Author Archives: ccsageadmin2

Report calls for end to wind power expansion

Repost from Wind Concerns Ontario

Tuesday Jul 4, 2017

By John Miner

The writer farms in Huron County

Ontario’s plan to double its wind energy capacity will make a bad situation worse, according to a report published by the Council for Clean and Reliable Energy.

There is already so much intermittent wind [power] generation in the Great Lakes Region that demand is over-supplied, prices are collapsing and generation must be curtailed, said the report released in June by the council, a non-profit organization formed by volunteers from universities, public sector business leaders, and labour.

The report’s author Marc Brouillette, a principal consultant at Strategic Policy Economics, calls on the province to reconsider its commitment to ongoing deployment of wind resources.

“Analysis shows that wind intermittency makes it an unproductive and expensive choice that doesn’t meet customers’ needs and also undermines the price of electricity exports,” says the report titled Ontario’s High-Cost Millstone.

The opportunity to pull back from the plan to expend wind energy comes this summer when Ontario updates its long-term energy plan.

A key part of the problem with wind energy, according to the report, is that it is misaligned with demand because of its intermittent nature.

Ontario’s energy use is highest in the winter and summer and lowest in spring and late fall.

“This is almost a mirror image of wind production patterns: wind is highest in the spring and fall, when electricity needs are lowest, and lowest in summer when electricity demand peaks,” the report notes.

The result is that two-thirds of wind [power] generation is surplus to demand and must be wasted or dissipated either through forced curtailment of hydro and nuclear generation, or by increased exports to Quebec and the United States, generally at low prices.

… Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of citizens’ groups critical of Ontario’s wind energy program, said the report underscores what two Auditors General told the McGuinty and Wynne governments — they should not have launched the program without any cost-benefit analysis.

“Now, Ontarians are paying four times as much for wind power which is very invasive and has had a huge impact on rural communities for very little benefit. The need for more fossil fuel natural gas to back it up means it is not even achieving the simple environmental goals.

“For people living with the noise and vibration of the huge turbines interfering with their lives, this is outrageous,” Wilson said.

No new wind power approvals should be granted, and development of projects not yet in operation should be halted, she said.

Brandy Gianetta, Ontario regional director for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said the report fails to fully recognize that wind energy is making a significant contribution to Ontario’s electricity supply needs today and this contribution will only grow in future years.

CanWEA contends that Ontario should be securing the lowest [cost] non-greenhouse gas emitting electricity to fill the gap and ensure it can meet its climate goals.

“Wind energy, which is now the least-cost option for new electricity generation available in Ontario, is the best available resource to meet both of those needs, Gianetta said in an email.

 


FACT CHECK: wind power contributes about 6% of Ontario’s electricity supply, at four times the cost of other power sources; wind power is not the “lowest-cost” option—the turbines are cheap to build but there are many other costs associated with wind power and its intermittency; wind power cannot replace hydro and nuclear—the fact is, coal was replaced by nuclear and natural gas, a fossil-fuel-based power source. Ms Gianetta did not trot out the usual wind industry myth of massive job creation in Ontario because that has proven not to be true, here as in other jurisdictions. Jobs are short-term and related to construction activity, in the main. Other costs associated with wind power such as property value loss, effects on tourism, and human costs in terms of effects on health, have never been calculated.

CCSAGE Lawyer Alan Whiteley addresses the Standing Committee on Justice Policy regarding Bill 132

The following is the text of the address made by Alan Whiteley before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy regarding Bill 132, today, Tuesday, May 23, 2017

RESIDENTS OF ONTARIO CANNOT AFFORD ELECTRICITY AT CURRENT RATES. SOME FAMILIES HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ELECTRICITY AND FOOD.

INDUSTRIES FACED WITH EXORBITANT CHARGES ARE RELOCATING TO U.S. JURISDICTIONS THAT OFFER MUCH LOWER RATES, TAKING JOBS WITH THEM.

AN URGENT REMEDY IS REQUIRED.
BILL 132 IS NO REMEDY; IT IS A PONZI SCHEME.

SOME CONSUMERS WILL HAVE A PORTION OF THEIR ELECTRICITY RATES DEFERRED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME;

THE DEFERRED RATES WILL BE ACCUMULATED AS AN “INVESTMENT ASSET” WHICH WILL BE SOLD TO OUTSIDE INVESTORS;

OUTSIDE INVESTORS WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE DEFERRED RATES PROTECTED FOR INFLATION, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST, FROM RATES TO BE CHARGED TO FUTURE CONSUMERS.

BILL 132 DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF UNAFFORDABLE ELECTRICITY RATES.

