Dems host wind energy discussion

SOURCE: Herald Times Reporter

 MANITOWOC — The Manitowoc County Democratic Party is hosting a public forum on Wind Energy in Wisconsin as part of its regular monthly meeting from 7 to 9 p.m. Tuesday at the Manitowoc Senior Center. The public is invited.   

 Jenney Heinzen of the Lakeshore Technical College's Wind Energy Technology program and former state Rep. Jim Soletski, former chairman of the Assembly's Energy and Utilities Committee, will be on hand to present information and lead the discussion.

Wind energy has been a controversial topic in this county, now made even more so by policy changes proposed by Gov. Scott Walker.

"If Gov. Walker has his way, the development of a wind energy industry in Wisconsin, and all the jobs that could come with it, may be brought to an abrupt halt," said Kerry Trask, chairman of the local party.

KANSAS JOBS FROM WIND INDUSTRY WON'T COME EASY

Another disappointment has been the pay for many of the wind industry jobs that do stay in the United States.

Wages around $16 an hour were expected by some when the Siemens plant opened in Hutchinson. But that was averaging the plant's $11- to $20-an-hour wages, and Siemens won't say how many of the jobs pay the $11 starting wage.

That wage would give a family of five an income at the federal poverty level.

Some of the manufacturers have offered wages as low as $9 an hour, and employment levels have at times been volatile. A blade manufacturer in Newton, Iowa, laid off hundreds of employees last year because of poor sales before eventually hiring most of them back by the end of the year.

About five years into recruiting wind energy manufacturers, Iowa can point to about 1,600 people employed by them in a state of 1.6 million employed.

"Don't be changing your college curriculums to prepare for it," said Swenson, the Iowa State economist.

SOURCE: Kansas City Star

February 20, 2011

BY STEVE EVERLY

The state's big bet on wind power has attracted a few hundred jobs so far. But even that success shows the huge challenge Kansas faces.

To turn a few hundred jobs into thousands, Kansas has to win big manufacturing projects and attract the companies that supply them, too. And that means beating out China and other foreign competitors who rule those markets.

"We need to temper our expectations on wind energy," said David Swenson, an Iowa State University economist known for deflating the ethanol industry's job claims. Now, he says, the same "environment of hype" is developing around wind power.

Hutchinson success

Kansas' biggest successes so far — and the reasons to be cautious — can be found in Hutchinson.

Over the past couple of decades, the town lost thousands of jobs and was disappointed in its efforts to lure new companies. But that luck changed in 2009 when Siemens Energy announced it would build a plant in Hutchinson.

The plant already has 130 employees and, when operating at full speed by 2012, is expected to have 400 workers.

The Siemens plant assembles parts that go into the nacelle of a wind turbine, which includes the generator, gearboxes, drive train and electronic controls. The RV-size nacelles each weigh 92 tons and measure 12 feet wide and 38 feet long.

When the Siemens plant opened in December, then-governor-elect Sam Brownback said: "I look forward to all the ways my home state of Kansas will take the lead on increasing national access to wind energy as we continue to grow the Kansas economy and create jobs."

The plant was a big victory for a strategy pushed by Brownback's predecessor, Gov. Mark Parkinson, that realized early on that manufacturing was the only place to find many green jobs.

Wind farms themselves, which now dot the state, don't provide much work.

In one study, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., figured that building a utility-scale wind farm with dozens of turbines created just 67 construction jobs. And the operation and maintenance of the wind farm would take only about a half-dozen people.

But the wind turbine manufacturers and their supply chain for such a wind farm would contribute more than 300 jobs, the energy lab estimated. And a well-located plant would have a good prospect of supplying more wind farms as they were built.

Kansas' place in the center of the country's prime wind energy territory was one of the reasons Siemens picked Hutchinson. The move quickly paid off when an Iowa utility recently placed a big order for 258 nacelles.

Attracting more jobs

But Hutchinson's hopes — and the state's — also ride on drawing the companies that will supply the Siemens plant and others like it in the state.

If that happens, how many jobs could be created?

Wichita State University's Center for Economic Development and Business Research says plant jobs like the one in Hutchinson will create at least twice as many additional jobs, from suppliers and others who benefit from the extra money rippling through the state's economy.

By that math, the Hutchinson plant at full capacity with 400 employees would create an additional 800 jobs.

Kansas also has persuaded a few other manufacturers to announce plans to open plants elsewhere in the state. Add those projects to the Hutchinson plant and the estimate grows to a total of 1,200 direct jobs and an additional 2,400 jobs from suppliers and others.

Not bad — but not huge in a state with a civilian labor force of 1.5 million and 102,600 unemployed job seekers at last count.

And it's not clear that even that number of jobs will emerge, especially in the supply chain for the main plants.

Draka, a Dutch cable supplier, is opening a plant in Hutchinson that will employ up to 20 people. But so far it is the only one to be announced, although the town hopes others will follow.

"We're still waiting for it to happen, but in a year or two if it doesn't, there will be disappointment," said Tom Arnhold, a Hutchinson lawyer.

Siemens isn't giving specifics on the origin of the parts being assembled at its Hutchinson plant.

But it wouldn't be unusual if the plant ended up assembling expensive parts made overseas. That's what a lot of U.S. wind energy plants do.

The clout of China and other lower-cost manufacturing countries in the wind market showed up in an analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. That group found that more than 80 percent of $1 billion in federal stimulus grants for wind projects went to foreign countries. One of the projects, a $1.5 billion wind farm in Texas, expected to collect $450 million in stimulus money — but used wind turbines made in China.

Another disappointment has been the pay for many of the wind industry jobs that do stay in the United States.

Wages around $16 an hour were expected by some when the Siemens plant opened in Hutchinson. But that was averaging the plant's $11- to $20-an-hour wages, and Siemens won't say how many of the jobs pay the $11 starting wage.

That wage would give a family of five an income at the federal poverty level.

What may be ahead

A glimpse of what's ahead for Kansas might be found in Iowa, which has been more aggressive than Kansas in building wind farms and attracting the manufacturing, including a wind turbine factory.

