Better Plan, Wisconsin

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- Residents speak about life with 500 foot turbines in the Shirley wind project, Brown County, Wisconsin.

AID FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS SOUGHT

Brown Co. panel: State should pay medical bills for those near wind farm

by Doug Schneider,

via Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

January 26, 2012 

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously. “This problem is very real,” he said.

Wisconsin should pay the medical bills of Brown County residents who were made ill by industrial wind turbines, some county supervisors say.

Saying the state allowed “irresponsible placement” of industrial wind turbines in the Glenmore area, the Brown County Human Services Committee has approved a measure to ask the state to pay emergency aid to families living near the Shirley Wind Farm.

The request, which seeks an unspecified amount until the “hardships are studied and resolved,” could come before the full County Board next month.

It is the latest attempt by county supervisors and other officials to manage an issue in which some residents began experiencing conditions such as anxiety, depression, weight loss and increased cancer risks since the wind farm was erected in 2010.

“There is a 70-year-old woman who lost 20 pounds from not being able to eat,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, a member of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, an advocacy group. “There are two adults who sleep an average of one and a half hours a night.”

Shirley’s operators insist their facility has been built and operated safely.

Wind farms have been a topic of debate in Wisconsin in the past several years. Advocates say wind pollutes less than coal and is less expensive and less potentially dangerous than nuclear energy.

Officials say the facilities’ record isn’t good enough. The County Board resolution says the state was irresponsible in allowing the Shirley Wind Farm to be built without consulting an expert on the medical consequences of living near wind turbines.

Supervisors said they had no indication Wednesday of how the state would respond to their request. They said the answer would be up to officials in Madison to resolve this spring.

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously.

“This problem is very real,” he said. Being upstairs in a house near the Shirley facility, he said, “felt after 10 or 12 minutes like you were getting carbon-monoxide poisoning.”

Lawmakers also are calling on the state to adopt turbine-siting guidelines approved by citizens groups.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, last week introduced a bill to allow cities, villages, towns and counties to establish the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a home — even if those rules are more restrictive than any the state enacts.

Statewide wind-siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended last March. Lawmakers sent those rules, which dealt with farms of less than 100 megawatts, back to the state Public Service Commission, where they have stayed as officials worked to reach a compromise.

Lack of regulatory agreement, particularly on the issue of how far a turbine must be from a property line, has tempered enthusiasm about wind farms. A corporation in 2011 scrapped plans for a 100-turbine development in the Morrison-Glenmore area.

On the net

» Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind-Siting Guidelines: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wisconsin-citizens-safe-wind-siting-guidelines

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The families having trouble living with the Brown County turbines are not alone: 

CLICK HERE to see photos and read the daily wind turbine noise log kept by a resident living in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County 

SECOND FEATURE

From Ontario

LOCAL HEALTH EXPERT: LOTS OF ROOM IN CANADA FOR WIND TURBINES

by David Meyer,

Via The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

January 27, 2012 

Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

C. WELLINGTON TWP. – Opponents of industrial wind turbines have been telling the provincial government for several years it needs to do some health studies before approving such machines close to homes.

Some of those opponents did not wait for the province. Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

Aramini said in an interview on Monday people opposed to wind farms in the Belwood area asked him to check health effects because of his expertise in that field.

His partners were Dr. Michael Nissenbaum of the Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, and Dr. Chris Hanning, of University Hospitals of Leicester, in the United Kingdom.

Aramini said in an interview the two communities studied are “not unlike anything here.”

He said it was “a little surprising the health effect that came across the strongest was depression.”

The study was peer reviewed, which means experts from around the world had an opportunity to comment on it. The study was published last year in the 10th International Congress on Noise as a public health problem in Great Britain.

The peer review is important for those opposing wind turbines.

Janet Vallery, a spokesman for Oppose Belwood Windfarm, highlighted a difference between the study Aramini was involved in and the studies being cited by the provincial government.

“The Ontario provincial government used literature reviews as a basis for determining setbacks,” she said. “This new research deems setbacks less than 1.5km must be regarded as unsafe.”

Aramini said the questionnaire tool used for the research “has been used millions of times around the world.”

