Better Plan, Wisconsin

FOND DU LAC COUNTY RESIDENTS WANT RELIEF FROM WIND FARMS TOO

Bret Lemoine,

Source: WFRV, wearegreenbay.com

February 16, 2012

Brown County will be asking for state aid to relocate residents who say they’re becoming ill because of wind turbines. That was decided at a board meeting Wednesday night.

Those residents say they’ve had to leave their homes after getting sick from low frequency noises. Now, the state legislature can either approve or deny the request for funding.

Residents living near an 88 turbine wind farm in Fond du Lac County are hopeful the decision will mean relief is also on the way, or at least a possibility. Many residents are complaining about similar problems. They claim there is constant noise generated from the turbines that keeps them up at night and even builds up pressure, giving them severe headaches.

We’re told several people have moved out of their homes. They hope similar action can be taken to help them.

“It’s about time somebody starts looking into this, finding out what they really do to people,” says resident Joan Brusoe, who lives 1400 ft. from a turbine. Her neighbor, Larry Lamont, is 1100 ft. away from one: “They could mediate some of the problems these things are creating, that would help. I don’t know if there is a total solution.”

We spoke with representatives from RENEW Wisconsin. They are a non-profit group that promotes environmentally sustainable energy policies in our state. They tell Local 5 health concerns are untrue and undocumented.

Director Michael Vickerman says, “Very few people object to wind projects. It’s just an organized group of people who don’t like these developments.”

He calls Brown County’s decision a move to step up pressure on legislators, stopping wind development in Wisconsin.

Next Feature: From Massachusetts

TURBINE CRITICS RIP STATE REPORT

By Patrick Cassidy,

Source Cape Cod Times,www.capecodonline.com 

February 17, 2012 

BOURNE — One after another, residents from towns across the southeastern part of the state stood up in Bourne High School Thursday night and said they didn’t buy a state-sponsored report that found no direct health effects from the operation of wind turbines.

“Please do not tell us that turbines do not make us sick,” said Neil Anderson, one of several Falmouth residents who spoke at the public hearing on the state report released in January.

Others in the crowd of more than 50 people came from Nantucket, Fairhaven and Duxbury. The majority voiced their disbelief that the report’s authors found that wind turbines did not affect the health of people who live near them.

“I can’t find where you’ve interviewed a single victim of ill health effects or where you’ve interviewed a doctor who treated them,” said Bruce Mandel of Nantucket. “The victims shouldn’t have to prove that they’re sick.”

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell told the audience that state officials have not made up their mind on the question of whether there are health effects from the operation of turbines, such as the two at the Falmouth wastewater treatment facility and a third private turbine built nearby.

“We are glad to be here,” Kimmell said. “We have an open mind and open ears.”

The DEP and the state Department of Public Health commissioned a group of experts last year to study existing scientific literature about the effect of wind turbines on health after dozens of residents living around the Falmouth turbines complained the spinning blades disrupted their sleep, and caused ailments that include high blood pressure, migraine headaches and nausea.

Town officials have restricted the operation of the first turbine installed at the town wastewater treatment facility for the time being. The second turbine there is undergoing a test run to gauge its effect on neighbors.

The seven-member panel commissioned to look at health issues associated with the technology included health professionals and academics from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston University, the University of Massachusetts and the Harvard School of Public Health.

Thursday’s meeting was the second of three being held across the state to accept comments on the report and what should be done with it. The state will accept written comments until March 19.

The report found that noise from turbines could disrupt sleep and cause annoyance. The report’s authors found that there is evidence “that sleep disruption can adversely affect mood, cognitive functioning, and overall sense of health and well being.”

Despite this, they concluded that there is no evidence that turbines were directly causing health problems.

Several speakers took issue with the authors’ seemingly contradictory line of reasoning.

“How can you have it both ways?” said Todd Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road in Falmouth. “That’s like saying cigarettes don’t cause health impacts if you don’t smoke them.”

Others in the audience questioned the independence of panel members who co-authored the report, pointing to previous work done by panelists on the subject, including one member who consulted on wind energy projects.

Colin Murphy of Falmouth said that he has to deal with “pounding” in his yard from the turbines near his home.

“There’s definitely annoyance and what does annoyance lead to?” he said. “I would say stress and anxiety.”

He didn’t understand why the authors of the report didn’t come to Falmouth to talk to people who lived near the turbines, Murphy said.

“I don’t understand why there wasn’t a lab section to that study,” he said.

After he puts his kids to bed and closes his eyes at night, he thinks about what the turbines could do to the value of his property, Murphy said.