Some of the manufacturers have offered wages as low as $9 an hour, and employment levels have at times been volatile. A blade manufacturer in Newton, Iowa, laid off hundreds of employees last year because of poor sales before eventually hiring most of them back by the end of the year.

About five years into recruiting wind energy manufacturers, Iowa can point to about 1,600 people employed by them in a state of 1.6 million employed.

"Don't be changing your college curriculums to prepare for it," said Swenson, the Iowa State economist.

And there's some advice from Howard, S.D. In the 1990s it started developing wind energy and became a national model for how to use clean energy to help revive a small town. But it hasn't been easy, and there have been setbacks.

Many of Howard's jobs were provided by a blade manufacturer, but last year that company left. Now the town's industrial park employs 42 people instead of 133. Town officials are talking to other wind energy companies, hoping they'll move in.

"One of the realities is to always be paying attention," said Kathy Callies, vice president of the Rural Learning Center in Howard.

NEXT FEATURE:

FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP ORDERS REMOVAL OF METEOROLIGICAL TOWER

SOURCE: Daily Telegram, www.lenconnect.com

February 19 2011

By David Frownfelder,

FAIRFIELD TWP., Mich. — Just days after the Fairfield Township Board approved a one-year moratorium on siting of wind turbines in the township, the Zoning Board of Appeals ordered Orisol Energy US Inc. to take down a 262-foot tall meteorological tower the company had erected. Both votes were unanimous.

Township supervisor Curtis Emmons said the moratorium, which passed Monday night on a 5-0 vote, will give the township planning commission time to come up with an ordinance regarding wind turbines. He said the order to tear down the meteorological tower was made because it is in violation of the township’s height and zoning ordinances. That vote was 3-0 Wednesday.

In January, Cliff Williams, director of North American operations for Orisol, said the tower is collecting data about atmospheric conditions. He was not available for comment. Emmons said the company has 30 days to appeal the ruling.

“The board took questions and comments pro and con from the audience, and Mr. Williams was able to state his case why the company felt they could put up the towers,” Emmons said. “(The board) cited several parts of the zoning ordinance in making their ruling.”

Three wind energy companies are seeking to erect some 200 wind towers in Fairfield, Riga, Palmyra and Ogden townships. Riga and Fairfield townships are developing zoning ordinances covering wind turbines.

The companies looking at northwest Ohio as sites for wind turbines are Orisol; Juwi Wind Corp., based in Cleveland; Great Lakes LLC, based in Lenawee County; and Exelon Wind, a division of Exelon Power.

NEXT FEATURE:

'WINDFALL FILM EXAMINES EFFECT OF WIND TURBINES ON RURAL, RESIDENTIAL AREAS

SOURCE: Penasee Globe, www.mlive.com

February 19 2011

By Herb Woerpel,

Attracted to the financial incentives that would seemingly boost their sinking economy, the townspeople of Meredith, New York were excited about the potential of adding wind turbines to their rural, residential neighborhood.

Lured by promises of profit, sustainability and environmental friendliness, the townspeople cherished the implementation of the massive machines.

As the 40-story tall structures were installed, the availability of wind company representatives grew sparse, and residents grew increasingly alarmed as they felt firsthand the the impacts of the 400-foot tall windmills.

Filmmaker Laura Israel, a resident of Meredith, documented the entire process and shares the haunting reality in her feature length film, “Windfall.”

A special screening of “Windfall” will be presented at 1 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 26 at Hopkins Middle School, 215 Clark St. in Hopkins. Following the screening, a 30-minute question and answer session featuring the filmmakers will take place.

The 83-minute feature film utilizes community member interviews to tell the story. Some are excited to add the turbines, others not as optimistic. The documentary eventually captures the terror that many residents endure on a daily basis following the installation of the turbines.

“The film isn’t an expose about wind, it’s more the experience of a town,” said Israel, in a Youtube.com interview. “This is people living among turbines trying to get the word out about the problems they are having. I wanted to give a voice to them.”

Israel said that she doesn’t have all the answers, and she hopes viewers don’t expect to find all the answers through the film.

“Windfall exposes the dark side of wind energy development and the potential for highly profitable financial scams,” she said. “With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, the film is an eye-opener for anyone concerned about the future of renewable energy.”

Monterey Township resident Laura Roys viewed the film last year in Frankfort, Mich. She couldn’t believe how similar the Meredith story was when compared to the recent happenings in Allegan County. Roys, who is facilitating the Feb. 26 screening, decided to show the film in Hopkins to help raise awareness.

“The state of Michigan has targeted and fast tracked half of Allegan County for industrial wind development,” she said. “The more educated our local political leaders and residents of Allegan County become, the odds of having a positive outcome will dramatically increase.”

The screening is free to attend. Doors will open at 12:30 p.m., and the film will begin at 1 p.m. For more information visit www.windfallthemovie.com.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Correction to the above article. The film "WINDFALL" documents the small town of Meredith's experience with proposed wind development but the turbines mentioned in the article above are in the Tug Hill wind project. "Windfall" also contains disturbing footage shot by Wisconsin wind project residents showing the serious impact of shadow flicker on their lives.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO an interview with filmmaker Laura Israel and Wisconsin cartoonist and writer Lynda Barry on WNYC's Leonard Lopate show. Israel and Barry were in New York City to support "WINDFALL" at NYC/DOC, a festival celebrating independent documentary films. "WINDFALL" took the Grand Jury Prize.

 NEXT FEATURE:

WAR MOUNTS OVER WIND PROJECTS

SOURCE: The Sun Times, www.owensoundsuntimes.com

February 18 2011

By TROY PATTERSON, QMI AGENCY,

Thunderous applause and a standing ovation followed Ashley Duncan's speech in opposition of the 80-megawatt Acciona Armow Wind Project, which spans from the former Kincardine Twp. to Bruce Twp.

Representing about 70 non-option landowners and members of the Old Order Amish community living within the proposed project, Duncan said council must act to protect the quality of life, health and property rights of its citizens within wind project areas.

