COURT WON'T ENFORCE TURBINE NOISE RULES

SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

August 25, 2011

By ERIN MILLS,

Invenergy claims there is no “bright line” noise standard, that it can generate 36 decibels at nearby homes or 10 decibels above the ambient, whichever is higher, up to 50 decibels.

At a planning commission meeting last year, Invenergy’s acoustical expert, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, admitted the project violates the standard even by its own, looser definition.

The Morrow County Court stunned a crowd Wednesday when it refused to enforce an Oregon law that limits the noise a wind project can make at nearby homes.

The court voted 2-1 that, although noise from the Willow Creek wind project exceeds state standards at a few homes, the violations did not warrant enforcement action.

At one home, for example, the noise level exceeded limits 10 percent of the time the turbines were running, according to the project’s own acoustical expert.

County Judge Terry Tallman voted against the motion, only because he was against the vote itself.

“We don’t have the funds to force compliance,” he said. “The state of Oregon says it doesn’t have to do it, because it doesn’t have the funds. Why are we being forced to live by a higher standard than the state of Oregon?”

Tallman was referring to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which wrote and, for a time, enforced the state’s industrial noise control regulations. The laws still are on the books, but the DEQ terminated its noise control program in 1991 because of budget cuts. That left enforcement up to local agencies.

Morrow County adopted the state’s noise control rules and asks wind projects to comply as part of the site certification process.

Wind projects less than 105 megawatts may seek a conditional use permit from the county; larger projects must go through the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council.

Morrow County granted the 48-turbine Willow Creek project, north of Ione, a permit in 2005.

However, after neighbors of the project began to complain about noise, county officials began to realize Oregon’s noise law is not exactly crystal clear. And a parade of lawyers and acoustical experts, for the neighbors and Invenergy, the Chicago-based company that developed the Willow Creek project, further muddied the waters.

The law says a wind project may not increase noise at adjacent homes by more than 10 decibels. If a wind developer does not conduct a study to determine the ambient noise at a site, it may use an assumed background of 26 decibels, for a total of 36 decibels.

Willow Creek’s neighbors believe a wind developer must choose, before it builds, whether to conduct an ambient noise study or go with the assumed level of 26 decibels. If it goes with 26 decibels, it cannot break the 36-decibel limit by even one decibel.

Invenergy claims there is no “bright line” noise standard, that it can generate 36 decibels at nearby homes or 10 decibels above the ambient, whichever is higher, up to 50 decibels.

At a planning commission meeting last year, Invenergy’s acoustical expert, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, admitted the project violates the standard even by its own, looser definition.

But because the violations are so minimal, by only a few decibels a small percentage of the time, he said, they qualify as “infrequent and unusual events” and therefore exempt from the law.

An acoustical expert for the project’s neighbors came to different conclusions.

Kerrie Standlee, who has helped complete site certificates for the Oregon Department of Energy, said the wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the study data, when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second.

Standlee said the wind project broke the noise rule by more decibels, and more frequently, than Invenergy claimed.

In its decision Wednesday, as in previous deliberations, however, the Morrow County Court disregarded Standlee’s testimony and relied on Invenergy’s conclusions.

“There might be some violations,” Commissioner Ken Grieb said, “but we don’t think they’re significant enough to take action.”

The ruling is a reversal of a previous, January decision, in which the court agreed the project violates the wind rule at Dan Williams’ house. His home is the one at which the violation appears to occur most frequently.

That decision modified a Morrow County Planning Commission decision, which found Invenergy out of compliance at four nearby homes.

All parties appealed the county court’s decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The board returned the decision to the county, asking the court to clarify its decision.

“I’m flabbergasted,” said Jim McCandlish, a lawyer for three of the neighbors, after the vote. He said his clients’ constitutional right to due process was being denied. He said they intend to appeal the decision to the board of appeals.

“The county court has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of its citizens,” he said.

Irene Gilbert, an anti-wind activist from Union County, called the vote ridiculous.

“I think it sets a really bad precedent when a group of county commissioners say, in spite of the data that says there is a violation, we are choosing not to act on it.”

SECOND STORY:

COST OF TEXAS WIND TRANSMISSION LINES NEARS $7 BILLION

SOURCE The Texas Tribune, www.texastribune.org

August 24, 2011

By Kate Galbraith,

Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints the three Public Utility Commissioners, has strongly backed the build-out, which will result in several thousand miles of new transmission lines carrying wind power from West Texas to large cities hundreds of miles across the state.

The cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago.

The new number, which amounts to roughly $270 for every Texan, comes from the latest update on the project prepared for the Public Utility Commission (see page six). Ratepayers will ultimately be on the hook for the cost, but no one has begun to see the charges appear on their electric bills yet because the transmission companies building the lines must first get approval from the commission before passing on the costs to customers.

A commission spokesman, Terry Hadley, says that the first of these “rate recovery” applications may be filed before the end of the year. Ultimately, the commission says, the charges could amount to $4 to $5 per month on Texas electric bills, for years.