The researchers found, “It wasn’t simply close and far … It was, the closer you get, the [more] progressively your risk rises.”

He noted, too, that only adults were considered in the study, and wondered what effects sleep disruption would have on children.

“Losing sleep is a big deal. In kids, it affects their learning,” said Aramini.

There were about 80 adults involved in the Maine study, with about half living 2 to 3km away from a turbine, and others lived farther away than 3km.

The Ontario setbacks from human habitation is 550 metres and Aramini said that increases chances of people suffering from clinical depression by 369%.

“It’s doubling to tripling the chance of you being at risk if living that close,” he said, adding if just one person is affected badly, it is too many. “We’re talking about real people.”

Aramini said people ask him regularly about how close they can live to turbines, and if he would buy a home close to one.

“If you’re within 2km, I’d think twice,” he said about purchasing a home, adding he suggests people talk to their physician prior to turbines going in if they live near where the machines are proposed.

Aramini said it is vexing the provincial government is forcing people to endure turbines when there is plenty of land available that is not anywhere near human habitation.

“The thing that disappoints me is Canada is a big place. Surely we can put them in a place away … For God’s sake, put them out in the middle of nowhere, away from people.”

Unfortunately, he said of the issue, “Clearly there’s a lot of politics and money involved.”

Despite the study’s claims to the contrary, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) maintains there is no “conclusive” correlation between turbines and health issues.

Opinion

WISCONSIN TOWN COUNCIL PLACES PRIOR RESTRAINT ON POLITICAL SPEECH

Via The New American

By Joe Wolverton II

January 9, 2012

According to the latest census, there are fewer than 2,000 people living in Morrison, Wisconsin. There are at least 10 times that many cows.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What was the real reason Invenergy backed out of the project?

There is was no 'regulatory uncertainty' for Invenergy when it came to this project because it was over 100 megawatts.

When a project is that big it's the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) not local government that has approval. The PSC has never yet met a wind project it didn't like and has said yes to all who have applied.

Word has it that the real reason Invenergy pulled out was because they were unable to to find a utility that would agree to purchase the power or the project.

By Laura Carpenter

Via  The Newport Daily Express, newportvermontdailyexpress.com

January  11, 2012 

“Mitigation, metaphorically, is a bit like a surgeon cutting off your right arm but assuring you that he or she will see to it your left arm remains protected for the rest of your life. Your right arm, meanwhile, is still gone. Yes, GMP has secured conservation easements from a few area landowners by paying them a ton of money and arranging creative land swaps. The moose, deer, bear, bobcat, grouse, fisher, et al, were apparently not consulted. Such action does not assure existing habitat connectivity or cushion the overall effects of fragmentation of what was an intact montane ecosystem. The right arm is still missing, lost in the clear-cutting and blasting,”

LOWELL, VT – Work on Green Mountain Power’s (GMP) controversial Lowell Mountain wind turbine project will continue through the winter, although some of the activity will subside and pick up again in the spring. The lack of snowfall has allowed for some of the construction work to continue further than expected.

Road building, blasting and excavation continue along the ridgeline, according to Dorothy (Dotty) Schnure with GMP. Concrete foundation work began this week on the collector substation, which is located halfway up the access road on Lowell Mountain. Construction of the collector substation on the mountain will continue. In addition crews are preparing to set poles for the overhead collector line, which will carry power from the underground electric lines on the ridge to the substation.

The project involves the construction of 21 industrial size turbines and upgrades to the Vermont Electric Cooperative transmission system between Jay and Lowell.

GMP has all necessary pre-construction permits and has met all required pre-construction conditions placed on it by state regulators.

One of the requirements set by the Public Service Board (PSB) was to obtain easements of “adequate size and location” to address fragmentation of habitat caused by the project. The wind project impacts 159 acres on the Lowell Mountains. In late December, the PSB approved GMP’s proposal to conserve approximately 1,600 acres of wildlife habitat in Eden.

“The conserved land provides for important habitat to offset the overall project effects and provides connectivity to other conserved lands. This level of mitigation is unprecedented in Vermont,” said Mary Powell, President and CEO of GMP in a written statement.

