Better Plan, Wisconsin

From Michigan

COMPANY FILES 'MECHANICAL' LIENS AGAINST 31 PROPERTIES

By Neal Simon,

The Evening Tribune, www.eveningtribune.com

February 28,  2012 

Howard, N.Y. — More than 30 liens have been filed on properties in the Town of Howard that are connected to Howard Wind, LLC.

The “mechanical liens” were filed at the Steuben County Clerk’s office on Feb. 17 on behalf of SPE Utility Contractors, Port Huron, Mich.

Mechanical liens, which are in effect for one year from the date of filing, are often used by subcontractors after they finish a construction project. Some of the landowners hit with liens have multiple parcels.

In its court filing, SPE Utility Contractors says it contracted with with O’Connell Electric Co., Inc. to perform professional services, including excavation, backfill, and copper grounding and fiber optic cable installation, for the Howard Wind Farm Project. The company is claiming $1,617,474 in work was completed. SPE Utility said the work was performed between July 6, 2011 and Oct. 20, 2011. Liens were filed against 31 properties.

An official with Howard Wind, LLC said the liens are the result of a dispute between the contractor and a subcontractor, and the wind farm company has fullfilled all of its obligations and made full payment for all of the work that was done. The company said it has contacted landowners to apologize for the inconvenience.

David H. Jacobs, an attorney for SPE Utility, did not return a call seeking comment.

DEBATE STILL SWIRLS OVER EFFECTS OF WIND TURBINES ON NEARBY RESIDENTS

 by Sharon Roznik,

Source The Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com 

February 25, 2012

Living near wind turbines has changed Sandy Vercauteren’s life forever.

“I am exposed to vibration constantly,” the town of Byron resident said. “It rattles the valances right off my windows. The noise, especially in summer, keeps me awake at night. The flickering creates a strobe light in my house. I’m concerned about the long-term exposure to all this.”

A registered nurse, Vercauteren lives within 1,100 feet of a turbine that is part of Forward Wind Energy’s 86-turbine wind farm spread out through the townships of LeRoy, Byron, Oakfield and Lomira.

She is among many residents hopeful that a resolution passed by the Brown County Board of Supervisors requesting state emergency aid for residents made ill by industrial wind turbines will set a precedent.

Proposed legislation

The health of homeowners who live near wind farms has been an ongoing topic of discussion. State Sen. Frank Lasee, (R-Ledgeview. recently introduced a bill that would allow cities, villages, towns and counties to establish a minimum distance between a wind turbine and a home even if the rules are more restrictive than any the state enacts.

Lasee says his bill is necessary because he’s heard from numerous Wisconsin residents who have complained about nausea, sleep loss, headaches, dizziness and vertigo from living near the turbines that stand 40 feet tall.

Statewide siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended last March. Lawmakers sent the rules back to the State Public Service Commission where they have remained as officials work to reach a compromise.

Conflicting views

Green energy advocate Michael Vickerman of Renew Wisconsin said that from a medical science perspective the issue is being studied in various states and there is no conclusive evidence of a causal connection.

He cites a New York Times article that reports the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection convened a panel of independent health experts to review the existing medical literature — still limited — on health effects related to wind turbines. A comprehensive review of epidemiological studies conducted near turbines in the United States and Europe indicates that there is no evidence for a set of health effects characterized as “wind turbine syndrome.”

Vickerman questions why neighbors report adverse health impact while host landowners often living closer to the turbines haven’t reported any illness.

Larry Wunsch said he lost a lot of sleep after the wind farm was erected near the Byron home he built on 60 acres of land with his own hands. He contends that industrial noise from the wind turbines ruined his quality of life. He served on the siting council for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and believes the wind turbines should be located farther away from residences than the 1,100 feet allowed.

“As a firefighter I couldn’t risk going to work tired day after day,” he said. “We tried living there for three years, but we couldn’t do it anymore. My wife cried when we had to move.”

He recorded videos of the sound of the wind turbines and the flicker shadow that pulsed through his house and posted them on Youtube.

Payout

In 2008 Fond du Lac County was promised clean renewable energy, job creation and payouts to hosting landowners, townships, even the county itself. Fond du Lac County receives $600,000 annually from wind energy projects, County Exective Allen Buechel said.

A single wind turbine provides $3,000 per year per megawatt or more in income to a landowner leasing wind rights.