In 2008, when the Public Utility Commission approved the project, it was estimated at $4.93 billion. Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints the three Public Utility Commissioners, has strongly backed the build-out, which will result in several thousand miles of new transmission lines carrying wind power from West Texas to large cities hundreds of miles across the state. This is expected to spark a further boom in wind farm development, particularly in the Panhandle. Texas already leads the nation, by far, in wind power production. Electricity generated by other sources, like natural gas, coal or solar, can also use the lines.

However, deciding the routes for the lines — a painstaking process that played out in the hearing room of the Public Utility Commission — stirred controversy, as landowners in the Hill Country and other parts of the state tried to prevent them from going through their property. The transmission companies pay a one-time sum to the landowner for an easement to build the lines across his or her property, but ultimately the companies have the power of eminent domain if the landowner resists. Hill Country landowners did succeed in stopping one line and a portion of a second, after grid officials determined that it was possible to upgrade existing infrastructure, but serve the same purpose, more cheaply.

The new lines are all expected to be completed by December 2013, although delays could still occur. Construction of the lines is at various stages; one company, Wind Energy Transmission Texas, plans to begin building 378 miles of lines next month, for example.

Among the reasons for the increased costs, according to the new report, are that the original 2008 estimate used straight-line distances to calculate the cost of the lines. However, as the process played out, the Public Utility Commission often requested that the lines follow fences or roads in order to minimize the intrusion. So the distances will probably be 10 percent to 50 percent longer than the original planners allowed for, the report says. Inflation also boosts the price tag.

The new estimate, of $6.79 billion, is also subject to change.

“It is likely that costs may fluctuate and change over the next year,” states the report, which was prepared by an engineering services company called RS&H and published in July.

Click on the image above to watch Wisconsin Public Television report on bats and wind turbines

WIND TURBINES THREATEN WISCONSIN BATS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

May 15, 2011

by Tony Walter,

Wind turbine industry reports filed with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin indicate that a significant number of bats fall victim to the turbine blades every night, which could mean crop losses.

The rate of bat mortality has a major impact on the agricultural industry, according to a U.S. Geological study recently published in Science Magazine.

The study, conducted by Boston University’s biology department, estimated that insect-eating bats save the agricultural industry at least $3 billion a year.

“Because the agricultural value of bats in the Northeast is small compared with other parts of the country, such losses could be even more substantial in the extensive agricultural regions in the Midwest and the Great Plains where wind-energy development is booming and the fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome was recently detected,” said Tom Kunz, an ecology professor at Boston University and co-author of the study.

White nose syndrome is a disease believed to kill and sicken bats, which first was noticed in Albany, N.Y., in 2006, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The source of the condition remains unclear, the agency said.

According to studies by Current Biology, National Geographic and Science Daily, bats can be killed without being struck by a turbine blade. The studies concluded that air in low-pressure areas near the tips of the blades ruptures the bats’ lungs and causes internal hemorrhaging.

In PSC reports obtained by the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a post-construction bat mortality study of the Wisconsin Power and Light Company’s Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County, conducted by the power company, showed that 50 bats are killed annually by each of the project’s 41 turbines — about 2,050 each year.

Similarly, reports show that the 88 turbines in the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac County each kill an estimated 41 bats per year, which is a little more than 3,600 each year, according to the Wind Energy Center’s post-construction study.

Each turbine in the state kills about 41 bats each year, according to estimates compiled by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

“I can verify that bats are good natural predators of insects and definitely benefit agriculture,” said Mark Hagedorn, agricultural agent for the UW-Extension.

The largest known area for hibernating bats in Wisconsin is the Neda Mine State Natural Area in Dodge County, where a census found 143,000 bats, according to the DNR.

The construction of wind turbines in Brown County has been a controversial subject for years, but most of the complaints focused on the safety and health impact on humans. The impact on bats has not been part of the debate over wind turbine construction in Brown County.

Recently, Invenergy Inc. abandoned its plans to build a 100-turbine wind farm in four southern Brown County municipalities. The town of Glenmore last month approved permits for Cenergy to build eight turbines in the town.



BATS ON THE BRINK:

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: WISCONSIN TRAILS

By Jennifer L.W. Fink

Three wind farms – Butler Ridge Wind Farm in the town of Herman, Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County and another near Byron – have gone up within miles of the hibernaculum, and preliminary data suggest the wind towers may be responsible for the deaths of migrating bats. “We’re seeing some of the highest fatality numbers in the U.S.,” Redell says.

A century ago, Neda was an iron town. Hardy miners worked deep beneath the earth’s surface, digging out precious iron ore with picks and shovels. Now the miners are just a memory, and the tunnels are dark and damp – but far from empty.