ONTARIO CONSUMERS CAN AFFORD TO PAY THE SPOT PRICE FOR ELECTRICITY THEY CONSUME. THEY CAN EVEN AFFORD TO PAY DELIVERY CHARGES, IF LEVIED ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS.

 

WHAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD IS THE GLOBAL ADJUSTMENT CHARGE.

THIS IS DEFINED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE THE GOVERNMENT PROMISED TO ANY PARTICULAR ELECTRICITY GENERATING COMPANY AND THE “MARKET PRICE” OF ELECTRICITY.

SIMPLY PUT, THE GOVERNMENT BUYS ELECTRICITY FROM SOME SUPPLIERS AT MULTIPLES OF THE MARKET PRICE AND THEN ADDS THAT EXCESS TO CONSUMER PRICES.

THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS: BUY ELECTRICITY ONLY AT MARKET PRICES.

THE GRID IS AWASH WITH ELECTRICITY AT MARKET PRICES. EVERY DAY HYDRO GENERATING STATIONS SPILL WATER AND NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS STEAM OFF HEAT BECAUSE THEIR CARBON-FREE ELECTRICITY IS NOT REQUIRED. IN ADDITION, QUEBEC EXPORTS HUGE AMOUNTS OF POWER FROM ITS NORTHERN HYDRO DAMS, ALL AT MARKET RATES.

BUT ONTARIO IS CONTRACTED TO BUY HIGH-COST ELECTRICITY FROM OPERATORS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE GREEN ENERGY ACT.

SO INSTEAD OF RECOGNIZING THAT THE CURRENT CRISIS IN ELECTRICITY IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE DISASTROUS GREEN ENERGY ACT, THIS GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO DEFER THE PROBLEM BY INFLICTING IT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS.

 

CITIZENS OF ONTARIO EXPECT BETTER THAN SUCH UNETHICAL, UNFAIR AND UNDERHANDED MACHINATIONS FROM THEIR LEGISLATURE.

BILL 132 IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT ONTARIO’S ELECTRICITY SUPPLY SYSTEM IS BANKRUPT.

IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR A CORPORATION WERE TO PURSUE SUCH A SCHEME, IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF INSOLVENCY, AND THE ONLY ETHICAL COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY, COMPROMISE WITH CREDITORS, AND RESTRUCTURE ON PRINCIPLES OF RECTITUDE AND PROBITY.

IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A STATE TO ENACT LEGISLATION CANCELLING CONTRACTS WITHOUT DAMAGES.

IT WOULD BE ARGUED THAT SUCH A DRASTIC COURSE WOULD DAMAGE THE REPUTATION, CREDIBILITY AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE PROVINCE, BUT THE GREEN ENERGY ACT HAS ALREADY DONE THAT, AND AN HONEST DECLARATION OF FAULT AND FORMULATION OF A WORKABLE REMEDY MIGHT IN FACT REASSURE MARKETS.

THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAYABLE TO THE PRODUCERS OF HIGH-COST ELECTRICITY. THIS CAN BE DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS:

1. THE ASSESSMENT ACT PROVIDES THAT AN INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE VALUED IN EXCESS OF $2,000,000 CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED AT $40,000 FOR MUNICIPAL TAX PURPOSES. REPEAL OF THIS PREFERENTIAL

 

TREATMENT WOULD IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER LARGE AMOUNTS FROM OPERATORS TO THE HOST MUNICIPALITIES, WHO SO BADLY NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING;

  1. THE RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVALS THAT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES CONTAIN NOISE LIMITS, SETBACK LIMITS, BIRD KILL LIMITS AND OTHER OPERATING CONDITIONS THE VIOLATION OF WHICH CAN LEAD TO SHUTTING DOWN THE IWTS. THERE HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS REGISTERED WITH THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT ABOUT SUCH INFRACTIONS, BUT NONE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED. DILIGENCE IN ENFORCING REA CONDITIONS COULD REDUCE SUPPLY OF HIGH-COST ELECTRICITY CONSIDERABLY;
  2. IN BONN LAST WEEK A UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ISSUED GUIDELINES FOR COMPULSORY SHUTDOWN OF IWTS DURING BIRD MIGRATION, ADVOCATING A SYSTEM TRIGGERED AUTOMATICALLY BY THE BIRDS THEMSELVES ENTERING RADAR RANGE.

BILL 132 STATES THAT THE “FAIR ALLOCATION AMOUNT” IS A METHOD OF MEASURING AND ALLOCATING ESTIMATED CLEAN ENERGY COSTS AND ESTIMATED CLEAN ENERGY BENEFITS FAIRLY AMONG CONSUMERS.