In addition to the two parcels just approved for conservation in Eden, GMP has also conserved approximately 1,070 acres on Lowell Mountain. Of these acres, 778 acres will be conserved in perpetuity (forever) and another 292 acres will be conserved for the life of project plus 25 years.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources attorney Jon Groveman, in a letter filed with the PSB, said the conserved land on either side of East Hill Road helps maintain the ecological and landscape connectivity that currently exists between the Lowell Mountain Habitat block and the Green River Reservoir habitat block.

But not everyone agrees that the easements make up for the loss, including Steve Wright of Craftsbury, a former Vermont Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife.

“Mitigation, metaphorically, is a bit like a surgeon cutting off your right arm but assuring you that he or she will see to it your left arm remains protected for the rest of your life. Your right arm, meanwhile, is still gone. Yes, GMP has secured conservation easements from a few area landowners by paying them a ton of money and arranging creative land swaps. The moose, deer, bear, bobcat, grouse, fisher, et al, were apparently not consulted. Such action does not assure existing habitat connectivity or cushion the overall effects of fragmentation of what was an intact montane ecosystem. The right arm is still missing, lost in the clear-cutting and blasting,” Wright said.

Still under dispute is a section of land where the crane path for the wind project is built. Shirley and Don Nelson, adjacent property owners, say the land is really theirs. But Trip Wileman, the property owner leasing to GMP, says it is his. The issue is in court but has not been decided.

“It is unconscionable that Judge Maley continues to hold that case while GMP destroys what is likely to be ruled the Nelson property. Actually, I guess GMP has already destroyed it, so maybe it’s only an issue of determining a compensatory value,” Wright said.

The video above shows wind turbine shadow flicker affecting homes in Fond du Lac County. Filmed by Invenergy wind project resident, Gerry Meyer

GET THE FACTS BEFORE MAKING SITING DECISIONS

By State Sen. Frank Lasee,

SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 27 2011

How would you feel if you or your kids started feeling sick? What if you or your kids suddenly started having headaches, ear aches, nausea, dizziness or couldn’t sleep well anymore in your own home and you knew it wouldn’t ever go away?

This is happening right now in Wisconsin. Families who had happy, healthy lives found themselves suffering illnesses that started after wind turbines were built near their homes. Scientific evidence indicates that there are health impacts that are associated with large wind turbines, many as tall as 500 feet. A bill that I introduced requires new safety setback rules based on health studies.

We aren’t sure why wind turbines seem to cause illnesses. Is it electrical pollution, radio waves, sound waves that are too low to hear, vibrations, shadow-flicker or noise?

We know some adults and children who live near turbines feel nausea, headaches, dizziness, insomnia, ear aches, agitation, and other symptoms – and their illnesses clear up when they are away from home.

Two families whom I represent have moved out of their homes because of illnesses they felt after eight wind turbines were built nearby; others want to move but can’t afford to. A Fond du Lac family abandoned their $300,000 remodeled farm house because their 16-year-old daughter developed intestinal lesions and was hospitalized for them. After they moved away, she recovered. Others have said that deer and birds they feed in their backyards disappear when the turbines turn, and they return when the turbines stop.

This problem isn’t confined to Wisconsin. There are studies coming from other countries and states that report health issues for those who are too near large wind turbines. These new wind turbines are nearly 500 feet tall, taller than 40-story buildings, and nearly twice as tall as the state Capitol.

To be fair to people who live in rural areas where turbines are being built, we need to find out what is “too close” and what distance is acceptable for the health of adults, children and animals. Right now, we don’t know. Right now, it depends on whether you are pushing for or against wind turbines or have to live near them.

The purpose of my bill is to get the facts before others are harmed. It requires that a “peer reviewed” health study address these health effects and be used by the state Public Service Commission to establish a safe distance for wind turbine setback rules.

People should be secure in their homes; they shouldn’t be forced to move because they are being made ill by something built near them. In Wisconsin, we owe our citizens more than someone’s opinion on whether their home is safe -whether their children are safe.

Wind turbines are causing real hardship for real people. Some can’t afford to move to preserve their or their kids’ health. Could you? Our government has a duty to know the facts and protect our citizens regardless of whether we are “for” wind energy or “against” wind energy.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, of De Pere, represents Wisconsin’s 1st Senate District.