Sleepless nights

Mark Rademann has suffered from stomach problems for the first time in his life since the Cedar Ridge Wind Farm went up around his home in a valley near Eden. Other family members are dealing with major health concerns, he said.

“It’s something that’s hard to prove, but listening 24-7 to the low-frequency sound like a bad sub-woofer gives me a restless, uneasy feeling,” he said. “I’ll never forget the first time I heard the ‘whooping’ of the blades. It just kind of hit me in the stomach.”

With the turbines “revving up at night” and the wind blowing against the east side of his house, Rademann said that many nights he doesn’t sleep.

“I have written several letters to legislatures (stating) they should be placed at least a mile away from a private residence. I am not against wind power, but I believe they are too darn close,” he said.

Now 67 years old, Vercauteren says she feels too old to pack up and begin a new life. A second wind turbine is located 1,500 feet from her house.

She used to be able to stand outside at night and listen to a family of hoot owls living in a patch of woods on her property. She hasn’t heard them since the wind turbines went up. Bats are also gone.

“I don’t feel like starting over; my life savings is invested in this house,” she said. “So I try and tolerate it — it’s what you have to do.”

ON THE WEB

Larry Wunsch has posted video of the effects of wind turbines at his former Town of Byron home:

• www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyOImGHyJtQ

• www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ
ON THE INTERNET
Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind-Siting Guidelines
• www.wind-watch.org/documents/wisconsin-citizens-safe-wind-siting-guidelines/

WIND PROJECT IS NOT WELCOME

By Brenda Salseg

SOURCE: New Richmond News

February 24, 2012

I can only surmise two reasons the wind developer, Emerging Energies LLC, a.k.a. Highland Wind, dropped its potential $25 million lawsuit against the Town of Forest for breach of contract: 1. the developer knows it would be unwise to open up township records to legal scrutiny, and 2. the wind developer is trying to improve its image with other townships it may be targeting next for a wind project.

Logically, any township near the Town of Forest would also be ripe for the expansion of an industrial wind turbine project, including the towns of Glenwood, New Haven, Cylon and Emerald. Virtually, any township in the state of Wisconsin can be targeted and county and local ordinances overridden if a developer pushes its project over 100 megawatts, which requires permitting through the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

Emerging Energies/ Highland Wind is attempting to “force” the project on the Town of Forest via the PSC. Yet 70 percent of the residents of Forest are against living within an industrial wind park.

Well documented studies by leading scientists, physicians, acousticians, electrical engineers and appraisers link evidence directly to health problems and property devaluation that result wherever industrial wind turbine projects are sited too close to neighboring homes.

The most compelling evidence is the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Wis. Go to www.youtube.com and search “Shirley Wind Project.” Watch the video. The families, who live south of Green Bay are suffering negative health effects and livestock deaths they believe are the result of eight 500-foot tall German-made industrial wind turbines sited in their community and installed by the same wind developer, Emerging Energies. Some of these families live more than a half mile from the nearest turbine.

Emerging Energies’ public relations tactics do not fool us who oppose the wind project in the Town of Forest. Industrial wind energy does not work, is a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars, results in few permanent jobs, does not close down coal plants, and siting turbines too close to homes and livestock is negligent and irresponsible.

Bill Rakocy, managing partner of Emerging Energies, has been quoted as saying, “We’re excited to develop as much wind (power) as we can in Wisconsin.” Of course the developer is; the eight turbines in the Shirley Project netted $13 million in taxpayer subsidy.

If Emerging Energies succeeds in the installation of a 41-wind turbine project, it would be a hostile take-over of our community and de facto eminent domain of nonparticipating properties, some 20,000 acres not under lease. One would have to question what it means to live in the United States of America if corporate interests can supersede constitutional rights.

The people of Forest that stand together against industrial wind will not stand down and allow our township to be taken over by greed under the guise of noble-sounding, planet-saving rhetoric which is not based on the facts. Nor were residents intimidated by Sunday night’s vandalism and theft of more than 30 “No Turbines” signs located on individual private property.

As taxpayers and residents of northwestern Wisconsin, if you turn a blind eye to an industrial-scale wind project in the Town of Forest, how will you respond when Big Wind comes knocking on your township’s back door and attempts to take your property as project foot-print acreage to site industrial wind turbines next to your home without your agreement?

Brenda Salseg

Town of Forest

St. Croix County

FARMERS FIND PROBLEMS WITH WIND POWER GENERATORS

By Matthew Wilde, wcfcourier.com

February 19 2012 

READLYN, Iowa — Green energy has some Northeast Iowa farmers seeing red. Not with the concept, but with a wind energy company.