BUT IT DOESN’T ADDRESS THE “CLEAN ENERGY COSTS” IMPOSED UNILATERALLY AND DISCRIMINATORILY ON RESIDENTS OF RURAL ONTARIO BY THE GREEN ENERGY ACT.

BECAUSE OF SETBACKS, NOISE LEVELS, ETC. IWTS CAN ONLY BE ERECTED IN RURAL AREAS.

 

THEY ARE ERECTED IN CONTRAVENTION OF MUNICIPAL BY-LAWS, OFFICIAL PLANS AND ASSESSMENT RIGHTS AGAINST LOCAL OBJECTIONS AND ARE DAMAGING COMMUNITIES, ECONOMIES, HUMAN HEALTH, LAND VALUES AND ENVIRONMENTS ACROSS RURAL ONTARIO.

ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY COALITION FOR SAFE AND GREEN ENERGY, I AM PROSECUTING A PROCEEDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT IN OTTAWA SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE GREEN ENERGY ACT AND A DECLARATION THAT BY IMPOSING ALL OF THE NON-MONETARY COSTS OF IWTS ON RURAL ONTARIO THE ACT VIOLATES S. 15 OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN THAT IT STERILIZES THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS OF RURAL ONTARIO TO ADVOCATE FOR, ENACT, RELY ON AND CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SOUND LAND USE PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF DEMEANING THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF RESIDENTS OF RURAL ONTARIO.

I FULLY EXPECT TO WIN THIS CASE, IN WHICH EVENT EVERY IWT ERECTED IN ONTARIO WILL BE ILLEGAL.

THE $28,000,000 THAT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION RECENTLY ORDERED ONTARIO TO PAY TO WINDSTREAM FOR IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON OFF-SHORE IWTS WILL FADE INTO INSIGNIFICANCE COMPARED TO AMOUNTS DEMANDED BY IWT OPERATORS TO COMPENSATE FOR ILLEGAL OPERATING PERMITS.

BILL 132 WON’T SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

 

Review of ERT Remedy decision on the WPD White Pines Project

On Wednesday, April 26, The ERT finally issued their decision on the Remedy phase of the hearing into the WPD 27 turbine project proposed for the south shore of the County. The decision on remedy comes after last year’s finding of serious and irreversible harm to Little Brown Bats and Blanding’s turtles in the main hearing of the Hirsch and APPEC appeals.

Skipping to the conclusion, the Tribunal was not satisfied that WPD’s proposals to prevent harm to Blanding’s turtles would not cause further harm to the delicate ecosystems of the south shore. Consequently, the Tribunal, acting in its capacity to modify the original decision of the MOECC, removed approval of 18 turbines from the Renewable Energy Approval (REA).

With only 9 turbines left in the REA, there is no way for WPD to meet their obligation to produce at least 75% of the electricity they had been contracted for without making major changes to the project (much larger turbines perhaps) that would require a whole new REA process.

As we cautiously celebrate this victory in the remedy phase, it must be remembered that WPD will have 30 days to file an appeal to the Divisional court on a matter of law. It is important to note that this right of appeal covers the entire hearing process over the last 19 months, not just the Remedy portion.

Summary of the Decision

The Tribunal considered 2 mitigation plans presented by WPD intended to prevent harm to Little Brown Bats and Blanding’s turtles.

With respect to the bats, the Tribunal was satisfied that the WPD plan would, on a balance of probabilities, provide an adequate reduction of the potential to kill bats by curtailing the start-up of turbines in low wind conditions. The Tribunal directed that the REA be modified to include the curtailment plan.

Regarding Blanding’s turtles, the Tribunal found that the “novel”, (their term), or preposterous, (our term), plan to reconstruct and then remove many kilometers of County roads to accommodate the movement of heavy trucks had not been tested in the real world and posed unknown potential danger to the ecology of the project lands.

The Tribunal’s view is summarized in this quote from their decision:
“The proposal will require more significant and different construction activities than was indicated at the main hearing on the merits phase in this proceeding. This is particularly true for the tertiary road segments, which will require widening by 2.7 m, excavation, installation of geogrid and 500 millimeters (“mm”) of gravel, followed by removal activities and restoration of native vegetation. These segments and several of the intersections to be restored occur in areas of prime Blanding’s turtle habitat, including some segments adjacent to wetlands. In its June 2016 Order, the Tribunal ruled that, in determining an appropriate remedy, it would consider the issues of the effectiveness of proposed remedial measures and the impacts and implications of those measures, including the potential for unanticipated and unstudied impacts. However, evidence was not presented to the Tribunal regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed measures, nor was there evidence presented that the MOECC and/or the MNRF have reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the NRSI Plan.”