"The province and wind developers have failed to address our issues. The only way to inspire provincial change and reclaim municipal control is to stand in opposition to the Green Energy Act (GEA)," said Duncan, adding it should be "designed to protect people instead of corporations."

Duncan said the local landscape is becoming "industrialized" and the failure to protect residents falls on both the province and wind proponents. The GEA is intended as a document to guide consultation and protect the public, but many residents don't see it that way," she said.

"Instead of building strong communities they've divided our community," said Duncan.

Opposition against the GEA is building province-wide, with more evidence of health issues, electrical pollution and civil opposition surfacing against wind projects, Duncan said, adding their families should be able to educate, worship, work and live in an area where they're "equally deserving of protection" as residents who live in town.

Duncan praised the provincial moratorium on Offshore Wind Power development that was announced Feb. 11, but said it could come back to the table in as few as two years.

She also addressed the municipality's support for an increased 700-metre setback from the GEA's 550, adding that less than 1,000m is inadequate. Shadow flicker and proximity of turbines to property lines both impact the enjoyment of their properties, she said.

The Ministry of Environment noise guidelines were also targeted at the meeting, as Duncan said the 40-decibel standard for noise limits from turbines more than doubles the 20db outdoors ambient noise they currently enjoy.

Although "40db is said to be the sound of a 'quiet library,' this is true but it's irrelevant," she said, adding they aren't willing to accept an increase "two times as loud as the natural environment."

With a dozen residents in the area reporting health effects from wind turbines, Duncan called on council to "put a plan in place to support people and mitigate the effects" of turbines.

A request was made to council to freeze wind power building permits, and join with the neigh-b ouring municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Arran-Elderslie and Huron-Kinloss to get involved with investigating legal defence and get involved with organizations fighting against unwanted wind power projects, she said.

Councillors praised Duncan for her "informative," "thorough" and "well thought out" presentation.

Deputy-mayor Anne Eadie said council will be taking wind power issues to the Minister of Energy at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) in the coming weeks, on the premise that the municipality is concerned about curbing of future municipal growth from wind power.

"We want to protect for future growth over the next 40 years," said Eadie, adding earlier "meaningful" consultation and setbacks will also be addressed.

Coun. Ron Coristine said the province made the mistake of mixing residential and industrial zoning in the 1950's and 1960's, so wind power should be considering "best practices". He said if setbacks were 2 km from receptors, there would be no issues.

"There are good wind practices, they're just not happening here," said Coristine.

Coun. Maureen Couture said council should commit to finding answers and convince the province the issues of local residents "are real."

"They have to listen to us, we vote for them too," Couture said, adding the 90% in favour of wind aren't representative of the local population. "Municipal councils are obligated to look after the health, welfare and safety of their residents . . . we should do more research into the legal aspects of all of this."

Coun. Randy Roppel said carbon credits and future decommissioning are issues of concern alongside health concerns, which the province "can hide behind anymore".

Mayor Larry Kraemer was supportive of the move to join neighbouring municipalities in an effort to investigate the legal routes to fight wind power.

Kraemer took exception to the call to freeze building permits, as he said there's no legal defence if it were to be challenged by wind developers or the province. He said it also puts municipal staff in a position where they have to choose to break council's ruling or provincial law.

"It's a legal liability and virtually undefendable, that's why blocking building permits is not done widely because it does not work," said Kraemer.

Councillors requested staff investigate the legal ramifications of such a move, so it can be discussed further by council.

Council made a motion to work on updating guidelines based on input it receives from ROMA. Staff will also seek legal advice from lawyers and determine when councillors can attend future wind power-focused meetings with neighbouring municipalities.

 NEXT FEATURE:

WIND FARMS NOT FOR THE BIRDS

Think duck deaths on oilsands tailings ponds are bad? The real slaughter happens elsewhere

SOURCE: Toronto Sun

February 20th, 2010

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Sonya Thomas is five feet tall and weighs just 105 pounds. But last fall she won the world chicken wing eating competition in Buffalo, N.Y., devouring 181 wings in 12 minutes. She claimed she was still hungry, and an hour later ate 20 more.

She edged out Joey Chestnut, her 6-foot-2, 218-pound rival. He ate 169 wings. But in 2008 in Philadelphia, Chestnut packed away 241 wings, though he took half an hour to do it.

Together Thomas and Chestnut can polish off more than 400 wings in a sitting.

That’s more than 200 birds.

Around the same time as the Buffalo wing festival, another 200 birds died. But they weren’t eaten in New York. They were caught in a freak ice storm in northern Alberta, and landed on Syncrude’s oilsands tailing ponds. Government wildlife officers ordered them euthanized.

Linda Duncan, the NDP MP for Edmonton-Strathcona, called the bird deaths “reprehensible” and said “no amount of penalty” was enough. She demanded the tailings ponds be shut down — which would mean shutting down the whole oilsands mine at Mildred Lake. If Duncan got her way, more than 3,000 people would lose their jobs.

Duncan’s proposal would fire 15 workers for every dead duck. That’s nutty, but not much nuttier than the $2,000-a-duck fine Syncrude had to pay for a duck accident in 2008.

But as a new video produced this month by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy points out, the duck obsession of Linda Duncan and other oilsands haters is misplaced.

The Frontier Centre compared the number of birds killed by the oilsands with the number of birds killed by a wind turbine at an Ontario wind farm — allegedly a more environmentally friendly source of energy.

When the rate of bird kills was measured, kilowatt hour by kilowatt hour, windmills were 445 times deadlier than the oilsands.

You can watch the center’s video at http://bit.ly/

birdblender, but it’s not for the squeamish.

Where is Linda Duncan’s outrage for those dead birds?

Wind power proponents know their industry is a disaster when it comes to birds. Part of the Canadian Wind Energy Association’s strategy is to publish a “fact sheet” that admits windmills kill birds but shifts the blame to cats — as well as buildings and windows — for even more bird deaths.

How would that go over in court if Canada’s windmill operators were ever charged with a criminal offence, like Syncrude was?

“Your honour, it’s true that our windmills kill birds. But so do cats. And you wouldn’t prosecute a cute little kitten, would you?”