More than a dozen grain and livestock producers who purchased wind turbines to cut energy costs and help the environment have had nothing but problems. The company that sold the turbines — Earth Linked Energy Solutions of Story City — is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Customers say the turbines cost far more than they’ve saved.

Attempts to reach Earth Linked owners Laura Royal and Nate Ante were unsuccessful.

The windmills, according to some owners, are beset with mechanical problems and often sit idle — sometimes for months at a time. Other Earth Linked customers say turbines aren’t as productive as company officials led them to believe. One producer said Earth Linked promised government aid to help pay for the project that never materialized.

Earth Linked customers recently joined forces to keep others from suffering the same fate. Seven turbine owners met at Ron Strottman’s dairy farm near Readlyn in mid-December. Roger Bockes, who owns a troubled turbine at a hog operation near Grundy Center, is in contact with about a dozen fellow Earth Linked customers.

While turbine owners are still positive about wind energy — many area projects are successful, including some sold by Earth Linked — they urge people to be cautious as the industry evolves. Owners and industry experts suggest potential turbine buyers thoroughly research companies and seek advice from reliable experts, especially advisers without a financial stake in the decision.

Janice Martins of rural Fairbank, who attended Strottman’s meeting, said her Earth Linked turbine is a mechanical nightmare and rarely turns.

“I think wind energy is a good thing … but we need to educate people on what’s going on,” said Martins, who farms with her husband Doug. “Earth Linked is the problem.”

Earth Linked won’t fulfill warranty obligations or return calls, customers say.

The company’s toll-free number is disconnected. Former employees said Earth Linked subcontracted with other businesses to rebuild turbines and supply electronics and software.

A happy ending for Earth Linked customers isn’t likely, according to Bruce Thomsen, an Urbandale accountant appointed receiver of the company in August by Polk County District Court.

A lawsuit between Laura Royal and Ante is ongoing, and Royal asked Thomsen be appointed.

Earth Linked — along with subsidiaries Earth Linked Wind Solutions, Earth Linked Growth Grants and E.L.E.S. Construction and Maintenance — essentially ceased operations in August as funds dried up and employees were let go, said Thomsen. He’s basically in control of the company.

Many local Earth Linked customers stay in touch with Thomsen.

“I tried to take care of people. (But) with no employees and cash accounts pretty much dried up,” Thomsen said, there’s not much he can do.

Thomsen conducted a financial analysis of Earth Linked and its subsidiaries. He declined to detail his findings. He’s waiting on direction from the court, which could include bankruptcy proceedings.

Troubled turbines

Multiple Earth Linked customers said they’ve experienced problems. Some feel they were misled by Earth Linked salesman Jeff Royal, Lisa Royal’s husband.

Jeff Royal denies the allegation. Though he feels sorry for past customers having trouble with turbines, Jeff Royal said he was simply the salesman and Ante should make things right.

Janice and Doug Martins purchased a remanufactured Windmatic 65 kilowatt turbine for about $240,000 from Jeff Royal in January 2010. Government stimulus and grant money paid for about half the project. The Martins obtained a loan for the balance.

Jeff Royal claims he doesn’t remember dealing with the Martins. His signature is on the sales contract.

The Martins want to eliminate or put a big dent in monthly electric bills averaging $380 to $600 a month for their cattle and grain operation. When Earth Linked came calling — the company sold about 50 turbines in eastern Iowa, according to a former employee — the couple thought wind power was the answer.

According to financial and production estimates prepared by Jeff Royal, whose name is on the document, the project’s payback was calculated at 4.2 years. The average annual income and savings was pegged at nearly $19,000.

“That I can’t comment on. I didn’t prepare any of that,” Jeff Royal said.

During windy months, Janice said Royal assured her and her husband that electric production would exceed use and generate income.

“Everything sounded great. We need power to dry grain … so we signed up,” Janice said.

What the couple got, she said, was bad equipment and estimates.

“Everything you can imagine went wrong,” Janice added.

The Martins’ turbine went online in August 2010, ran for 13 days and broke down. It’s run 53 days in the past year. Janice said the most it reduced their electric bill in a month was $73. And they still have annual payments of $20,000 for the turbine loan and $950 for insurance.