Each fall, the fluttering of wings breaks the still silence of the mine as thousands of bats migrate hundreds of miles to hibernate in the old mineshafts. Today, the old iron mine, located just south of Iron Ridge in Dodge County, is one of North America’s largest bat hibernacula. 

“Most people don’t realize that Wisconsin is such an important area for hibernating bats,” says Dave Redell, a bat ecologist with the Bureau of Endangered Resources. More than 140,000 bats, including little brown bats, northern long-eared bats, eastern pipistrelle bats and big brown bats, hibernate at Neda each winter.

Why Neda? “The old mine is big enough to host a large number of bats,” Redell says, “and the four miles of underground tunnels provide perfect hibernating conditions.” Hibernating bats require stable temperatures (41 degrees Fahrenheit is ideal), high humidity, good airflow and a private, undisturbed place. Any disturbances can awaken hibernating bats, causing them to prematurely deplete the fat stores they need to make it through the winter.

But while Neda has provided a safe haven for bats for many years, ecologists such as Redell are worried about the bats’ survival. Three wind farms – Butler Ridge Wind Farm in the town of Herman, Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County and another near Byron – have gone up within miles of the hibernaculum, and preliminary data suggest the wind towers may be responsible for the deaths of migrating bats. “We’re seeing some of the highest fatality numbers in the U.S.,” Redell says.

A new and deadly disease also has begun attacking hibernating bats, mainly in the northeastern United States. White-nose syndrome, a disease unprecedented in its ability to kill, was first identified in New York State in 2006 and has already killed more than 1 million bats. “Scientists are seeing anywhere from 90 to 100% mortality at affected hibernacula,” Redell says. While the fungal disease has not yet arrived in Wisconsin, experts believe it’s just a matter of time. “White-nose syndrome spread over 500 miles this year,” Redell says. “It’s now about 250 miles from Wisconsin.”

Scientists such as Redell are working feverishly to learn as much as possible about the disease and the state’s bats in the little time they have left. “We know that bat-to-bat transmission occurs, and now we’re trying to see if the environment remains infected,” Redell says.

Nestled deep within the earth, the mines at Neda are a world apart. For years, bats have wintered in their depths, undisturbed. Now experts can only hope that the bats don’t go the way of the miners before them.

Jennifer L.W. Fink grew up hearing stories about the bats at Neda but didn’t visit the mines until 2000. She currently lives in Mayville.

ADVICE FROM A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM:

READ THE ENTIRE SERIES AT THE SOURCE: NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use.

Guide to Leadership, Effectiveness and Activities for Citizen Groups Pt 5

(by Robert J. Flavell. Flavell is vice chairman of The Saint Consulting Group and co-author of NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use. This concludes the series begun last month)

Once the developer has identified natural supporters, outreach efforts will be needed to contact, recruit, and organize them. For that, you’ll need to find a citizen leader in the community, usually a natural supporter who has leadership abilities and feels strongly that the community needs the project.

It’s important that a local resident lead the citizen group to provide credibility and assure effectiveness. Clearly, the developer cannot manage the group, or its members will be branded as dupes and the group will lack credibility and influence.

An outsider won’t do to manage the group for much the same reason: lack of credibility and influence. Local residents will mistrust a stranger who suddenly appears in town just in time to accept leadership of the pro-development citizens group.

But a local resident who has longstanding community ties and legitimate personal reasons for supporting the project will be accepted at face value, and has the credibility to round up community support. The best way to find such a leader is to look among your natural supporters for a person with leadership skills who has the time and enthusiasm to do the job right.

You may well need to quietly fund the support group, but their expenses should be small—the cost of flyers and urns of coffee. Remember that a group seen as bought will also be seen as hirelings.

The group needs to appear independent of you and your company, which means that they may disagree with you on some points, or may have different ideas of what constitutes adequate mitigation. Taking their suggestions seriously and treating them with respect will win you points in the community.

Citizen Group Effectiveness and Activities

The effort to get a project approved and permitted organizes natural supporters to carry the issue, works to neutralize or marginalize opponents whose efforts can damage the chances of approval, and stresses the benefits to the community not through a public relations or marketing program but through the citizen advocates organized for the purpose.

Those advocates will express their support in their own words and from their own point of view, a much more effective approach than using a canned list of talking points.

Ardent supporters will also sway others who know and respect them—relatives, neighbors, co-workers, friends—will deter those who might have reservations about the project but don’t want to offend a neighbor or old friend, and can dissuade, neutralize or turn at least some opponents because they clearly speak from their own viewpoint and not as agents of the developer.

Make sure your group has a Web site and email address so that people tempted to support your project can easily join up.

Once it has a leader, the group can begin engaging in political support activities, forming coalitions with other groups, calling public officials to express support, writing letters to the editor, managing a website, starting a blog, printing flyers, and attending meetings and hearings, for example.

They can also hold fundraisers and seek donations to offset their expenses, and stage a site cleanup to dramatize the improvement your project will bring to the area. One particularly effective activity is the citizen petition drive, in which your group members collect signatures of local voters who favor the project, or at least are not opposed to it.