An elementary school in Bristol, in the U.K., learned about windmills the hard way. The local government spent more than $30,000 to build a 10-metre-high windmill at the school. The manufacturer said it would only kill one bird a year. But after 14 birds were killed in a six-month period, the school shut it down for fear of traumatizing the children. Headmaster Stuart McLeod said he started coming in to work early just to scoop up the carcasses before the kids arrived.

Jimmy Carter’s signature windfarm in Altamont, Calif., admits to killing about 5,000 birds a year, including protected species such as golden eagles. So that’s 5,000 birds a year for 30 years now. If they were fined $2,000 a bird like Syncrude was, that would be $300 million in fines.

Birds aren’t the only things killed by windmills. Researchers at the University of Calgary found bats are even more likely to be killed — the change in air pressure causes their lungs to explode. Oh well. Nobody likes bats anyways. They’re the environmentalists’ sacrifice species.

A cat has an excuse for killing a bird — that’s what cats eat. Sonya Thomas and Joey Chestnut have an excuse — that’s what they eat, too.

But what’s the excuse of windmill salesmen whose sole pitch is their environmental benefit?

Is it OK to butcher countless birds — and create noise pollution, and make beautiful countrysides ugly — if you mean well?

There have been no offers on this home for sale in Invenergy Wind Project, Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County

BREAKING NEWS!

A Public Hearing regarding the PSC's wind siting rules has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 10:00 AM, Room 412 East, Capitol building, Madison

A MESSAGE FROM REPRESENTATIVE AL OTT:

I am contacting you today to inform you of a Public Hearing that was just scheduled by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).

 The Committee is holding a Public Hearing on PSC 128 (CR 10-057) on Wednesday, February 9th at 10:00 a.m. in Room 412 East of the State Capitol.

This Public Hearing is the first step toward suspending the effective date of the wind turbine siting standards, which are set to go into effect on March 1, 2011.

 Last month, I made a formal request to the JCRAR Co-Chairs to use their Committee's authority to bring a halt to PSC 128.  I asked the Co-Chairs to conduct a thorough review of the impact of PSC 128 and to take the additional step of suspending the rules in order to provide the opportunity to go back to the drawing board with this flawed product.  [Click here to read the request]

As you know, Governor Walker introduced Special Session bills AB 9 and SB 9, which would have set - by statute - more stringent standards for the siting of wind turbines, both in terms of set-back distances and other provisions related to notification requirements, etc.  

While it would have been my intention to support AB 9 and SB 9, for the time being, it appears that those bills will not be moved forward.  

Given the March 1st effective date of PSC 128, addressing the issues created by that rule is more effectively done through action from JCRAR, rather than via legislation.  

By taking action to suspend the rules, the Legislature is provided with more time, and greater flexibility, to take a more thoughtful look at these standards and to find reasonable solutions.

If your schedule allows, you are welcome and encouraged to attend Wednesday's Public Hearing.

 If you are unable to attend, please feel free to submit written comments to the Committee.  

Representative Jim Ott (Co-Chair)

Representative Dan Meyer

Representative Daniel LeMahieu

Representative Gary Hebl

Representative Frederick Kessler

Senator Leah Vukmir (Co-Chair)

Senator Joseph Leibham

Senator Glenn Grothman

Senator Lena Taylor

Senator Fred Risser

You can find contact information for the Co-Chairs and members by clicking on the links above or you can go to the following web links:  http://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3ASP/CommPages/IndividualCommittee.aspx?committee=Administrative%20Rules&house=Joint <http://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3ASP/CommPages/IndividualCommittee.aspx?committee=Administrative%20Rules&house=Joint>

If you have any questions regarding Wednesday's hearing or the status of AB 9 and SB 9, please feel free to contact my office and ask to speak with Erin.

Sincerely,

Al Ott
State Representative
3rd Assembly District
1-888-534-0003 (toll-free)

CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO HEAR WHY PSC COMMISSIONER LAUREN AZAR RECOMMENDED A 2,200 FOOT SETBACK.

IN THE NEWS:

LEGISLATURE WON'T TAKE UP WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

February 4, 2011

By Thomas Content

A bill to restrict development of wind power projects won’t be taken up in the Legislature’s special session, but a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker expressed confidence that the governor’s concerns about the wind issue will be addressed in a different way.

The bill is the only Walker proposal in the jobs-focused special session that didn’t clear the state Assembly.

The Legislature's focus on the wind siting issue is to not take up the Walker bill but instead use its legislative review powers to consider whether to block a wind siting standard passed last year by the state Public Service Commission from taking effect.

A hearing has now been scheduled for next Wednesday on the PSC's wind siting rule. The hearing will take place before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which has the power to suspend the rule the PSC adopted.

During a bill signing in Madison Friday afternoon, Walker said he would continue to work on the issue, either by changing administrative rules or with a bill in the regular legislative session that is now under way.

“I want to see the wind industry like every other industry to be effective here in the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said. “I just want to find a way to balance that with … property rights.”

Just because Walker’s proposal won’t be voted on doesn’t mean the issue is dead, said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

“There are still members of our caucus who have an interest in making a change. The final discussions on what that change is and what route that change is going to take through the Legislature is not determined. It’s still a work in progress,” he said.

Discussions are ongoing as to what happens next, Welhouse said.

“The fact that there is a public hearing on Wednesday should show you that there are still conversations behind had between the people involved throughout Wisconsin and the Legislature who are here to represent them,” Welhouse said.

The PSC rule called for wind turbines to be set back at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes, and also included specific limits on decibel levels for wind turbines as well as shadow flicker.

Walker rejected that approach as hurting the property rights of nearby landowners, instead proposing a bill that would bar construction of wind turbines if they are within 1,800 feet of a property line.

Supporters of renewable energy said that the bill essentially would slam the door on wind power development in the state. The bill wouldn't have affected construction of the state's largest wind farm, a 90-turbine project northeast of Madison being built by We Energies. But if it were applied to this project, the utility would have needed to get waivers to build 86 of the 90 turbines, according to an analysis by the PSC.