The Martins and turbine experts say faulty electronics and control equipment caused a myriad of problems, like brake issues, twisted cables and a generator blowout. Dozens of attempts to repair the turbine by Earth Linked failed, Janice said. Last August, she said the company quit helping all together.

“It was just misrepresented,” Janice said. “I hope people don’t get a bad taste in their mouth from wind energy. We just worked with a bad company.”

Talk Inc., a wind energy company based in Sauk Centre, Minn., is in the process of repairing the Martins’ turbine at the couple’s expense.

Strottman bought two turbines — a 65 kw Windmatic and a 33 kw Aeroman — from Earth Linked two years ago to drastically cut his monthly $1,700 electric bill. He owns a 250-head dairy.

The project cost $410,000. Strottman received $123,000 in government economic stimulus funds and he got a loan for the balance.

The dairy farmer makes $3,700 monthly payments on the machines that currently sit idle. Since Earth Linked won’t honor warranties on the machines, Strottman said he’s hesitant to fork over more money to repair bad electronics, a burned out generator and solve electricity conversion issues.

“The bleeding has to stop some time,” Strottman said.

Strottman said Jeff Royal promised him a sizable government grant would also offset the cost, which wasn’t approved. Plus, Strottman said he was never told phase converters would be needed. Strottman’s turbines produce three-phase power but his farm uses single-phase electricity.

“If they did, I would have said, ‘no thanks,’” Strottman said.

Jeff Royal declined to comment on Strottman’s allegations.

However, Royal, who owns Earth Linked Wind Solutions of Kansas, a separate company from his wife and Ante’s venture, feels bad for his former customers. He thinks Earth Linked Energy Solutions should continue to help.

“I think they should. … Nate (Ante) should fix everything,” he said, while claiming no financial liability.

A call to Ante’s cell phone for comment wasn’t returned. Jeff Royal also provided a number for his wife’s attorney, Brad Beaman, who didn’t respond to an interview request.

Other local Earth Linked Energy Solutions customers report similar problems as the Martins and Strottman.

Rick Rottinghaus of rural Waterloo spent $316,000 on a 100 kw turbine, about half paid by taxpayers. It has run only two months out of the last 15, plagued with electronic and mechanical problems.

Rottinghaus billed Earth Linked $35,000 for repairs that haven’t worked and lost production. It was never paid, he said.

Talk Inc. owner Adam Suelflow inspected Rottinghaus’ turbine on Feb. 10 and will repair the machine.

“I still believe in wind energy,” Rottinghaus said. “I’m trying to figure out how much I’m willing to stick into half a dead horse.”

What to look for

Despite problems experienced by some Northeast Iowa turbine owners, industry experts say investing in small wind energy systems can pay off. The Iowa Wind Energy Association provides helpful tips for success.

Harold Prior, executive director of the association, said Earth Linked Energy Solutions did give the industry a “black eye.” However, he said there are many reputable companies selling and maintaining machines.

“Buyers have to be very cautious with whom they get involved with. That’s what we’re trying to get across … because there’s tremendous potential for the industry,” Prior said.

According to Prior, potential turbine buyers should:

Understand projects are complicated and hire quality consultants.

Study net electricity metering requirements.

Seek advice if a project is economically feasible.

Thoroughly research companies, insist on references from customers.

Steve Boevers of rural Readlyn is relatively happy with the 65 kw Vesta turbine he purchased from Earth Linked Energy Solutions 2 1/2 years ago — the first sold by the company in the area, he said. There’s been no mechanical problems so far.

“I’m one of the few lucky ones,” Boevers said. “It’s not putting out the kilowatts as promised, but enough that it should pay for itself in under 10 years.”

Much more than originally claimed by Earth Linked, he said.

A family member who bought from Earth Linked is satisfied as well, Boevers said. The grain and hog farmer is contemplating buying another turbine to power a hog site near Fredericka.

For local turbines not running or operating efficiently, Suelflow said they can be fixed. Prior described Talk Inc. as a “shining star” in the industry.

Suelflow, a turbine technician, said about 20 Earth Linked customers have contacted him about repairing their machines. Several are operating with no problems, he said.

The primary problem is faulty controllers, Suelflow said, which caused other malfunctions. He’s repairing machines with Talk equipment.

“Word spread like wildfire. We want machines to run, they do work,” Suelflow said.

But at a cost. In some cases, former Earth Linked customers may have to pay tens of thousands of dollars.

For the Martins, it’s either do that or waste more than $100,000 already invested. Suelflow estimated the Martins’ payback will be eight to 10 years, including the extra repair bills.

