the cost is known when the project is constructed and financed.

We now also have a very current Ontario benchmark. In the IESO’s 2026 Long-Term 2 procurement, successful new wind projects were contracted at a weighted-average fixed price of approximately $89 per megawatt-hour — about 8.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. New solar projects in the same procurement were very similar at about 8.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Independent cost studies consistently place new onshore wind among the lower-cost forms of new electricity generation. That does not mean wind can replace every other type of generation. Wind production varies with the weather, while resources such as nuclear, hydroelectric generation and storage provide other services that are important to maintaining a reliable electricity system.

For consumers, the important point is that adding competitively priced generation can help control the cost of supplying electricity as Ontario’s demand grows. A wind project contracted at a competitive price can therefore put downward pressure on overall generation costs compared with obtaining that same energy from a more expensive source.

For Minto, it is too early to put a reliable dollar figure on the long-term economic impact. The project size, turbine model, number of participating properties, municipal tax implications, construction requirements and any potential community benefit agreement have not yet been finalized.

If the project advances, Prowind should be able to provide the Town and residents with considerably more specific information about expected investment, municipal revenue, community benefits, local procurement opportunities and decommissioning obligations.

These issues are addressed through Ontario’s Renewable Energy Approval process and, for agricultural land, through additional requirements of Ontario’s current electricity procurement process.

Before a wind project can receive a Renewable Energy Approval, it must complete a Natural Heritage Assessment conducted by qualified professionals. This includes records reviews, field investigations and evaluation of natural features in and around the proposed project area. Features such as wetlands, woodlands, significant wildlife habitat and other sensitive natural areas must be identified before the final turbine, road and electrical layouts are established.

Where a project could affect a significant natural feature or its ecological function, Ontario may require setbacks, an Environmental Impact Study, mitigation measures and ongoing monitoring. Wind projects are also subject to specific requirements for bird and bat habitat and post-construction monitoring.

Agricultural land is also specifically addressed.

Under Ontario’s current procurement rules, if a wind project is proposed within a designated Prime Agricultural Area, the developer must first evaluate alternative locations to the satisfaction of the municipality. If the project proceeds, an Agricultural Impact Assessment must be completed to the satisfaction of the municipality before construction begins.

The Renewable Energy Approval process also requires construction impacts on farmland to be identified and mitigated. Provincial guidance specifically addresses protection of agricultural drainage, soil compaction and the placement of access roads so that they minimize the amount of productive farmland affected and avoid unnecessarily dividing fields.

This is also consistent with how we would approach the project ourselves. Wherever practical, we would prefer to locate turbines and infrastructure on less productive or secondary agricultural land, follow existing field boundaries and roads where possible, and minimize the amount of land permanently removed from agricultural production.

It is worth remembering that a wind project’s physical footprint is relatively small. Although turbines require appropriate spacing across a larger area, farming normally continues between the turbines. After construction, the permanent land taken out of agricultural production is primarily the turbine foundations, permanent crane areas, access roads and electrical infrastructure.

We cannot responsibly say today that a project would have no environmental impact. The purpose of these studies is to identify those impacts before the project is finalized and then avoid them where possible, minimize them where they cannot be avoided, and establish mitigation and monitoring where required.

If the studies demonstrate that a particular turbine location, road or other project component would create an unacceptable impact on an important natural feature or agricultural operation, the layout would have to be changed or that location could not be used.

Is a generic amount per turbine enough to protect landowners and the municipality if removal costs rise?

No fixed amount per turbine is reliable for every project. The appropriate protection is an independent project-specific estimate that covers the full required work, includes a conservative downside case and is supported by enforceable financial security before operation. The amount must then be updated as costs and the project change.

Published estimates can differ widely because they assume different turbine sizes, foundation-removal standards, roads, cables, labour, transport, disposal, recycling and salvage value. An estimate that depends on optimistic scrap value may not protect the community if markets change.

A U.S. Department of Energy review of eight project estimates prepared between 2019 and 2021 reported gross decommissioning costs of approximately US$114,000 to US$195,000 per turbine, and net costs of approximatelyUS$67,000 to US$150,000 per turbine after estimated salvage revenues. Independent cost assessments demonstrate that wind-project decommissioning costs can be estimated using established construction and demolition methods, but the result must be specific to the turbine technology, site and required restoration standard.

Financial security can take the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, bond, trust, escrow or another enforceable instrument acceptable to the relevant parties. Its value lies in remaining available if the project company does notperform—not merely in recording another promise by that company.

The security documents will identify the beneficiary, renewal requirements, draw conditions and release criteria. The amount will be reviewed regularly and after a material change in turbine, restoration scope or cost conditions.

Our commitment: Prowind will use independent project-comparable decommissioning estimates and agreed financial security before commercial operation.

A project sale will not erase its obligations. A successor will be required to assume the applicable land, municipal, regulatory, operating, insurance and decommissioning duties, and the agreed financial security must continue or be replaced before the transfer is completed. No document can guarantee that a company will never face financial difficulty; the protection is to avoid relying only on that company’s future solvency.

Wind projects have long operating lives and may change ownership. The safeguards must follow the project and remain enforceable even if the original developer is no longer involved.

Assignment provisions will require the successor to assume the project agreements and maintain required insurance, indemnity and decommissioning obligations.The decommissioning security will remain effective through a transfer or will be replaced with equivalent approved security. The documents will identify who can enforce the obligations or draw on the security and what evidence is required.

Parent or affiliate support can provide additional protection where it is offered and documented, but it is not a substitute for clear successor obligations and enforceable project-specific security.

Our commitment: Prowind will not complete a project transfer until the successor has assumed the applicable project obligations and the agreed financial security will continue without a protection gap. We will identify any parentor affiliate support that forms part of the protection package and will provide the notices required by the final agreements.