Cullen Werwie, Walker’s spokesman, said the governor has had success with the vast majority of his legislative proposals and didn’t view the failure of the Legislature to move the wind siting bill as a setback.

“Not at all. I don’t think the policy is dead,” he said. “The Legislature is committed to advance debate on this issue, and the governor will be continuing to work with them as they do that.”

Werwie expressed confidence that property rights concerns would be taken into account as the Legislature decides how to proceed.

Backers of the PSC standard thought the issue was resolved when the commission wrapped up work on the wind siting issue at the end of 2010.

Possible outcomes now could include having no statewide standards at all, one year after the Legislature passed a law calling for uniformity in wind standards, said Mike Brown, spokesman for state Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona).

“This appears to be a way to accomplish the same objective without subjecting themselves to a public vote on the floor of the Senate," Brown said.

The decision not to take up the bill during the special session was first reported by The Associated Press.

Fond du Lac County: The PSC approved setback in this project is 1000 feet from homes

WALKER ISN'T GIVING UP ON TOUGHER WIND TURBINE RULE

SOURCE:  www.greenbaypressgazette.com

February 4, 2011

By SCOTT BAUER 

MADISON — Wisconsin's Legislature will not take up Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to toughen wind turbine regulations during a special session the governor called to pass that bill and others, spokesman for legislative leaders told The Associated Press on Thursday.

However, the demise of the bill seeking a law change doesn't mean Walker is giving up on the issue. The governor's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, said Thursday that he instead will work with lawmakers to achieve the goals of the measure through a change to Public Service Commission rules instead of a new law.

A meeting of a legislative committee that could make the rule change was announced late Thursday afternoon for Wednesday morning.

"Clearly the Republicans' assault on wind energy is not dead," said Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, D-Monona, in a statement. He accused Republicans of protecting themselves from voting on the bill by "manipulating the administrative rules process."

Currently, turbines must be built at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes. Walker wants to push that back to at least 1,800 feet away.

The bill was introduced at Walker's request as part of a special session call he made to pass 10 bills that he said will help spur job creation. The other nine have passed one or both houses of the Legislature and four have been signed into law. But the wind bill never was even scheduled for a public hearing.

Walker, a Republican, has worked incredibly closely and well with the Republican-controlled Legislature. But that strong relationship wasn't enough to rescue the wind bill, which drew vociferous opposition from those in the industry who said it would constitute the greatest regulatory barrier in the country.

The wind bill is dead for now, but might be revived later in the session, said Chris Reader, chief of staff for Sen. Rich Zipperer, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that had the bill.

"It's just an issue the Legislature wants to take a longer, more thoughtful look at," said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. "We don't have any immediate plans to move the special session bill, but the issue certainly isn't going anywhere."

Welhouse said changing PSC rules to make the change was being considered, but there was no solid plan in place. The meeting next week was a public hearing on the issue, but no vote on any proposed rule change was planned.

Renew Wisconsin, which has tracked the growth of the state's renewable sector, had said as much as $1.8 billion in investment may be at stake if every state wind farm now in the planning stage is halted.

Chicago-based Invenergy wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the southern Brown County towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland.

Invenergy's proposal called for the turbines to be set back 1,000 feet from homes or other structures such as schools and churches. A group of residents opposed to that project want the turbines set back 2,450 feet.

Denise Bode of the American Wind Energy Association said the requirement would have put a "closed for business" sign on Wisconsin for wind development.

Walker had argued his proposal would have benefited property owners. The idea had garnered support from the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which said it was needed to protect homeowners near wind turbines.

 SECOND FEATURE

Illinois property value expert says:

No permits should be issued on any wind generation project without a property value guarantee for residents in the turbine area of influence. The impact zone of a wind farm is two to five miles 20 to 40 percent value loss of homes, and the complete losses for people who are forced to walk away from their homes because of wind turbine impacts

TURBINE IMPACTS REVEALED AT COMMUNITY MEETING

SOURCE: The Alpine Sun, www.thealpinesun.com

January 27 2011

By Billie Jo Jannen,

BOULEVARD — A standing-room-only crowd got an earful on the property and health impacts of industrial wind turbines last Wednesday, when experts flew in from Illinois and Canada to speak at an informational meeting held at the Boulevard Fire Station.

Speakers included appraisal consultant Mike McCann, of Chicago, Ill., Carmen Krogh, of Ontario, Canada, Bill Powers, of Powers Engineering, Dave Elliott, of Boulevard, and Donna Tisdale, also of Boulevard.

McCann – whose resume includes real estate zoning evaluations, property value impact studies, analysis of wind turbine generating facilities and evaluation of eminent domain real estate acquisitions – advised residents bluntly that no permits should be issued on any wind generation project without a property value guarantee for residents in the turbine area of influence.

The impact zone of a wind farm is two to five miles, he said. In addition to 20 to 40 percent value loss of homes in that area, there are increased costs of health care, costs to try to retrofit homes to block noise or the strobe light affect of the turbine shadows, and the complete losses of people who are forced to walk away from their homes.

Krogh, a retired pharmacist who networks with health professionals worldwide to track and document wind turbine health affects, said the impacts of both audible and inaudible sound cannot be mitigated: “The only mitigation is to remove the people from the environment they are in,” she said.

Mental and physical afflictions include sleep deprivation, headaches, heart palpitations, vertigo, tinnitus, gastrointestinal problems, anxiety and cognitive impairments, she said.

Matching results are documented in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, Canada and the United States – every country that has industrial turbines have health complaints.

Both McCann and Krogh said that a number of turbine neighbors had walked away from their homes, because they could not live with the impacts and no one would buy their homes. Others must find someplace away from the turbines to sleep and many have had to send their children to live with relatives to clear up various illnesses.

Adequate research on the long-term affects of turbine noise on growing children has not been done, Krogh said. However, according to Arline Bronzaft, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., who spoke at the Oct. 30 International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects from Wind Turbines, many other studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises, such as passing traffic or overhead aircraft, adversely affect children’s cardiovascular systems, memory, language development and ability to learn.

The title of Bronzaft’s presentation was “Children: The Canaries in the Coal Mine.”

