No deal. Not yet.

Council defers controversial road deal with wind developer.

Optics matter,” said Steve Ferguson, explaining why he couldn’t support the Road Users Agreement (RUA) recommended by the County chief engineer and the municipality’s lawyer.

“A majority of council declared that Prince Edward County is ‘not a willing host’ to industrial wind turbines. “ The councillor representing South Marysburgh argued that agreeing with the developer of the White Pines project in a deal to use County roads would send the wrong signal to those who have used their energy, resources and time protecting their health, property values, the economy and the natural world.

“Are we now a willing host?” asked Ferguson.

Ferguson’s plea came near the end of a stormy session at Shire Hall on Thursday. The pews were full, as was the committee room next door where a closed circuit feed of the committee of council proceedings was beamed.

At issue was a deal hammered out between County staff and wind developer wpd Canada. The deal defines which roads may be used to transport heavy equipment and the massive machines to this far flung corner of the County. It prescribes methods and restoration requirements upon completion of the project. It imposes remedies, dispute resolution mechanisms and compels the developer to pledge security, giving the County financial recourse if the developer fails to meet its obligations in regard to these roads and rights of way.

An earlier version of the draft agreement had included a Community Benefit Fund worth about $189,000 to the municipality. But when Mayor Robert Quaiff and others reacted sourly to the proposed agreement, the developer took the money off the table. Only the RUA was left to be discussed on Thursday.

The County’s chief engineer, Robert McAuley, said the deal was a necessary shield, giving municipal ratepayers some protection from the developer as well as a measure of control.

“Without an agreement, whatever we didn’t like would become our liability,” said McAuley explaining his rationale for negotiating with the developer. We would be forced to fix our roads to our standard. This agreement gives ratepayers some protection.”

Wayne Fairbrother, a lawyer acting for the County, urged council to sign the deal. A deferral or refusal, in his opinion, would be used by the developer to show that it had tried to reach an agreement with the municipality on how to use its roads—but was rejected. Fairbrother suggested that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)—the provincial agency that issued the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) that granted the developer the permit to build the White Pines project—would likely allow the developer to proceed without the County’s agreement.

“They don’t need the approval of council,” said Fairbrother. “The Green Energy Act has stripped municipalities bare of the right to say no or to slow down a project.”

All the developer needs to do is to show they asked and were turned down.

Fairbrother urged council to delink their consideration of the road agreement from their feelings about this developer or industrial wind energy. He also dismissed the notion that an Environmental Review Tribunal would interpret the County’s move to protect its roadways as support for the project.

Fairbrother underlined the fact that the REA is in effect—that despite the ruling of the Tribunal that the White Pines Project would cause serious and irreversible harm to little brown bats and Blanding’s turtles—it has the right to build this project. With or without the County’s agreement.

MISTRUST
Mayor Quaiff began his reply with an apology. In public statements made recently, Quaiff had referred to the proposed RUA as “blood money” and a “bribe.”

“Those comments were not warranted and not accurate,” said Quaiff. “I withdraw them.”

Yet he could not support the agreement recommended by the engineer and the lawyer.

“I don’t trust the Green Energy Act and I don’t trust the Road Users Agreement to protect us,” said Quaiff.

Councillor Ferguson had concerns beyond optics. He complained that he received the agreement just days before the original committee meeting was scheduled but subsequently cancelled due to weather. McAuley acknowledged that negotiations with the developer had taken them to the wire—that the deal was struck just a day before it was distributed to members of council.

Ferguson pressed on. He asked why there were no schedules attached to the agreement, only a brief description of what they contained.

“Where is the traffic management plan?” asked the North Marysburgh councillor. “Where are the permits required? Where is the map showing where the interconnection lines are running? Where are the assignments? How do I know if we are protected?”

He wanted to know how he or any other member of council could agree to this deal with out knowing what it was.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” said the North Marysburgh representative.

Treat Hull has no issue with staff putting together the agreement, nor is he worried that signing it would be viewed as capitulation to a flawed process. But he, too, suffers from a mistrust of process and the players arrayed against the County in this project.

“I don’t trust wpd, and I don’t trust the director,” said Hull, referring to the individual within the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change who approved the project.

But not every councillor was opposed to the agreement. Athol councillor Jamie Forrester acknowledged that he has been supportive of industrial wind and solar generation projects in Prince Edward County and elsewhere.

He echoed the lawyer’s argument.

“If we turn this down, we lose all leverage,” said Forrester. “My job is to look out for all taxpayers.”

Others worried about the strength of the deal—that too much was given up during negotiation.

Fairbrother countered that he and McAuley had done their best.

“Did we get everything we wanted? No,” said Fairbrother. “Did we get enough to recommend it to you? Yes, we did.”

“You are in the driver’s seat,” insisted Fairbrother. “If you refuse, an external body may decide what happens to your roads.”

Later, Fairbrother conceded that a deferral to a specific date and with a specific purpose would likely be more palatable to the director (the individual who approved the REA on behalf of the MOECC).

When the vote was taken, nearly all members voted to defer until the April 26 council meeting to enable council members to review the agreement’s schedules and suggest text changes that seek to strengthen the deal.