The video above was recorded by Larry Wunsch, a resident of the Invenergy wind project in Fond du Lac County. Wunsch is also a firefighter and a member of the Public Service Commission's wind siting council. His recommendations for setbacks and noise limits were shot down by other members of the council who had a direct or indirect financial interest in creating less restrictive siting guidelines.

NEXT STORY: FROM VERMONT

PROTESTERS AND BLASTERS CONTINUE LOWELL STANDOFF

by Chris Braithwaite, The Chronicle, 26 October 2011 ~~

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, the old question goes, does it make a sound?

Here’s a more timely variation on the question: If you hold a demonstration in one of the most inaccessible places in the Northeast Kingdom, have you demonstrated anything?

There was a certain brilliance in the idea, dreamed up by opponents of the industrial wind project on Lowell Mountain, of planting a campsite on the western edge of Doug and Shirley Nelson’s farm, too close to the wind project to permit safe blasting.

But there was also a weakness inherent in the plan. It’s so hard to get to the campsite that almost nobody knows what goes on up there.

There’s great drama in the idea of determined demonstrators standing up to the high explosives that, as this is being written, are reducing four miles of remote ridgeline to a nice, level, 34-foot-wide gravel road.

But drama demands an audience. Without one, even the most daring and determined resistance risks becoming an exercise in futility.

Some of the demonstrators who climbed the mile-long trail to their campsite on Wednesday morning, October 19, were prepared to go down the mountain in police custody.

The stage, it seemed, was finally set for the confrontation with authority they were braced for.

It had been set up the Friday before by the wind project’s developer, Green Mountain Power (GMP). The big utility had gone to court and quickly obtained a temporary restraining order against the Nelsons and their guests. It ordered them to be 1,000 feet from the property line for an hour before, and an hour after, high explosives were detonated near the farm.

Blasting had proceeded on Monday and Tuesday, but at a safe distance that didn’t provoke any confrontation between GMP and the handful of demonstrators on hand.

But the mood was different Wednesday. GMP had called the Nelsons to say there would be blasting from 2 to 4 p.m.

On top of the mountain, the demonstrators got their first clear view of two big drill rigs, poking holes in the rock about 800 feet from the campsite.

With binoculars, they could watch workmen carry boxes of high explosive from a cubical white body mounted on tracks to the drill holes. Then they could watch as a large backhoe dragged massive mats of steel and rubber over the blast site, while other massive machines made a ponderous retreat.

All that clatter aside, the place was remarkably quiet. The demonstrators exchanged a bit of small talk, did a bit of planning, but didn’t talk much about their concern for Lowell Mountain, or their despair at what GMP was doing to it. Their presence in that high, steeply sloped forest said those things for them.

Nor did the demonstrators have anything to say to two GMP workers who passed within a few feet of them, putting yet more yellow warning signs on trees along the disputed line that separates the Nelson property from the project.

They numbered each sign with a marker, photographed it, and moved on out of sight to the north.

The four demonstrators who were prepared to be arrested gathered up their gear and tossed it into one of the tents. If necessary, it would be carried down the trail by the people who were there to support them.

Two more GMP workers approached the protesters as they moved as close as they could get to the blast site, just after 3 o’clock.

The one who wore a blue hard hat, Dave Coriell, is community outreach manager for Kingdom Community Wind, which is the name GMP gave to its project.

The one in the unpainted tin hat, John Stamatov, manages the construction project for GMP.

Mr. Coriell, who used to do public relations work for Governor Jim Douglas, looked a little out of his element. That wasn’t true of Mr. Stamatov, though he looked like he’d be more comfortable running a bulldozer than a video camera.

Mr. Coriell stopped within easy earshot of the protesters. Behind him, Mr. Stamatov started recording the proceedings on his camera.

“I’m going to have to ask people to please move back,” Mr. Coriell said. Nobody moved.

If the demonstrators didn’t move 1,000 feet down the mountain, Mr. Coriell continued, they would be in violation of the temporary restraining order.

Copies of the order were nailed to a scattering of nearby trees.

“I ask you to please move back,” Mr. Coriell said. “I’m not going to force you physically to move.” Nobody moved.

“If you’re not going to move, I’d ask you for your name or some identification,” Mr. Coriell said.