Importantly, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the precautionary principle and an ecosystem approach must be used in considering all the ramifications of the proposed mitigation plan.
The Tribunal stated:
“In determining an appropriate remedy, the Tribunal finds that application of the precautionary principle is appropriate in order to fulfill the EPA’s purpose of “protection and conservation” and determine which remedy is in the public interest.”

“In addition, the Tribunal finds that implementing novel, unstudied and
unproven construction, removal and restoration activities in Blanding’s turtle habitat is
not consistent with the precautionary principle or an ecosystem approach.”
Conclusion
While we are encouraged by the favourable result in the WPD Remedy hearing, CCSAGE will be continuing its efforts for the judicial review of the Green Energy Act, whether the WPD decision is appealed, or WPD walks away. The goal of this JR is to protect the County and other areas of rural Ontario from future inappropriate placement of industrial turbine plants, and restoration of planning power to the Municipalities.

As such, we encourage membership in CCSAGE which helps us show the court that there is significant interest in this pioneering effort.

Memberships can be purchased at https://ccsage.wordpress.com
or by mail:   Anne Dumbrille, 538 Morrison Point Road,  Milford,  ON  K0K 2P0

Province should halt turbine project: Environmental group

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

McKeil Marine Photo A partially submerged barge in Picton Bay was successfully refloated Saturday afternoon.

 

The partial sinking of a barge that was to be used in the construction of the Amherst Island wind energy project is reason enough to stop the project, a Prince Edward County environmental group says.

In a letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, Anne Dumbrille, president of the County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy, wrote that the partial sinking of the barge on March 24 threatened the drinking water supply.

“The recent sinking of a barge leased in order to ship aggregate to Amherst Island for the wind turbine project, with the associated drinking water emergency in Prince Edward County, was the first that we citizens, as well as the councillors of Prince Edward County, have been made aware that the Picton Terminals were involved in this activity,” Dumbrille wrote.

The barge’s partial sinking prompted a state of water emergency in PEC, including a cautionary boil water advisory for residents using the Picton-Bloomfield drinking water system, the establishment of a bulk water dispensing station in Wellington for residents and a temporary shutdown of the Picton-Bloomfield drinking water plant.

The Canadian Coast Guard stated that less than 30 litres of residual oil were spilled from the barge, which was empty at the time of the incident.

The Coast Guard also said a sheen, believed to be diesel fuel and hydraulic fluid, could been seen on the water and ice near the barge.

The barge was refloated on the weekend, and municipal officials said no contaminants entered the drinking water system.

Dumbrille wrote that the use of the Picton Terminals and adjacent roads were not outlined in the Amherst project renewable energy agreement (REA), nor is there any description of material being moved by barge from Picton to the island.

“None of the barge traffic of aggregate from the county to Amherst Island is mentioned or contemplated in the permit for the wind factory on Amherst Island,” she wrote.

Dumbrille noted that the route from Picton to Amherst Island passes the Glenora ferry crossing.

“There is no mention of driving materials/components related to the turbine project to or through Prince Edward County, or shipping from Picton Terminals,” Dumbrille wrote. “There was no description of use of an ‘Aggregate Transfer Vessel.’ No environmental studies have been undertaken. There was no Marine Logistics Plan as required by the REA until rushed efforts after the spill.”

On Friday evening, the company building the wind energy project, Windlectric Inc., tweeted a statement about the sinking.

“The recent sinking of the Pitts Carillon barge at Picton Terminals is very unfortunate. The barge was being prepared for use at the Amherst Island Wind Project, but was outside the project’s boundary at the time of the event,” the statement read. It then directed readers to the Canadian Coast Guard website.

elferguson@postmedia.com

 

Apr 6 and Apr 7. Driver / Rowse Judicial Review on the Province’s heritage impact assessment process for White Pines. Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West, Toronto,10:00 am. Please attend!

Notice to CCSAGE Members —— Please try to attend, your support would be appreciated!

The judicial review of the White Pines cultural heritage process, brought by Liz Driver and Edwin Rowse against wpd Canada and Ontario, will take place on Thursday and Friday, April 6–7, at Osgoode Hall, in Toronto. The hearing begins at 10 am each day.

It will be important to show the court that the community cares about the project’s visual impacts and construction vibrations on the County’s cultural heritage.

Osgoode Hall is at the northeast corner of Queen and University. There is Green P parking underground next door at City Hall or parking across the street under the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts. Osgoode Subway Station is at the intersection.