“When you close your eyes and say your prayers, I hope you really believe that you’re doing the best for the people of Massachusetts,” Murphy told Kimmell and the other state officials at the meeting.

While most of the speakers blasted the report, a small minority praised the state for its work.

Thousands of people die each year from asthma and other diseases caused by the burning of fossil fuels, said Richard Elrick, vice president of Cape and Islands Self Reliance and energy coordinator for the towns of Barnstable and Bourne.

Elrick, who said he was speaking only for himself, said there were thousands of turbines around the world where there were no problems such as those reported in Falmouth.

Everyone has an obligation to do something to try and address the problems associated with climate change, Elrick said.

“Every energy source requires sacrifices of one kind or another,” he said.

WIND PROJECT ON LAKE ONTARIO SHORE THREATENS ENDANGERED BIRDS: NATURE CANADA

Source The Canadian Press, www.winnipegfreepress.com

February 17, 2012 

PICTON, Ont. – A proposed wind energy project in Ontario’s rural Prince Edward County has ruffled feathers with Nature Canada, which says the turbines would threaten several endangered bird species.

The location of the project at Ostrander Point, on land owned by the province, is “one of the most significant sites for migrating birds in eastern Ontario,” the national conservation group says. Every year tens of thousands of birds stop there to refuel, drawn by the unique geography of the area on Lake Ontario’s shoreline.

“While Nature Canada recognizes wind energy is an important green energy solution, wind farms in the wrong place can be bad for wildlife.”

The group has suggested citizens tell the province’s Environment Ministry to refuse the application by Toronto-based Gilead Power Corp. for the project.

The company says it completed several detailed studies that “confirm the project will not adversely impact wildlife and bird populations.”

The nine-turbine facility will potentially provide power for about 5,600 homes per year, it says. Construction is planned for later this year if the necessary approvals are granted.

Prince Edward County, about three hours east of Toronto, is a growing tourist destination, with wineries and culinary attractions.

WIND POWER INDUSTRY HITS SETBACK

By Julie Wernau, Tribune staff reporter,

Source: Chicago Tribune, www.chicagotribune.com

February 16, 2012 

Congress today failed to extend the production tax credit for wind power, essentially knocking the wind out of the wind power industry.

The extension of the production tax credit for wind power was excluded from the payroll tax bill in Congress.

Failure to extend the production tax credit — which provides an income tax credit of 2.2 cents/kilowatt-hour for the production of electricity from wind turbines — is expected to result in layoffs of 37,000 people employed nationally by the industry and to stall or significantly push back wind generation projects around the country.

“This market for wind will grind to a halt without extension of the PTC,” Kevin Borgia, who heads up the Illinois Wind Energy Coalition, said earlier this week.

The move is expected to have major ramifications in states such as Illinois. The state has 13,892 megawatts of wind projects waiting to be connected to the electric grid, but many of those projects will be abandoned or significantly delayed without federal subsidies. The state is home to more than 150 companies that make their business along the wind supply chain. At least 67 of those companies make turbines or components for wind farms. Chicago is home to more than a dozen global or U.S. headquarters for major wind companies.

Because the payroll tax bill is expected to pass, the wind industry saw it as their best bet to usher through the extension. While there is still a possibility that the extension could come through as a stand-alone bill or tied to other legislation, Washington insiders say it is unlikely to happen before the election in November.

By then, the wind industry says it will be too late to avoid massive layoffs and project delays since wind projects slated for 2013 should be traveling their way down the supply chain now. Without the tax credit, many developers are putting off those projects.

PTC EXTENSION ABSENT FROM PAYROLL TAX DEAL

Source: Sustainable Business Oregon

Lawmakers in Washington appear to have hammered out a deal on a major payroll tax cut. But contrary to the hopes of renewable energy advocates, an extension of the expiring wind energy Production Tax Credit wasn't part of the package.

The payroll tax bill was viewed as a potential landing place for the Production Tax Credit, or PTC, which is seen as vital to the U.S. wind energy industry.

But late in the day Wednesday, it became clear that the PTC didn't make it into the final stages of negotiation.

Wind energy advocates, led by the American Wind Energy Association, have said that passing a PTC extension in the first quarter of the year is vital to ensuring that the industry — from wind farm project development to manufacturing by companies such as Vestas — is able to maintain its current level of activity and look toward growth.

The PTC, which provides 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for power produced by qualifying renewable energy sources, is set to expire at the end of the year.

Last November, U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) joined with Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) to propose legislation to renew the credit and Oregon's delegation has been supportive of the PTC cause.

While it's unclear what the next window of opportunity will be to get the extension approved by lawmakers, AWEA officials said Wednesday that new efforts are underway.