Nobody said anything.

“That’s a cute dog,” Mr. Coriell said of Koyo. A handsome yellow lab who’d carried a backpack up the mountain for his owners, Koyo was the only demonstrator who used his real name. If he was flattered, Koyo didn’t say so.

I identified myself to the GMP twosome, and said I planned to stick around and see what happened next.

“By standing there you’re risking serious injury or death,” Mr. Stamatov said.

Knowing that, I asked, was GMP still going to touch off the explosives?

“We’re hoping people move,” said Mr. Coriell.

They withdrew across the wide orange ribbon that divides the construction site from the forest.

But they came back a few minutes later. Stepping up to a tree, Mr. Coriell read the entire text of the restraining order aloud to the silent demonstrators, while Mr. Stamatov recorded the event.

The two withdrew again, but remained in the clearcut that GMP’s logging crew had created where the crane path will run along the top of the ridgeline. They were not significantly further from the blast site than the demonstrators.

Everybody waited. It became quiet, an ominous silence that settled as the last machines withdrew.

The demonstrators were there, of course, in the belief that their presence would stop the blasting.

They had been warned that they were standing in harm’s way, and they had every reason to believe it.

What Mr. Coriell hadn’t told them was that the contractor, Maine Drilling and Blasting, had carefully laid a much smaller charge than it hopes to use in the near future, and covered it with particular care with particularly large blasting mats.

At 3:26 the silence was broken by three loud horn blasts. According to the yellow signs on so many nearby trees, that signified five minutes until the explosion.

Two horns sounded four minutes later, the one-minute warning. Still nobody moved, nobody talked. One demonstrator, a young woman sitting legs crossed in a lotus position, closed her eyes.

The words “fire in the hole” carried through the silent forest from somebody’s radio and the explosives went off, sending a cloud of gray dust into the sky. There were no casualties.

The demonstrators had stood their ground, a they had pledged to do. And GMP had blown up another piece of Lowell Mountain, as it was so determined to do.

If there’s a moral victory to be claimed, it clearly goes to the protestors. But that may only serve as consolation, a year or so from now, as they contemplate the wind towers on Lowell Mountain.

From Illinois

WIND FARM BACKERS STILL NEGOTIATING ROAD DEALS

SOURCE: The News Gazette

September 11, 2011

By Nora Maberry

"Deanne Sims of Penfield expressed concern with the noise studies that were done to prove the project would follow county ordinances.

Sims also said she had contacted her insurance company and was told that any damage done to her home by the project, such as cracks in her basement walls, would not be covered by her homeowner's insurance. Her insurance agency instructed her to document the status of her home via video and purchase a sound meter.

Sims also expressed concern regarding the times of construction. Invenergy said that construction would take place mainly between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Sims said several people in the area work third shift and it would interfere with their sleep patterns.

Sims also asked the board who would be in charge of making sure the noise ordinances were followed. The board told her that, currently, there is no one specified to do that."

URBANA — The developers of a 134-turbine wind farm for Champaign and Vermilion counties are still discussing road agreements with Compromise and Ogden townships.

At Thursday's Champaign County Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Greg Leuchtmann, business development manager for Invenergy LLC, said the county road agreement was almost complete.

The agreement will then be sent to the state's attorney's office for review.

Invenergy asked that it be allowed to negotiate road agreements beyond the time the case would be before the county zoning board of appeals. Leuchtmann said that the county road agreement must be approved by the Champaign County Board at its Oct. 20 meeting before the agreement is finalized.

Invenergy is asking the zoning board to move forward with approving the project if the road commissioner and the state's attorney both sign off on the agreement before the county board votes on it.

The project, which would include 30 turbines in Compromise and Ogden Townships, would be just north of Royal. The entire wind farm, known as the California Ridge project, includes 134 turbines, 104 of them in western Vermilion County.

It was also announced that the company has entered into a deal with a utility to buy the output of the project. Attorney Michael Blazer declined to name the company because negotiations are ongoing.

Darrell Cambron, who lives near Rankin and has opposed wind farms in Vermilion County, urged the zoning board to follow the ordinances already in place and not approve any waivers for the project.