CCSAGE NG ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Karlo Estates Winery, Sunday March 26, 2017

Some highlights of Sunday’s well-attended AGM at Karlo Estates Winery:

MPP Todd Smith spoke about his role as energy critic, and previewed how the PC Party plans to fix the electricity system, including scrapping of the GEA and stopping the sale of Hydro One.
Mayor Robert Quaiff reported on the County’s response to a barge sinking at Picton Terminals. It was carrying a load of gravel for use in building Windlectric’s dock at Amherst Island.
Lawyer Alan Whiteley updated the group on the CCSAGE J.R., indicating that the next objective is to obtain a protective costs order in favour of CCSAGE, its Directors and its lawyer.
John Hirsch spoke on Ontario’s $100M Home Energy Conservation Incentives Program , which offers rebates for energy-saving renos on houses heated by natural gas, propane, oil or wood.
Adam Cronk, owner of Green Giant Design + Build at Picton Airport, described the PassivHaus energy standard, which can reduce heating and cooling energy costs by up to 90%.  Last but not least, Chef Chris Byrne prepared delicious spanakopita paired with Karlo Estates fine wine!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUING SUPPORT!!

 

CCSAGE BULLETIN: JANUARY 2017

N0. 11 January 2017

The Progress of the Court Case:

Our lawyer, Alan Whitely, spent October 21 in an Ottawa courtroom presenting arguments addressing the first motions of our judicial review.

WPD wanted to be a full participant in the case so they could be awarded costs should our case fail. Ron Higgins, the mayor of North Frontenac Township, asked to be an intervenor (a limited participant) in the case. The Ontario Energy Board asked that our case against them be quashed.

After two months of deliberation, a Decision was rendered. Alan’s arguments convinced the judge to deny WPD full participation in the case. Instead, they are only permitted intervenor status with restrictions that limit their witnesses, evidence, and examination of witnesses to the impact of the proceedings on their particular interests. Ron Higgins was not granted intervenor status but he will add an affidavit to the Judicial Review.

The next motions will be scheduled imminently. They include, from CCSAGE Naturally Green: one to protect CCSAGE from costs, and one to compel the government agencies to produce the records of their decision to approve the White Pines wind farm and transmission lines. A motion from OEB is to remove themselves from the case.
The 2015/16 Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario:

The ECO Report was released recently and several pertinent points have been pulled out of the executive summary.
“The large-scale loss of biodiversity is a crisis in Ontario and around the world. As well as invasive species, the biggest threats are human-caused habitat loss and degradation, and disease, with climate change playing a growing role. The declines of moose, bats and amphibians in Ontario demonstrate that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry needs to act urgently on habitat protection and biodiversity monitoring.” [p.4/8] ……..While white-nose syndrome is by far the major threat to Ontario’s bats; bats can suffer additional losses from human persecution and from wind turbines. The collapse of Ontario’s bat population could lead to an increase in insect pests, just as public health authorities are calling on Ontarians to protect themselves from mosquito bites because of the spread of insect-borne diseases. [p.6/8]…….In recommendations, p8/8, it says – “The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing should prohibit infrastructure in provincially significant wetlands.”
Interesting Links

These have been suggested by a variety of people. If you have any to add please let us know:

https://www.scribd.com/document/335731399/Multimunicipal-Group-2016-New-Year-New-Resolve-Fix-Green-Energy-Act

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ontarios-plan-destroy-jobs-save-the-planet/article33478285/?ord=1

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/12/22/ontario-extends-moratorium-on-offshore-wind-turbines.html

http://www.thegwpf.com/unwinding-renewable-energy-subsidies/

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/1030.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/

White Pines ERT Friday January 27-10am Wellington Community Centre….. LET’S PACK THE HALL! AND SAVE THE COUNTY!

The final oral submissions of the APPEC/Hirsch Environmental Review Tribunal ERT will be heard in the County. We encourage all to attend. Filling the hearing room to capacity for these final submissions will show the Tribunal that PEC cares.

The next major event of the White Pines ERT is Friday, January 27, 2017 when the ERT will convene in Prince Edward County to hear closing arguments. This will be our LAST opportunity to present our case to the Tribunal before it adjourns to make a final decision on the White Pines wind project.

This is also the last and ONLY day in over a year that the Tribunal has deemed to hold a public hearing, with the past ten months of this ERT taking place entirely behind closed doors. This is your opportunity to let the Tribunal know that County residents did not appreciate being left out of the appeal process. In order to make that point – and to make clear where you stand on the White Pines wind project – you will need to be there!

The hearing will be held as follows:

Date: January 27, 2017
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Wellington and District Community Centre, Highline Hall, 111 Belleville Street, Wellington.