"A bipartisan group of members of Congress are continuing to provide leadership in extending the wind PTC. They're looking at every opportunity to get this done in the first quarter, because they realize the urgency of keeping the tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs that are on the line, in particular," AWEA officials said in a statement, citing several examples of efforts in the works.

In addition, Nike, Hewlett-Packard, Staples and Starbucks among others have added their support to a PTC extension.

Next Feature

U.S. PROBES GOLDEN EAGLES' DEATH AT DWP WIND FARM

Two more golden eagles have been found dead at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wind farm in the Tehachapi Mountains, for a total of eight carcasses of the federally protected raptors found at the site.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to determine the cause of death of the two golden eagles found Sunday at the Pine Tree wind farm, about 100 miles north of Los Angeles and 15 miles northeast of Mojave, said Lois Grunwald, a spokeswoman for the agency.

The agency has determined that the six golden eagles found dead earlier at the 2-year-old wind farm in Kern County were struck by blades from some of the 90 turbines spread across 8,000 acres at the site.

Those deaths give Pine Tree one of the highest avian mortality rates in California's wind farm industry. The death rate per turbine at the $425-million facility is three times higher than at California's Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where about 67 golden eagles die each year. However, the Altamont Pass facility has 5,000 wind turbines — 55 times as many as Pine Tree.

The flight behavior and size of golden eagles make it difficult for them to maneuver through forests of wind turbine blades spinning as fast as 200 mph — especially when the birds are distracted by the sight of squirrels and other prey. Golden Eagles are about 40 inches tall and weigh about 14 pounds,

The DWP is developing a avian and bat protection plan that "will include measures for mitigating risks to golden eagles," utility spokesman Brooks Baker said.

Critics say the problem is fundamental. "The increasing golden eagle mortality at Pine Tree clearly points to wind turbines built in the wrong location," said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. The utility needs to redesign its 250-megawatt Pine Tree network and Kern County needs to put a moratorium on construction of nearby wind farms to prevent deaths, Anderson said.

Garry George, renewable energy project director for Audubon California, said the best solution is to devote years of research into golden eagles' behavior in an area before deciding where to erect turbines. "If you don't ... you wind up with a Pine Tree," George said.

Killing golden eagles is illegal under federal law, but so far, federal authorities have not prosecuted any wind farm operators for violations.

A prosecution in the Pine Tree case could force the booming alternative energy industry to revise its approach at a time when Kern County is drafting boundary maps for wind resource areas for dozens of proposed wind projects designed to generate electricity for Los Angeles County.

A year ago, the Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted a renewable energy goal of having 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy production by 2015. Los Angeles has a renewable energy goal of 35% by 2020.

A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defenders of Wildlife recently sued Kern County to block construction of the proposed North Sky River and Jawbone wind energy projects, which would operate on 13,535 acres of mountainous terrain adjacent to Pine Tree.

According to the lawsuit, the projects would have an unacceptable effect on protected bat and avian species, including the golden eagle and the rare and protected California condor, and on an important avian migratory corridor.

Next Feature:

CLOSE INSPECTION YIELDS LITTLE ABOUT WIND TURBINE FIRE

Source Press-Republican, pressrepublican.com 

By MIRANDA ORSO,

February 16, 2012

ALTONA — Noble Environmental Power brought in a basket crane recently to get a closer look at the damage caused to a wind turbine in Altona Wind Park on Jan. 29.

“What they were able to see when they were up there was limited,” said John Bahouth, Noble’s vice president of human resources and communications.

Noble officials were holding a series of meetings this week to discuss possible reasons for the flames.

There was “nothing conclusive yet,” Bahouth said.

Determining the cause of the fire requires gathering large amounts of data, he said, and it can be lengthy process.

“It is important because all disciplines have to weigh in,” he added.

Mechanical, chemical and electrical testing must be completed and analyzed to rule out possible roles in the blaze.

Behouth said they are also considering meteorological factors, as some residents in the area reported lightning flashes before the turbine caught fire.

No final plans had been made for the damaged turbine.

“We are looking at what the next steps are and working with the insurance company. It’s in their hands now,” Bahouth said. “As of now, everything is still speculation.”

This was the second major incident involving wind turbines in the Altona Park. In March 2009, a power outage triggered a fire in a turbine, which collapsed. A second turbine was damaged, as well.

The Public Service Commission found Noble was not at fault in that incident.

ALEXANDER OPPOSES PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT, WIND INDUSTRY SUBSIDY

www.chattanoogan.com 15 February 2012 ~~

In a speech Wednesday on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Lamar Alexander called on Congress to reject any efforts to “put in the payroll tax agreement a four-year extension of the so-called production tax credit,” calling it “a big loophole for the rich and for the investment bankers.”