A stack of signed citizen petitions makes a nice prop for your lawyer to present to the licensing authority at the big hearing to bolster your claim of widespread public support.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to numbers in a previous bird and bat post construction mortality study paid for by Invenergy for the Forward Wind project located near the Horicon Marsh, the turbine related bat-kill numbers are staggering: it appears that well over 10,000 bats have been killed in just three years of the Forward project's operation.

The turbine related bat kill rate in Wisconsin is ten times higher than the national average and the second highest in North America. Yet nothing is being done about it. In fact, the Public Service Commission can't even get Invenergy to submit a long-past-due required mortality report.

Who ya' gonna call?

Better Plan has contacted the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Bat Conservation International and a multitude of journalists with this information but so far no one has moved to look more closely into this story.

Meanwhile, bats are being slaughtered by the thousands in Wisconsin wind projects. Horton may hear a Who but at the moment environmentalists and media aren't taking any calls from Horton.

 Next Story

DEAR EMPEROR OF INVENERGY, STOP ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE: THE PSC WANTS TO KNOW WHY YOU WON'T RELEASE YOUR LATEST POST CONSTRUCTION BIRD AND BAT MORTALITY STUDY

"Agency staff has repeatedly requested the required reports. To date, no satisfactory explanation has been received for their delay nor a firm date established for their submission. At minimum, submittal of the final report is required to comply with the requirements of the Commission’s Final Decision for this docket. Please submit the required reports."

-PSC's letter to Invenergy dated 3/25/2011

FROM: DAN SAGE at the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

TO: MIKE COLLINS, INVENERGY LLC, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

DATE: MARCH 25th, 2011

Dear Mr. Collins:

In the Commission’s Final Decision on July 14, 2005, Forward Energy LLC (Forward) was required to conduct post-construction bird and bat studies in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Data collected from these studies were to be submitted to agency staff on a quarterly basis. In addition, Forward was required to conduct a population viability analysis with associated sensitivity analyses for bat populations.

As a means of complying with the Commission’s Final Decision, three study plans were reviewed and approved by agency staff. These studies included a bird use, a bat use, and a bird/bat mortality study. Within each of these plans was an agreed-to timetable for field study and report submittal.

Forward initiated field studies in July 2008. The bat use and bird use studies ended in November 2009. Data collection for the mortality study ended in May 2010. The last report received from Forward summarized data collected through February 1, 2010. Forward has not submitted a report summarizing the data collected during the period of April through May of 2010.

Additionally, the final report has not been submitted. The final report is required to contain at a minimum the following items:

Summary of all field data collected during the years of 2008, 2009, and 2010;

Comparison of pre-construction and post-construction relative abundance and diversity of birds;

Impact gradient analysis of bird use and behavioral data relative to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge;

Analysis of the changes in pre-construction versus post-construction avian habitat;

Analysis of the type and number of bats that use the Forward airspace compared to the bat fatality estimates resulting from the wind turbines;

Mortality estimates incorporating scavenger and searcher efficiency rates using the best available estimation formulas and reported as avian and bat fatalities per megawatt per year and per turbine per year;

Additional analyses including comparing the mortality at control sites to the mortality at turbine sites and correlation analyses between mortality and weather, turbine locations, turbine operating status, and bird and bat activity.

Agency staff has repeatedly requested the required reports.

To date, no satisfactory explanation has been received for their delay nor a firm date established for their submission. At minimum, submittal of the final report is required to comply with the requirements of the Commission’s Final Decision for this docket. Please submit the required reports.

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Marilyn M. Weiss by telephone at (608) 241-0084 or by e-mail at marilyn.weiss@wisconsin.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/ Dan Sage
Dan Sage
Assistant Administrator
Gas and Energy Division

NOTE: Click on the image below to watch a video about Invenergy's Forward Project wind turbines alongside Wisconsin's famed Horicon Marsh and near the Neda Mines, home to the largest bat population in the state.

NEXT STORY

BATS WORTH BILLIONS TO AGRICULTURE:

PEST-CONTROL SERVICES AT RISK

SOURCE: PRNEWSWIRE

April 1, 2011

BOSTON, -- Thomas Kunz, Warren Distinguished Professor in Boston University's Department of Biology, has coauthored an analysis published this week in the journal Science that shows how declines of bat populations caused by a new wildlife disease and fatalities at industrial-scale wind turbines could lead to substantial economic losses on the farm.

Natural pest-control services provided by insect-eating bats in the United States likely save the U.S. agricultural industry at least $3 billion a year, and yet insectivorous bats are among the most overlooked economically important, non-domesticated animals in North America, noted the study's authors, scientists from the University of Pretoria (South Africa), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Tennessee, and Boston University.