In the Boulevard planning are alone, 392 turbines are wending their way through the permitting process, according to Tisdale. Hundreds more are planned in Ocotillo and Jacume, Mexico, immediately south of Jacumba. The current San Diego County wind ordinance makes no provision for property value guarantees.

“I’m calling for a moratorium pending studies of health impacts,” said Tisdale, who recently attended an international symposium of doctors, researchers and other health professionals who have documented wind turbine health effects worldwide.

She said she will be asking that the county permitting process make provision for property value guarantees, relocation of impacted residents, evidence-supported setbacks and protections in the noise ordinance to include low-frequency and infrasound effects. Neither is currently addressed in the county’s noise ordinance.

Krogh brought filmed interviews with wind turbine neighbors from Norway, Canada and Japan. The sound levels from their homes, in some cases, drowned out their voices and the nature of the sound was so distressing that audience members asked that it be turned down.

Krogh is a member of Society for Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, acousticians and other professionals who seek to quantify heath risks and ensure that permitting authorities and wind turbine operators acknowledge and remedy those risks.

So far, she said, there has been great resistance from governments, who seek to provide “green” alternatives and who receive tax money from wind farm profits.

Asked what local clinics might do to mitigate health problems that could develop from proposed area wind farms, Krogh said there literally are none, though local health professionals help by gathering information: “A clinic can assist by documenting impacts to its patients.”

Industrial wind farm operators in the United States and Canada, most of whom receive taxpayer supported benefits and highly favorable permit conditions, resist revelations of adverse effects by requiring property owners from whom they lease lands to sign non-disclosure agreements, McCann said.

The few off-site residents that have received buy-out offers from wind companies are required to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of the buy-out.

McCann added that property value losses are not offset by local jobs or by lease payments to property owners. The leases are often predicated on the power the turbine produces and few of them actually work at maximum capacity. Hence, “They (landowners) aren’t getting what they were promised,” he said.

“Always have a lawyer look at the lease document before you sign it,” he advised.

Among the small print items to be aware of is what it going to happen to the turbine when it is taken out of service. The I-10 in Nevada is littered with the carcasses of turbines that are no longer useful, but they have never been removed, he said.

Large companies further “defuse their liability” by creating smaller limited liability companies to actually own and operate the wind farms, McCann said.

Elliott, a member of the Manzanita Band of Mission Indians, monitors, and tries to mitigate, the cultural impacts of the Sunrise Powerlink and the wind projects. He said that Indian burial sites and other cultural sites in both private and public lands are being destroyed by these projects, with very little effort to protect them.

“This project is all about big business … it’s about trillions of dollars,” Elliott said. “As Native Americans, we’re last on the totem pole.” Elliott said he has encountered hostility from homeowners, who may be mistaking his efforts to identify cultural sites as further intrusion by SDG&E.

“I support the landowners’ efforts to protect their lands,” he said. “I hope the landowners will support our efforts too.”

Several meeting attendees, one who lives as far as two miles from the existing wind farm on Campo Reservation, commented that they can hear the turbines clearly, even inside their homes. McCann said that wind turbine noise can travel up to nine miles in mountain terrain.

Property value impacts start to show up as soon as even the possibility of a project becomes known, according to McCann. The phenomenon even has a name among appraisal professionals: wind farm anticipation stigma.

In a comment paper on the Brucci MET tower on La Posta Road, he asserted that the construction of a meteorological testing tower “serves as constructive notice to existing neighboring property owners and any potential buyers” that wind turbines may come in later – and that is enough to drive homebuyers elsewhere.

According to nolo.com, a law information website, California sellers must disclose any and every natural and manmade hazard that might affect the value of the property. This includes everything from neighborhood nuisances, such as a dog that barks every night, to major hazards like floods, earthquakes, fires, environmental hazards, and other problems. Failure to make the required disclosures not only costs the seller in a lawsuit, but can also carry criminal penalties.

So what is a homeowner to do if his home is untenable and no one else wants it either? “It’s really sad to talk to these people who put their life savings into their homes and then have to walk away from them,” McCann said.

The mass erection of wind turbines near people’s homes is a form of taking from the property owner and giving to the wind developers, he added: “It’s not OK to rob from Peter to pay Paul.”

The county’s wind ordinance calls for permitting requirements to state noise limitations at the property line, but makes no provisions for property value protections or mitigation of health impacts, according to Planning Manager Joe Farace of San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use.

That’s a different realm from what we do,” Farace said. State and federal environmental and planning laws don’t require that these impacts be quantified or mitigated, though the county could, if it wished, explore going beyond those minimums.

“This is so new,” he said. “We’d have to work with county counsel to see what we could do.”

Farace said there are no plans, currently, to pursue such a discussion.

THIRD FEATURE:

WIND PROJECTS BACKED BY TAX CREDITS AND SUBSIDIES

 SOURCE: VPR News, /www.vpr.net

February 3, 2011

by John Dillon

(Last of Three Parts) Most people think of big wind projects as a way to harvest the breezes that blow freely across the earth.

But sophisticated investors look at big wind quite differently. That’s because besides generating electricity, the large-scale projects also involve sophisticated financial instruments that harvest a variety of tax benefits.

In the last of our series on big wind, VPR’s John Dillon has this look at how the projects are financed.

(Dillon) This is a story about finance, tax credits and energy subsidies. So point number one. Almost all energy production is subsidized.

Nuclear power, for example, is backed up by the federal government. If a reactor melts down, the feds are ready to underwrite the monumental insurance costs.

Some oil company subsidies date to the 1920s.

Tax incentives and subsidies for renewable resources are much more recent. Now, says energy developer John Warshow, the government assistance is seen as an essential part of the complex financing for these projects.

(Warshow) “Developing a project is like juggling with being blindfolded and having five balls you got to keep track of. You’ve got your debt financing, your equity financing, your power sales.”

(Dillon) In his younger, scruffier days, Warshow fought nuclear power. He later turned his activism into action. His office wall in Montpelier features pictures of some of the renewable enterprises he’s helped launch, including hydro projects in Vermont and wind in New York state.