Senator Alexander said: “Let’s not even think about putting this tax break for the rich in the middle of an extension of a tax deduction for working Americans this week. Let’s focus on reducing the debt, increasing expenditure for research, and getting rid of the subsidies.
Twenty years is long enough for a wind production tax credit for what our distinguished Nobel prize-winning Secretary of Energy says is a ‘mature technology.’”

The full transcript follows: “Madam President, there are reports in some of the newspapers this morning that there is an effort to try to slip into the negotiation about extending the payroll tax break for the next year a big loophole for the rich and for the investment bankers and for most of the people President Obama keeps talking about as people whose taxes he would like to raise.

What I mean by this is I have heard there may be an effort to put into the payroll tax agreement a four-year extension of the so-called production tax credit, which is a big tax break for wind developers. I cannot think of anything that would derail more rapidly the consensus that is developing about extending the payroll tax deduction than to do such a thing.

We are supposed to be talking about reducing taxes for working people. This would maintain a big loophole for investment bankers, for the very wealthy, and for big corporations. “We hear a lot of talk about federal subsidies for Big Oil. I would like to take a moment to talk about federal subsidies for Big Wind — $27 billion over 10 years.

That is the amount of Federal taxpayer dollars between 2007 and 2016, according to the Joint Tax Committee, that taxpayers will have given to wind developers across our country. This subsidy comes in the form of a production tax credit, renewable energy bonds, investment tax credits, federal grants, and accelerated appreciation. These are huge subsidies. The production tax credit itself has been there for 20 years. It was a temporary tax break put in the law in 1992.

“And what do we get in return for these billions of dollars of subsidies? We get a puny amount of unreliable electricity that arrives disproportionately at night when we don’t need it. “Residents in community after community across America are finding out that these are not your grandma’s windmills. These gigantic turbines, which look so pleasant on the television ads — paid for by the people who are getting all the tax breaks — look like an elephant when they are in your backyard.

In fact, they are much bigger than an elephant. They are three times as tall as the sky boxes at Neyland Stadium, the University of Tennessee football stadium in Knoxville. They are taller than the Statue of Liberty. The blades are as wide as a football field is long, and you can see the blinking lights that are on top of these windmills for 20 miles.

In town after town, Americans are complaining about the noise and disturbance that come from these giant wind turbines in their backyards. There is a new movie that was reviewed in the New York Times in the last few days called “Windfall” about residents in upstate New York who are upset and have left their homes because of the arrival of these big wind turbines.

The great American West, which conservationists for a century have sought to protect, has become littered with these giant towers. Boone Pickens, an advocate of wind power, says he doesn’t want them on his own ranch because they are ugly. Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Warner, and Scott Brown have all complained about the new Manhattan Island-sized wind development which will forever change the landscape off the coast of Nantucket Island.

On top of all that, these giant turbines have become a Cuisinart in the sky for birds. Federal law protects the American Eagle and migratory birds. In 2009, Exxon had to pay $600,000 in fines when oil developments harmed these protected birds. But the federal government so far has refused to apply the same federal law to Big Wind that applies to Big Oil, even though chopping up an eagle in a wind turbine couldn’t be any better than its landing and dying on an oil slick. And wind turbines kill over 400,000 birds every year.

We have had some experience with the reliability of this kind of wind power in the Tennessee Valley Authority region. A few years ago TVA built 30 big wind turbines on top of Buffalo Mountain. In the eastern United States, onshore wind power only works when the wind turbines are placed on the ridge lines of Americas most scenic mountains. So you will see them along the areas near the Appalachian Trail through the mountains of scenic views we prize in our State. But there they are, 30 big wind turbines to see whether they would work.

Here is what happened: The wind blows 19 percent of the time. According to TVA’s own estimates, it is reliable 12 percent of the time. So TVA signed a contract to spend $60 million to produce 6 megawatts of wind — actual production of wind — over that 10-year period of time. It was a commercial failure.

There are obviously better alternatives to this. First, there is nuclear power. We wouldn’t think of going to war in sailboats if nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers were available. The energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats is trying to produce enough clean energy for the United States of America with windmills.

The United States uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world. It needs to be clean, reliable electricity that we can afford. Twenty percent of the electricity that we use today is nuclear power. Nearly 70 percent of the clean electricity, the pollution-free electricity that we use today is nuclear power. It comes from 104 reactors located at 65 sites. Each reactor consumes about one square-mile of land. “To produce the same amount of electricity by windmills would mean we would have to have 186,000 of these wind turbines; it would cover an area the size of West Virginia; we would need 19,000 miles of transmission lines through backyards and scenic areas; so 100 reactors on 100 square miles or 186,000 wind turbines on 25,000 square miles.