"People often ask why we should care about bats," said Paul Cryan, a USGS research scientist at the Fort Collins Science Center and one of the study's authors. "This analysis suggests that bats are saving us big bucks by gobbling up insects that eat or damage our crops. It is obviously beneficial that insectivorous bats are patrolling the skies at night above our fields and forests—these bats deserve help."

The value of the pest-control services to agriculture provided by bats in the U.S. alone range from a low of $3.7 billion to a high of $53 billion a year, the authors estimated. They also warned that noticeable economic losses to North American agriculture could well occur in the next 4 to 5 years because of the double-whammy effect of bat losses due to the emerging disease white-nose syndrome and fatalities of certain migratory bats at wind-energy facilities. In the Northeast, however, where white-nose syndrome has killed more than one million bats in the past few years, the effects could be evident sooner.

"Bats eat tremendous quantities of flying pest insects, so the loss of bats is likely to have long-term effects on agricultural and ecological systems," said Justin Boyles, a researcher with the University of Pretoria and the lead author of the study. "Consequently, not only is the conservation of bats important for the well-being of ecosystems, but it is also in the best interest of national and international economies."

A single little brown bat, which has a body no bigger than an adult human thumb, can eat 4 to 8 grams (the weight of about a grape or two) of insects each night, the authors note. Although this may not sound like much, it adds up—the loss of one million bats in the Northeast has probably resulted in between 660 and 1,320 metric tons of insects no longer being eaten each year by bats in the region.

"Additionally, because the agricultural value of bats in the Northeast is small compared with other parts of the country, such losses could be even more substantial in the extensive agricultural regions in the Midwest and the Great Plains, where wind-energy development is booming and the fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome was recently detected," said Kunz.

Although these estimates include the costs of pesticide applications that are not needed because of the pest-control services bats provide, Boyles and his colleagues said they did not account for the detrimental effects of pesticides on ecosystems or the economic benefits of bats suppressing pest insects in forests, both of which may be considerable.

The loss of bats to white-nose syndrome has largely occurred during the past 4 years, after the disease first appeared in upstate New York. Since then, the fungus thought to cause white-nose syndrome has spread southward and westward and has now been found in 15 states and in eastern Canada. Bat declines in the Northeast, the most severely affected region in the U.S. thus far, have exceeded 70 percent. Populations of at least one species, the little brown bat, have declined so precipitously that scientists expect the species to disappear from the region within the next 20 years.

The losses of bats at wind-power facilities, however, pose a different kind of problem, according to the authors. Although several species of migratory tree-dwelling bats are particularly susceptible to wind turbines, continental-scale monitoring programs are not in place and reasons for the particular susceptibility of some bat species to turbines remain a mystery, Cryan said.

By one estimate, published by Kunz and colleagues in 2007, about 33,000 to 111,000 bats will die each year by 2020 just in the mountainous region of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands from direct collisions with wind turbines as well from lung damage caused by pressure changes bats experience when flying near moving turbine blades. In addition, surprisingly large numbers of bats are dying at wind-energy facilities in other regions of North America.

"We hope that our analysis gets people thinking more about the value of bats and why their conservation is important," said Gary McCracken, a University of Tennessee professor and co-author of the analysis. "The bottom line is that the natural pest-control services provided by bats save farmers a lot of money."

The authors conclude that solutions to reduce the impacts of white-nose syndrome and fatalities from wind turbines may be possible in the coming years, but that such work is most likely to be driven by public support that will require a wider awareness of the benefits of insectivorous bats.

The article, "Economic importance of bats in agriculture," appears in the April 1 edition of Science. Authors are J.G. Boyles, P. Cryan, G. McCracken and T. Kunz.

 NEXT STORY: WHERE ARE THE WIND DEVELOPERS PROSPECTING IN WISCONSIN?

Wisconsin wind project locations: proposed, existing and being built:

WIND DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN SPOTTED IN:

ADAMS COUNTY

Town of Lincoln

ASHLAND COUNTY

Madeline Island

BAYFIELD COUNTY

Town of Bayfield

BROWN COUNTY

Towns Glenmore, Greenleaf, Holland, Morrison, Wrightstown

Invenergy's Ledge Wind project (currently on hold)

Emerging Energy's Shirley Wind project (Town of Glenmore. Now under construction)

For the latest information, visit the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Renewable Energy website (bccrwe.com)

BUFFALO COUNTY

CALUMET COUNTY

Towns of Brothertown, Charlesburg, Chilton, New Holstein, Rantoul, Stockbridge

COLUMBIA COUNTY

We Energies Glacier Hills project (under construction)

Towns of Arlington, Cambria, Leeds, Randolph and Scott.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD GLACIER HILLS  TURBINE LOCATION MAP

CRAWFORD COUNTY

Invenergy is prospecting south of Prairie Du Chien

DANE COUNTY

Town of Springfield

EcoEnergy developed the project, then sold it to WAVE WIND LLC 

According to news stories, Wave Wind was looking for a contract with WPPI to buy the power. The outcome of negotiations between these two parties is unknown as of September 2010