"We have certain rules and regulations that should be followed," he said. "They should follow all rules as written."

Deanne Sims of Penfield expressed concern with the noise studies that were done to prove the project would follow county ordinances.

Sims also said she had contacted her insurance company and was told that any damage done to her home by the project, such as cracks in her basement walls, would not be covered by her homeowner's insurance. Her insurance agency instructed her to document the status of her home via video and purchase a sound meter.

Sims also expressed concern regarding the times of construction. Invenergy said that construction would take place mainly between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Sims said several people in the area work third shift and it would interfere with their sleep patterns.

Sims also asked the board who would be in charge of making sure the noise ordinances were followed. The board told her that, currently, there is no one specified to do that.

The next hearing will be at 6 p.m. Sept. 29. The board changed the time from 7 p.m. due to the amount of testimony that has taken place at previous meetings.

The turbine project could go to the county board as soon as Oct. 20. In addition to the zoning board of appeals, the project would be reviewed by the county board at a committee of the whole meeting in October.

Construction could begin in early 2012 and be completed by December, according to Invenergy's special-use application.

Construction would take nine to 12 months with the peak period lasting four to six months, the company said.

During peak construction there would be 75 large truck trips per day and up to 200 small vehicle trips in the area. Of the 75 large truck trips, 20 would be wind turbine component deliveries.

The special-use permit application says that properly maintained wind turbines have a minimum life of 20 years, and can either be decommissioned and removed, or re-powered with new components.

From Minnesota:

GOODHUE COUNTY WILL ASK PUC TO RECONSIDER WIND PERMIT

By Regan Carstensen

SOURCE: The Republican Eagle, www.republican-eagle.com

September 10, 2011 ~~

By a 4-1 vote, Goodhue County commissioners decided Tuesday that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission should be asked to reconsider the wind permit it approved for AWA Goodhue Wind in June.

AWA Goodhue Wind received a certificate of need and site permit from the PUC for a 48-turbine wind farm that would be located near Goodhue and Zumbrota, but some citizens have fought the creation of the wind farm from the start.

The permitting process has been drawn out for more than a year and a half, while many wind farms are approved in six to 12 months in Minnesota.

While county commissioners contemplated at their meeting Tuesday the need for reconsideration, they wondered how much more cost this would incur for the county.

“Most of the efforts have already been invested in this. It is a long-term effort,” Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher replied, adding that asking for reconsideration would require filing a document. The rest is in the hands of the PUC, including whether the county is granted another opportunity to present an oral argument.

But the county attorney won’t be alone in filing for reconsideration. Those who previously filed as interveners — the Coalition for Sensible Siting, Belle Creek Township and Goodhue Wind Truth — also have the opportunity to ask for reconsideration, and all three groups are taking advantage of it.

“We are filing a reconsideration with the PUC,” Belle Creek Township Board Chair Chad Ryan confirmed. “That is complete and it will be filed on Monday.”

Against the rest

Commissioner Dan Rechtzigel was the only one of five commissioners who preferred not to ask for reconsideration.

“I just see this as round two of a battle that’s not going to end and is going to get continually more expensive,” Rechtzigel said.

He also said that the county needs to recognize that the state legislators are the ones who put the requirement in place that says utility companies need to provide 25 percent of their total electrical generation from renewable sources by 2025.

“Maybe I don’t like the 55 mph speed limit either, but the fact is it’s there,” he explained. “Whether we like it or not, the state of Minnesota has been given the authority to regulate these. The state is going to do what they want to do.”

Although he voted in favor of reconsideration, Commissioner Richard Samuelson hesitated to continue the fight. He said he doesn’t think Betcher should go to the PUC with a long list of things to reconsider, but instead simply focus on the 10-rotor diameter setback that the county wants to enforce but which was decreased by the PUC to 6 RD.

Even with narrowing the field of reconsideration, Samuelson was skeptical of how much success the county will have this time around.

“I’m sure that you’re going to come back with some news that will require an appeal,” Samuelson told Betcher.

If the PUC rejects Betcher’s request for reconsideration, he said he will bring the issue back to the County Board and see if it would like to appeal, though that route could get lengthy and expensive.

“It would be a new process as opposed to a continuation of the existing process,” the county attorney noted.