Think about it another way. Four reactors on four square miles is equal to a row of 50-story tall wind turbines along the entire 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail. Of course, if we had the turbines, we would still need the nuclear plants or the gas plants or the coal plants because we would like our computers to work and our lights to be on when the wind doesn’t blow, and we can’t store the electricity.

Then, of course, there is natural gas, which has no sulfur pollution, very little nitrogen pollution, half as much carbon as coal. Gas is very cheap today. A Chicago-based utility analyst said: Wind on its own without incentives is far from economic unless gas is north of $6.50 per unit. The Wall Street Journal says that wind power is facing a make-or-break moment in Congress, while we debate to extend these subsidies. So that is why the wind power companies are on pins and needles waiting to see what Congress decides to do about its subsidy.

Taxpayers should be the ones on pins and needles. This $27 billion over 10 years is a waste of money. It could be used for energy research. It could be used to reduce the debt. Let’s start with the $12 billion over that 10 years that went for the production tax credit. That tax credit was supposed to be temporary in 1992.

Today, according to Secretary Chu, wind is a mature technology. Why does it need a credit? The credit is worth about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, if we take into account the corporate tax rate of 35 percent. That has caused some energy officials to say they have never found an easier way to make money. Well, of course not.

So we do not need to extend the production tax credit for wind at a time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar, at a time when natural gas is cheap and nuclear power is clean and more reliable and less expensive.

I would like to see us put some of that money on energy research. We only spend $5 billion or $6 billion a year on energy research: clean energy research, carbon recapture, making solar cheaper, making electric batteries that go further. I am ready to reduce the subsidies for Big Oil as long as we reduce the subsidies for Big Wind at the same time.

So let’s not even think about putting this tax break for the rich in the middle of an extension of a tax deduction for working Americans this week. Let’s focus on reducing the debt, increasing expenditure for research, and getting rid of the subsidies. Twenty years is long enough for a wind production tax credit for what our distinguished Nobel Prize-winning Secretary of Energy says is a mature technology.

ALLIANT ENERGY TO SELL ITS WIND FARM DIVISION

By Tom Daykin

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

February 11, 2012

Madison-based Alliant Energy Corp. said Friday it will sell its division that designs and builds wind farms and other renewable energy projects, a business that has dragged down the company's earnings.

Madison-based Alliant Energy Corp. said Friday it will sell its division that designs and builds wind farms and other renewable energy projects, a business that has dragged down the company's earnings.

Alliant, the parent of Wisconsin Power & Light Co. and Interstate Power & Light Co., expects to sell RMT Inc. by the end of the year, Chairman and Chief Executive Bill Harvey said during a conference call with analysts to discuss fourth-quarter earnings.

Selling RMT will reduce Alliant's expected 2012 earnings by 5 cents a share, Alliant said. The company's expected earnings were revised to $2.75 to $3.05 for the year, according to a company statement.

Alliant also expects to take a charge of 12 cents a share tied to increased state taxes that will result from RMT's sale, Harvey said.

While RMT doesn't fit Alliant's core strategy of generating energy through conventional power plants, company executives long considered it an attractive operation because of its important role in the renewable energy sector, Harvey said.

But a lack of consistent federal renewable energy policy, and downward pressure on project profit margins, caused Alliant executives to reconsider the investment in RMT, Harvey said.

The company's utility, transportation and non-regulated generation businesses produced solid financial results during the quarter, Harvey said.

Alliant posted net income of $57 million, or 51 cents a share, a 21% increase from $47.3 million, or 43 cents, from the year-earlier quarter. Revenue increased 5.6%, to $879.2 million from $832.6 million.

However, RMT lost 19 cents a share in 2011, compared with a loss of 2 cents a share from 2010, Alliant said.

Alliant attributed the losses to a solar project in New Jersey that has experienced delays and added costs after an original subcontractor abandoned the job. The company also said profit for its wind projects "experienced modest erosion" last year.

In response to questions from analysts, Harvey said Alliant expects to soon begin serious discussions with prospective buyers of RMT.

He said RMT will likely sell for two to six times its annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. That EBITDA figure has been around $6 million to $8 million annually over the past three years, but was at the low end of that range in 2011, Harvey said.

Alliant bought RMT in 1983, and last year sold the environmental portion of the business to focus exclusively on wind, solar and geothermal projects.

After earnings were released Friday, Alliant shares closed down 28 cents at $43.08.

Alliant Energy Corp. (LNT)

Figures in millions except for earnings per share. Percentages are based on unrounded sales and income figures.