News stories:

Dane County's wind farm fate rests with WPPI

DODGE COUNTY
Towns of Herman and Rubicon

DOOR COUNTY
Town of Clay Banks

Download Clay Banks Wind ordinance

FOND DU LAC COUNTY

Towns of Ashford, Brownsville, Byron, Eden, Empire

GRANT COUNTY

Cuba City, Towns of Hazel Green, Paris, Plattville, Smelser, Patch Grove, Mt. Hope

GREEN LAKE COUNTY

Town of Green Lake

IOWA COUNTY

Town of Montfort

KEWAUNEE COUNTY
Town of Casco

LAFAYETTE COUNTY
Towns of Belmont and Seymour

MANITOWOC COUNTY
Towns of Mishicot, Two Creeks, Two Rivers

 Town of Centerville  Developer: Spanish company www.urielwind.com

For the latest information on Manitowoc County projects visit Windcows.com

MONROE COUNTY
Towns of Ridgeville and Wilton

OUTGAMIE COUNTY
Town of Kaukauna

OZAUKEE COUNTY
Town of Freedonia

ROCK COUNTY
Towns of Center, Janesville, Spring Valley, Magnolia, Union

Landowner contracts in the Towns of Magnolia and Union originally secured by EcoEnergy have been sold to Spanish wind giant Acciona . Acciona says it has suspended the project because of low wind resource. However, they still own the project and can sell it.

SHEBOYGAN COUNTY

Town of Rhine

ST CROIX COUNTY

Town of Forest

TREMPEALEAU COUNTY

Town of Arcadia

Town of Ettrick

Download Trempealeau County wind ordinance

VERNON COUNTY
Town of Westby

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Towns of Addison, Nabob, and West Bend

ENERGY SOLUTION OR LEGAL TROUBLE?

SOURCE: Hudson Star Observer

March 31 2011

"The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February."

A legal battle in northeastern St. Croix County highlights the difficult issues of wind-generated power. Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — be it today or tomorrow.

Try finding a location to construct wind generators and suddenly you’ve got yourself a first-class controversy, complete with arguments among neighbors, recalls and lawsuits.

Such is the case in St. Croix County in the town of Forest.

The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February. That suit was also supported by action of a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election. The former board had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.

A citizens’ lawsuit was filed in February. In March, the new town of Forest board voted to rescind a wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The project, being proposed by a private developer named Emerging Energies, is in jeopardy.

The project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall.

Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began.

Now there are battles over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety and more. Emerging Energies, LLC, has also threat-ened the new town board with legal action.

A similar scenario developed in the eastern part of the state when a Chicago wind energy developer, Invenergy LLC, dropped its plan to build a large wind farm near Green Bay.

Opponents in the Green Bay area are expressing the same concerns and claim they will continue to work to prevent the “irresponsible development of industrial wind projects.”

State energy regulators are now trying to come up with a plan to help support wind projects. Regulators may be asked to go back to the drawing board to develop statewide rules governing wind power projects, under a bill to be considered this week.

The Legislature’s joint committee for review of administrative rules voted earlier this month to temporarily block a wind farm site rule developed by the state Public Service Commission.

Supporters of wind energy development say legal problems will stall development, leading to a loss of jobs tied to wind turbine construction as well as revenue for host property owners and local governments. There seems to be plenty of controversy over, among other things, setbacks for wind towers.

A property rights bill introduced by Gov. Scott Walker in January would restrict wind towers from being placed less than 1,800 feet from a property line. That bill had the apparent support of wind farm opponents and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.

In its most recent wind farm decision, the PSC ruled that 1,250-foot setbacks be required for We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, now under construction in Columbia County.

The bottom line is, when wind towers begin popping up in either populated areas, or rural countryside, there is likely to be plenty of opposition. A group of wind towers doesn’t do much for the scenic value of any topography.

Despite all the virtues of wind power, developing a power source to a degree where it would have a significant impact could be difficult when facing “not in my backyard” neighborhoods.

MIDWEST WIND SUSPENDS DEVELOPMENT WORK IN STATE

"Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks."

Source: JSOnline.com

March 31, 2011

By Thomas Content

Midwest Wind Energy is suspending development of two wind farms in Wisconsin, the Illinois company said Wednesday.

The company developed the Butler Ridge wind farm in Dodge County and the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du Lac County, projects now owned and operated by other companies.

Midwest Wind said it was actively working on a 98-megawatt wind farm in Calumet County and another project for which a location had not yet been announced.

Midwest Wind cited development opportunities in other states at a time when Wisconsin policymakers are moving to restrict wind farm development.

"Most states are clearly open for renewable energy development and the economic development dollars and jobs that come with it,” said Stefan Noe, company president. “So long as there are states rolling out the welcome mat it doesn't make sense to devote significant dollars to a state that is creating unreasonable roadblocks for wind development."