Although wind is free, the projects are expensive to start with because of the cost of the turbines, the land and the permitting requirements.

Which leads us to point number two. Because of that expense, private financiers are needed along with the government support. Investors use the tax credits to offset their income.

(Warshow) “Generally there are investors, either individual or corporate investors, who put cash into the project.”

(Dillon) To raise all the money they need, the developers’ financing resembles a multi-layered birthday cake. The tax financing piece is one layer; power sale contracts are another. Loans are yet another piece of the overall package. Warshow outlines the three main incentives used by wind investors. There are direct payments allowed under the recent stimulus bill, tax credits for energy production, and tax credits for investment.

(Warshow) “You can’t do all three, you have to pick which one is most appropriate for you.”

(Dillon) The production tax credit basically cuts the cost of electricity that’s sold. That helps the power producer. The investment tax credit – as the name suggests – is more geared for the investor. Warshow does the math on a hypothetical project that costs $40 million dollars.

(Warshow) “Maybe half of that might be debt so that would be $20 million. And the equity investors would be entitled to 30 percent of that $40 million if they took the tax credit, so that would be $12 million they would get back pretty much instantly on their investment.”

(Downes) “These are tax shelters for the investors. Pure and simple. They are nothing more than that.”

(Dillon) William Downes is a financial analyst in Maine who has looked closely at wind financing. He says the tax credits have a market of their own. They can be bundled and re-sold to companies, hedge funds or individuals.

(Downes) “Whatever investor they bring in is obviously a big institution with a lot of taxable income they want to shelter.”

(Dillon) Downes says companies and investors also take advantage of accounting rules that allow for accelerated depreciation of turbines and other equipment. He says the investments can be lucrative.

(Downes) “So, in effect, the investor will get an after-tax return of 7-8 percent, maybe higher.’

(Dillon) Just as nuclear power wouldn’t be viable without the federal insurance guarantee, many wind projects wouldn’t be built without the various tax breaks.

Green Mountain Power has made this point before the state Public Service Board. The company says it has to have the Lowell Mountain project up and running before the end of December 2012, when the production tax credits expire.

(Dostis) “Without those we would probably shelve the project for a while until either the tax credits were available or economics changed.”

(Dillon) Robert Dostis is a GMP vice president. He says that because GMP’s rates and profits are set by regulators, customers reap the benefits of the tax credits.

(Dostis) “The production tax credit that expires in 2012 is important because it keeps the cost of the project down. And that savings go directly to what the customer pays.”

(Dillon) But there’s still a third point to be made. Even with the tax advantages, wind projects are not guaranteed money-makers.

First Wind in Boston is an example. It’s developing a project in Sheffield in the Northeast Kingdom.

Late last year, the company was poised to sell stock to the public, so its financing is detailed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The documents show the company has high debt and negative cash flow. Spokesman John Lamontagne says tax credits help the company compete with other energy sources.

(Lamontagne) “The tax credits allow renewable energy projects to be operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels also receive significant levels of government assistance.”

(Dillon) But even with the help of the tax credits, First Wind also has about $528 million in long-term debt. The company told the SEC that if it can’t meet the loan terms it could be forced to declare bankruptcy.

It turned out investors weren’t willing to pay what First Wind wanted of them. So it canceled its stock offering. And added to its existing debt. To build the Sheffield project, it borrowed another $76 million.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.

THE NOISE MOVED IN NEXT TO THE HOMEOWNERS

SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

January 27, 2011

By Patrick McIlheran

In Thursday’s Journal Sentinel, I talk with the neighbors of some wind projects. Frankly, I think wind turbines are pretty atop the ridge south of Fond du Lac, but I don’t live near them. Gerry Meyer does, and he recounts just how loud they are — like a jet plane flying over, or like boots in the clothes dryer.

That’s why, he tells me, he thinks the 1,800-foot line specified in Gov. Scott Walker’s bill on wind turbine siting makes sense. It isn’t a setback — rather, the bill simply requires that anyone putting a wind turbine closer than 1,800 feet to a property line get the permission of the owner on the other side.

Wind advocates say that will kill wind power in Wisconsin. It’s “highly unlikely,” said Clean Wisconsin’s Keith Reopelle, that developers would want to negotiate with neighbors, much less pay them compensation, the likely means by which such permission would be gained.

Besides, said Reopelle, it’s not as if wind turbines are the only noisy thing out there. He mentioned how he used to live along the edge of Interstate 90 south of Madison.

“We’ve never talked about monetary compensation for people who live near highways,” he said.

True enough, but there’s a critical difference: I-90 was a freeway long before Reopelle ever moved next to it. By comparison, rural southern Fond du Lac County was field and wood until about two years ago. Characteristic noises would include the footfalls of deer. “I have not seen a deer here since construction began,” said Meyer, and the owls and hawks that used to frequent his woodlot are gone, too. While someone choosing to live near a freeway is moving next to the noise nowadays (since we’re not building new freeways), in the case of wind farms, the noise is moving in.

FAIR AND OPEN PROCESS? MORE LIKE OUTNUMBERED AND IGNORED SAY TURBINES' NEIGHBORS

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

January 27, 2011 By Patrick McIlheran

If you look at my column in Thursday’s Journal Sentinel about wind turbines, you’ll notice one of the people I talked to is Larry Wunsch, who lives 1,100 feet from a turbine near Brownsville.

Wunsch was on the panel that the Public Service Commission assembled to advise it on wind turbine siting rules. The PSC was told by the Doyle administration to trump town and county rules on how far turbines should be from houses, and it picked a number, 1,250 feet, that wind advocates say is plenty far enough.

In fact, say advocates, the number is a compromise — tougher than they wanted but less than what wind farm critics sought. “A fair decision arrived at,” said Denise Bode, head of the American Wind Energy Association. The number was arrived at via an open process involving all kinds of stakeholders, she said.

It’s true that wind turbine critics wanted a farther setback — one figure that gets thrown around is a 2-kilometer setback, or more than 6,000 feet. But that the PSC’s figure is less than critics wanted and more than developers did proves nothing about the process that produced the PSC’s rule.