Asking for an appeal would include filing a new court case with the Minnesota Appellate Court, providing every document that will be part of the record in that case and being at any hearings the appellate court wanted to have.

A Press Release from the Public Relations arm of the American Wind Energy Association:

TWENTY FOUR GOVERNORS ASK PRESIDENT TO FOCUS ON WIND ENERGY DEPLOYMENT

SOURCE: AWEA

Iowa, Aug. 24—A coalition of 24 governors from both major parties and each region of the country has asked the administration to take a series of steps to provide a more favorable business climate for the development of wind energy, starting with a seven-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) to provide stable, low tax rates for wind-generated electricity.

A letter from the governors, sent last month to the White House, has since been made public by the Governors Wind Energy Coalition. Signed by coalition chair Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI), and vice chair Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IA), the letter says:

"Although tax credits for wind energy have long enjoyed bipartisan support, they are scheduled to expire next year. Wind-related manufacturing will slow if the credits are not extended, and some of the tax credits' benefit will be lost if Congress pursues a last-minute extension. It is important to have consistency in policy to support the continued development of wind manufacturing in the United States. Extending the production tax credit and the investment tax credit, without a gap, is critical to the health of wind manufacturing in our nation. The wind manufacturing industry in the U.S. would benefit even greater if the extension of these credits would be for at least seven years."

"Governors have always focused on jobs and economic development as their main responsibility. Now that Washington is following suit, it helps for these Governors to tell Washington what has been putting people to work in their states," said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. "It is also helpful for them to support the removal of roadblocks that can occur in administrative agencies, so that deployment objectives are not unintentionally thwarted."

The governors' letter also calls for:

- Establishing a combined intergovernmental state-federal task force on wind energy development to "ensure the Administration's wind energy goals are met."

- Expanding the Department of Energy's renewable energy programs to "focus not only on technology research and innovation, but also on technology deployment and market development," noting that, "these are precisely the types of efforts other nations are utilizing to successfully compete with the United States. We must recognize that a scientific breakthrough five or 10 years from now, plus several more years for commercial acceptance, will be of little value if our wind industry has been relegated to minor players in the global marketplace."

- Improved collaboration on siting new wind turbines: "... [W]e believe wind energy and wildlife protection are entirely compatible and we urge a prompt resolution of the Wind Energy Guidelines and Eagle Guidance concerns."

- Expediting deployment of offshore wind: "A new U.S. offshore wind sector would create tens of thousands of jobs in businesses ranging from R&D and engineering to manufacturing and marine construction."

- Identifying transmission and grid integration priorities for Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) such as the Bonneville Power Administration

The 24 governors' letter concluded, "We believe these actions will help address some of the national economic and energy challenges before our nation. We look forward to working with you and your Administration to further our nation's wind energy development to help drive economic growth, energy development, and the creation of high-paying jobs." Full text is available from the coalition's website.

The wind energy success story has come up on the campaign trail as well, such as when President Obama met with small business owners Aug. 16 in a diner in Guttenberg, Iowa. In the group was Rob Hach of Anemometry Specialists, a weather tower company based in Alta, Iowa, that surveys locations for wind turbines. Hach pressed for the Production Tax Credit's extension, as did the governors. Photo here.

Previously, at the Republican straw poll Aug. 13 in Ames, Iowa, six GOP presidential candidates including frontrunner Mitt Romney signed their names to a 130-foot turbine blade to show their support for the wind energy industry. (See further details.)

Governors play a major role in promoting wind energy themselves. In Iowa, Gov. Branstad signed the nation's first renewable energy standard during the first year of his first term, in 1983. That encouraged Iowa to become the first state to generate 20 percent of its electricity from wind, a goal which the George W. Bush administration predicted the entire nation can reach by 2030.

As in Iowa, wind energy has become big business in Texas, where over 10,000 megawatts (MW) of power has been installed while Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been governor.

GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, in signing the wind blade Aug. 13 at the Iowa straw poll, said he favors a 10-year extension of the national tax incentive, to avoid the "up-and-down effect" on renewable energy development when the policy changes. "If you're going to have tax credits that are designed to create investment, they have to have a long enough time horizon that people who invest believe that they'll be there," Gingrich said.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a leader in getting the PTC for renewable energy extended from 2003 through 2012, also signed the wind blade that day. He said that considering the U.S. currently spends $830 million a day on foreign oil, we need an "all of the above" energy strategy that includes wind.