The action came one week after Invenergy of Chicago canceled plans to develop a large wind farm near Green Bay, and one day after a legislative committee voted to introduce a bill sending wind siting rules back to the state Public Service Commission for more work.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker have said the PSC rule allowed turbines to be built too close to nearby homes. Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks.

A bill that passed in the Legislature two years ago called on the PSC to set up a uniform standard for wind projects across the state, to replace a patchwork of local rules and moratoriums that were in place with regard to wind projects.

Keith Reopelle, senior policy director at the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, said the new chair of the PSC, Phil Montgomery, was a co-sponsor and supporter of the bill that called on the PSC to set statewide standards. He said he hoped the agency would move quickly to develop a workable set of rules.

When the bill was introduced in 2009, Montgomery – then a state lawmaker from Brown County and ranking Republican on the Assembly energy and utilities committee - released a statement in support of a uniform state standard.

“Wind power is job-creating power,” Montgomery said in April 2009. “A fair and uniform state standard for siting wind developments will create an environment of investment in our state while moving us closer to our green energy goals.”

WIND TURBINE PLANT ON HOLD

Source: Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune

March 31, 2011

By Nathaniel Shuda

"I think we had to give them every opportunity to succeed," council member Lee Albrecht said. "You have this carrot dangling out there that there are 600 jobs on the horizon; I think you have to do whatever you can to have that carrot come to you."

Is there something we should tell the Emperor of Invenergy about his clothes? Nah. He knows.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What are the real reasons Invenergy pulled out of the wind project proposed for Brown County?

Chicago-based wind developer, Invenergy, told the Public Service Commission they stopped the project because of the uncertain regulatory climate in Wisconsin. In the same letter to the PSC they contradict this statement by making it clear they will develop other projects in Wisconsin.

Another problem with this claim is that the Brown County project would not be impacted by the recently suspended wind rules. The size of the project meant the Public Service Commission -which has never said no to a proposed wind project- would be the sole regulatory authority for the project. 

Invenergy claims that strong community opposition to the project had no impact on the decision, but this is in keeping with an unwritten code of the wind industry: Never admit that community opposition has any impact. If you do, it will encourage other communities to fight back.

Another reason for stopping the project may be Invenergy's lack of a power purchase agreement. If they don't have a utility willing to sign onto a multi-year agreement to buy the power from the project, the project will be nearly impossible to finance.

In wind industry-speak, a wind project in this situation is called a "naked wind farm".

Although Invenergy and wind lobbyists keep spinning the cancellation of the Brown County project as a result of regulatory uncertainty, in February, Invenergy pulled out of another 'naked wind farm' that also had significant community opposition. Once again, Invenergy denies that the community opposition had anything to do with their decision, but at least in this case they do admit to being naked.

Invenergy pulls out of Belwood

SOURCE: CENTREWEILLINGTON.COM

February 2, 2011

Wind turbine project rights sold to TransCanada

In a new development in the battle over wind in Belwood, Invenergy LLC has pulled out and sold their ownership stake in the project to TransCanada Energy Ltd.

Following up on a tip that Invenergy was selling off their rights to the project, the News Express contacted their head office in Chicago, Illinois last week seeking comment.

Invenergy spokesperson Alissa Krinsky issued a prepared statement, reading: "TransCanada Energy Ltd. has re-acquired 100 per cent of the interest in the Belwood Wind Energy Project from Invenergy Canada.

Currently, a power purchase agreement for this green energy project has not been secured. As a result, the time lines for the potential future development of this project are not known."

That same statement is repeated on the company's former project website for Belwood at www.belwoodwindfarm.info. The site was changed and became active with that message as of Monday, Jan. 31.

Tom Patterson, the manager for power renewables for TransCanada Energy, is listed as a contact on the site. Calls to Patterson by the News Express seeking comment on the deal were not returned as of press time.

The switch came as news to the project's biggest critics, Oppose Belwood Wind Farm. Spokeswoman Janet Vallery said the first she had heard of the change came when the News Express called seeking comment.

"We've been fighting wind farms for almost a year now," she said. "As of today, we're opposing three different companies - wpd Canada, IPC and now TransCanada. Most of the community is appalled with the risks posed by those industrial wind turbines. We're fighting these companies, and if TransCanada has the desire to move forward against the community's wishes then we'll continue to oppose them."

Next Story:

Residents of this Invenergy wind project in Fond du Lac county have similar complaintsWIND FARM INQUIRY IN BALLARAT: ANGER, TEARS AT HEARING

SOURCE: The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

March 29, 2011

BY BRENDAN GULLIFER

Giving evidence, fuelled at times by anger, frustration and tears, nearly 30 local residents spoke of ill-health, property devaluation, environmental damage and communities split by wind farm developments.

The wind industry had a day of reckoning yesterday when the Senate inquiry into wind farms held its Ballarat hearing.