“I think Talk will be our savior,” Janice Martins said.

From Michigan:

RESIDENTS SETTLE UBLY LAWSUIT WITH WIND COMPANIES

By Kate Hessling, Assistant News Editor,

Source Huron Daily Tribune, www.michigansthumb.com

February 18, 2012 

The count claimed the intrusions included:

• Low frequency and impulse noise created by the wind turbines, which range between 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit stated.

Adverse health effects listed in the lawsuit included: the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

BAD AXE — The 20 Huron County residents who filed a lawsuit claiming the Ubly-area Michigan Wind I development has harmed their quality of life and lowered their property values have agreed to settle with the wind companies.

As a result, the jury trial that was set to get under way next week in circuit court has been canceled.

The plaintiffs were seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities in the lawsuit filed May 11, 2010, in Huron County Circuit Court. The defendants were John Deere Renewables, Deere & Co., Noble Environmental Power LLC, Michigan Wind 1 LLC and RMT Inc.

Messages seeking additional information about the settlement were left with attorneys from Dykema Gosset PLLC, a Detroit-area firm representing the defendants, and Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner PLC, which represents the plaintiffs. No messages were returned as of late Friday. It’s expected the terms of the settlement will be confidential.

The thrust of the lawsuit was that construction and operation of the wind farm caused the plaintiffs to suffer adverse health effects, emotional distress and economic damages, according to court documents from the Huron County Clerk’s office. It consisted of four counts: Private nuisance, public nuisance, negligent design of a wind farm and negligent misrepresentation. RMT Inc. was named only in the negligent design claim.

Some of the counts — for negligent design and misrepresentation — were dismissed by Judge M. Richard Knoblock in Huron County Circuit Court in August 2010.

RMT Inc. constructed the wind farm, which was developed by Noble Environmental Power. Noble sold the development to John Deere, which later sold it to Exelon Wind.

The plaintiffs in the case are Ubly area residents David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.

Agreements were reached between the plaintiffs and two of the defendants, which resulted in Noble being dismissed from the case Sept. 19, 2011, and RMT being dismissed Oct. 24, 2011.

Court records show both the plaintiffs and John Deere Renewables, Deere & Co. and Michigan Wind 1 agreed to dismiss the count for public nuisance.

The only count left unresolved prior to this week was a claim of private nuisance, which alleged the wind companies interfered with the plaintiffs’ rights, including their property rights, by creating and operating the wind farm.

The count claimed the intrusions included:

• Low frequency and impulse noise created by the wind turbines, which range between 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit stated.

Adverse health effects listed in the lawsuit included: the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

Earlier this month, Deere and Michigan Wind I filed a motion asking the court to dismiss claims regarding adverse health effects because the plaintiffs failed to provide a witness other than themselves to support an injury claim. Because the plaintiffs did not provide a single expert or medical record, the health claims were based on conjecture and speculation, according to court documents.

In January, the defendants filed motions seeking to have a number of items excluded as evidence in the trial, including evidence about shadow flicker, sound studies provided by the plaintiffs, easements and lease agreements with landowners not party to the lawsuit; and allegations and claims or nuisance actions concerning wind farms other than Michigan Wind 1.

The wind companies previously attempted to exclude opinions and testimony of the plaintiffs’ property valuation expert, L. Mark St. Clair, who inspected the residences and outbuildings at the plaintiffs’ properties and said there was a $829,545 combined loss in property value since Jan. 1, 2009.

“In terms of damages as they may relate to the subject property, it appears that there have been damages that have resulted from this project,” St. Clair wrote in a retrospective value loss opinion.

The wind companies sought to excluded St. Clair’s opinions and testimony, challenging St. Clair’s methodology and data relied upon in rendering his opinion that Michigan Wind 1 has negatively impacted the plaintiffs’’ property values.

Because Knoblock denied the motion to exclude St. Clair’s opinions and testimony on Dec. 23, the above information could have been included in the jury trial.

Even though the lawsuit was whittled down to just about one count, court documents indicate the matter could have resulted in a lengthy trial, as the witness list for the defense had more than 100 names alone. A decision on the other items (noise studies, shadow flicker, etc.) that the defense sought to exclude as evidence was not made before the settlement was confirmed. So it’s not known whether those matters would have been considered by a jury.

The settlement was confirmed this week in a letter the plaintiffs’ attorney, Craig Horn, faxed to the circuit court.