Steve Lockard, CEO of TPI Composites, greeted the presidential candidates at the wind blade, which was made at his factory and drives turbines each capable of making power for 500-1,000 homes. Lockard said U.S. business appears to be strong through 2012, keeping 700 workers at his plant working around the clock. "There's growing concern about 2013 demand, due to the expiring tax credit," Lockard said.

#

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Which Governors are asking for seven more years of government money for wind development?

Rhode Island
Gov. Lincoln Chafee-I
Chairman

Iowa
Gov. Terry Branstad -R
Vice Chairman

Arkansas
Gov. Mike Beebe -D

California
Gov. Jerry Brown -D

Colorado
Gov. John Hickenlooper -D

Florida
Gov. Rick Scott- R

Hawaii
Gov. Neil Abercrombie- D

Illinois
Gov. Pat Quinn- D

Kansas
Gov. Sam Brownback-R

Kentucky
Gov. Steve Beshear -D

Maine
Gov. Paul Lepaige -R

Maryland
Gov. Martin O’Malley-D

Massachusetts
Gov. Deval Patrick -D

Michigan
Gov. Rick Snyder-R

Minnesota
Gov. Mark Dayton -D

Montana 
Gov. Brian Schweitzer- D

New Mexico
Gov. Susana Martinez-R

North Dakota
Gov. Jack Dalrymple-R

Oklahoma
Gov. Mary Fallin- R

Oregon
Gov. John Kitzhaber-D

Pennsylvania

Gov. Tom Corbett-R

South Dakota
Gov. Dennis Dugaard-R

Washington
Gov. Christine Gregoire-D

West Virginia
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin-D

SECOND STORY:

FROM ILLINOIS

PUBLIC PANS WAIVER REQUEST OF WIND FARM

SOURCE:  The News-Gazette, www.news-gazette.com 26 August 2011 Tom Kacich,

URBANA — Officials with the company proposing a 30-turbine wind farm in northeast Champaign County are asking the county zoning board to allow them to figure in the scrap value of the turbines when covering decommissioning costs.

Further, representatives of Chicago-based Invenergy LLC also asked that they be allowed to negotiate township road agreements beyond the time the case would be before the county zoning board of appeals. Instead, they want to extend the negotiating period to the time that the county board votes on the proposal.

But a number of people at Thursday’s zoning board meeting urged the board not to grant any waivers or road agreement extensions to Invenergy.

“Let’s get it done out here in the public and let’s let everybody see it,” said Doug Bluhm, an Ogden Township board member.

Marvin Johnson, the highway commissioner in Compromise Township, one of two townships in Champaign County where the wind turbines would be located, said he thought negotiations regarding upgrades to township roads were “moving along real good and I’d like to see it going that way.”

Deb Griest of Urbana, a former zoning board of appeals member, also urged against agreeing to any extensions.

“This is the board where these discussions do occur constructively.”

Michael Blazer, an attorney for Invenergy, pledged that “if we think we will damage (roads) in advance, we will fix it in advance.”

Invenergy also asked that it be allowed to calculate the value of the scrapped wind turbines when it sets aside money for decommissioning costs.

But some audience members voiced displeasure with that idea.

“You don’t know what that value could be. It could be zero,” Bluhm said. “Using scrap value is a shot in the dark.’

About 75 people attended the first of four scheduled zoning board hearings on the wind farm application, and about a dozen testified or asked questions. The next hearing will be at 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 1.

The wind turbines in Champaign County would be part of a larger wind farm, most of which would be in Vermilion County, known as the California Ridge Wind Energy Project.

Mike Herbert, business manager and financial secretary for IBEW Local 601 in Champaign, endorsed the wind farm proposal, saying that Invenergy “builds quality projects” and would upgrade township roads so that they’re “as good or better” than they are now.

Four county board members — Republicans Steve Moser and Gary Maxwell, and Democrats Alan Kurtz and Pattsi Petrie — attended the zoning board meeting.