Giving evidence, fuelled at times by anger, frustration and tears, nearly 30 local residents spoke of ill-health, property devaluation, environmental damage and communities split by wind farm developments.

Megan Read of the Western Plains Landscape Guardians Association called for an immediate moratorium on all proposed and approved wind farms until an independent health study was undertaken.

Ms Read was also one of many who said a national approach to planning and policy guidelines should be implemented to make all states consistent with federal regulations.

“The rapid onslaught of wind farm proposals and developments has affected thousands of regional Australians and many groups,” Ms Read told the hearing.

“Local short-term economic benefits are massively overwhelmed by loss of property values, population decline, job losses and restriction of agricultural business operations.

“Wind farms are not viable without government mandated and public funded subsidies.”

Ms Read called the spread of wind farms a “complete social injustice”.

“Social impacts included negative health effects from turbine noise and infrasound, breakdown in community connectedness, and the overall feeling of helplessness,” she said.

The hearing began with formal testimony from former Waubra residents Carl and Sam Stepnell and Noel Dean. They spoke of the onset of severe health problems after turbines were turned on.

Waubra operator Acciona also came in for criticism from Pyrenees Shire Council for a range of operational matters.

Council officer Chris Hall said changes were made to turbine design and height, and lights were added to turbines after planning approval and under secondary consent from then Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Mr Hall said council had received around 32 formal complaints of noise and health related effects from Waubra residents.

It is believed senators toured both Waubra and Hepburn wind farms earlier in the day, but these visits were closed to media.

Next Story

Video: Why is this wind developer smiling?



Next story:

WIND FARM IS THEIR NEIGHBOR FROM HELL

SOURCE: Herald Scotland, www.heraldscotland.com

March 29 2011

by Harry Reid

Jim Guthrie looks out of his window, across the lovely wooded valley of the River Duisk.

Beneath his house a bridge crosses the river, carrying the A714 road from Girvan up to Barrhill.

Suddenly there’s a great roaring din. A huge 12-wheeled truck is having trouble crossing the narrow bridge, and then negotiating the sharp bend at the far side. Jim sighs and says: “At least that one didn’t smash the bridge. It’s been damaged so often, the council doesn’t bother to do the repairs any more”.

The A714 is a narrow, steep road but its A-road status makes it in theory suitable for all types of traffic. These days many very long trucks are using it because of windfarm developments in the area. Land needs to be cleared, and this often requires the felling of timber. Scarring new tracks are built across virgin country, and there is much disruptive construction work. Big loads – including the colossal turbines themselves – are transported up totally unsuitable roads.

Jim Guthrie is a retired Church of Scotland minister. Like so many Scots, he is all in favour of renewable energy. But local, harrowing experience has made him deeply sceptical about windfarms.

Through the recent severe winter, when there was a big demand for electricity, Jim monitored the turbines in his immediate area. He counted 73 days when there was little or no turbine activity. “The turbines don’t operate if there’s a hard frost, or if the wind speed is less than 15mph or more than 45 mph. So they simply don’t work for long periods,” he says. “Are they worth all the bother they cause? I don’t think so”.

With Jim is Claire Perrie, secretary of the local community council. She tells me: “I don’t think that people in Glasgow or Edinburgh understand what it’s like living near these things. And I don’t think some politicians understand what they’ve agreed to. The landowners and the contactors make a lot of money, the rest of us just suffer.”

She adds: “We’re going to have to consider direct action – and I never thought I’d say that – if the Breaker Hill windfarm goes ahead”.

There are already three large scale windfarms in this beautiful part of South Carrick. The proposed Breaker Hill development would add another 15 turbines to the 144 that have already been erected in a very compact geographical area. Scottish National Heritage insists that several windfarms should not be built close to each other, but developers have other ideas.

The vast Hadyard Hill windfarm, just three miles inland from Girvan, has 56 turbines built across gently undulating moorland. In the valley below live three generations of the Baldwin family.

Robert Baldwin shows me a video he has made of the creepy “shadow flicker” which blights his home. “This is bad enough, but what’s worse is the noise, when the turbines are operating at full tilt. They stop you sleeping, and we’re double-glazed. It’s like having a loud tumble drier on, a constant, grating, whooshing noise,” he says.

There is a proposal for a further windfarm to be built immediately behind his house. Soon he and his family could be literally surrounded by huge turbines.

Jim Guthrie says: “I worked in the shipyards before I became a minister, and then I had a rural parish at the time of foot and mouth ten years ago. But I’ve never felt as helpless as I do now. The most worrying thing of all for the folk around here is that their houses are losing value, fast. They reckon they won’t be able to sell them if they feel they have to get out.”

Some community projects have benefited from investment by windfarm developers. But in South Carrick tourism is a crucial industry, and this, obviously enough, is being adversely affected.

I would not say, as some do, that windfarms are just a scam. But they produce electricity only intermittently, they disrupt communities and rupture the environment. Surely wave and tidal power would provide far more power at far less social cost?