Was, in fact, the process fair? Not really, says Wunsch. For one thing, the PSC’s panel was heavy with advocates of wind, he notes. By law, it had to include two wind-farm developers, two utility representatives (utilities favor easier wind-farm siting), one university expert, one township official, one county official, two real estate reps (who generally want tighter limits), two wind-farm neighbors, and two members of the general public. In this case, one of the members of the public was a former Doyle functionary; the other was Jennifer Heinzen, who happened to be an offical with RENEW Wisconsin, a pro-wind group. It mean RENEW had two people on the council.

“A member of the public should be Joe down at the bait shop,” said Wunsch, and while you might think so, state law made no such specification.

As for whether the council did much listening, again, Wunsch contends it didn’t. He contends he tried playing recordings he made outside his home of turbine sounds — along with sound-meter readings of between 50 and 60 decibels — and was turned down. He says he later suggested just playing an hour of turbine noise he recorded in his backyard during the proceedings as a show of what neighbors endure. “I was told by chair that I could not do that. Any experiment I tried to bring to them they weren’t interested.”

Obviously, a majority of the council disagreed with Wunsch, but that doesn’t lessen the fact that, however lawful and public the process, the neighbors of wind farms felt they weren’t consulted so much as outnumbered and trumped.

Click on the video above to hear what wind turbines sound like. Video recorded by Gerry Meyer who lives in the Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Project. Video camera microphones aren't sensitive enough to fully record wind turbine noise. Even so, the distinct quality of wind turbine noise is very clear here.

CLICK HERE to read Meyer's daily account of life with wind turbines in The Brownsville Diary,

CONCERNS ARE ADRIFT IN THE WIND

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

January 26, 2011

Patrick McIlheran

If anyone had to ask Gerry Meyer for permission to install a wind turbine 1,560 feet from his house, it isn’t clear he’d have said no.

“At one time, I supported this, because I didn’t know any better,” said Meyer, who lives amid the 86-turbine wind farm south of Fond du Lac, near Brownsville. “I was naive.”

But no one had to ask Meyer anything. As turbines and their neighbors are back in the news, with wind proponents saying Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed change to siting rules will kill wind power in Wisconsin, one thing is becoming clear: Wind backers aren’t doing enough asking or listening to neighbors.

Neighbors are listening, whether they want to or not, to the turbines. Builders say they’re quiet, and Meyer said he believed that – until he stepped outside and looked up for the jet flying over. It was the new turbine nearby. Depending on wind and humidity, any of the five turbines within a mile of his house obtrude on the quiet, whining or thumping “like boots in the dryer.”

Within weeks, his wife and son started having chronic headaches. His wife now suffers constant ringing in her ears. It vanished on vacation. Meyer no longer sleeps much – “The only time I dream is when we go to our cabin,” he said – and he says his blood chemistry’s now a mess. His cortisol returned to normal, and he lost 21 excess pounds when the turbines were off for three weeks. “That should raise a red flag,” he said.

A mail carrier, Meyer talks of dogs grown surly and neighbors who have abandoned farms. One neighbor, Larry Wunsch, 1,100 feet from a turbine, cites “shadow flicker,” when sunlight shines through the blades. “It looks like someone is turning the lights on and off,” he said. The state “says you should be able to put up with that for 40 hours a year.” He can’t. He’s been trying to sell for more than a year.

Elsewhere near Fond du Lac, turbines’ neighbors mention the jet-like noise. “Sometimes it sounds like a racetrack or a plane landing,” Elizabeth Ebertz, 67, of St. Cloud, told the Wisconsin State Journal in August. “They’re just too close to people.” Allen Hass, 56, a Malone farmer, told the paper the rent he got for hosting a turbine couldn’t make up for headaches. “I wish I never made that deal,” he said.

Distance is at issue now that Walker proposes changing the uniform setback the state adopted last year. The Public Service Commission overrode stricter local rules, saying turbines had to be at least 1,250 feet from homes. Walker proposes 1,800 feet from property lines, a distance backers say will kill the wind industry. The existing standard is strict enough, says Denise Bode, head of the American Wind Energy Association, and changing it leaves little room for turbines.

Except Walker’s bill doesn’t say turbines must be 1,800 feet from anything – only that if they’re closer, the neighboring owner must grant permission.

Wind backers feel that’s not workable, says Keith Reopelle of Clean Wisconsin, a group favoring turbines. Neighbors would demand payment, “raising the price of wind power and making wind power less competitive,” he said.

Well, yes, neighbors do complicate things. So do lawsuits, like the one Clean Wisconsin joined to try stopping We Energies’ new low-pollution Oak Creek power plant; the settlement will raise your power bills by $100 million. There are lots of trade-offs in generating electricity, and wind is no exception.

The difference is that with wind, the burden falls heavily on people right next door. It lowers theirproperty value, it affects their health in ways not yet understood and it can be alleviated by paying neighbors for their trouble, a deal that Walker’s bill encourages.

But wind backers aren’t inclined to bargain or even acknowledge a problem. “We live with lots of noises,” such as from roads, said Reopelle. Bode, asked about complaints, replied, “There are always going to be some folks who don’t want development.”

Nothing wrong with development, said Meyer, “but what about our health?” The wind farm, he said, “has completely taken away our quality of life.” Of such complaints, wind’s proponents hear nothing.

SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM

Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for the provisions in Senate Bill 9, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.

 CONTACT

Governor Scott Walker

  govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

RED ALERT!

It's very important that you contact these key legislative committee members and urge them to support this bill and vote to move it forward. Every phone call and email to these committee members matters.

 Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.

-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174   Capitol 323 South

-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R)  Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2635   Capitol 313 South

-Senator Pam Galloway(R)

Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2502   Capitol 409 South

Senator Fred Risser (D)  Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-1627   Capitol 130 South

Senator Jon Erpenbach (D)  Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-6670   Capitol 106 South

 Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
 
Representative Mark Honadel (Chair)

(888) 534-0021 (414) 764-9921 (South Milwaukee)

Rep.honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov


Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair)

(888) 534-0088 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Klenke@legis.wi.gov

Representative Kevin Petersen

(888) 947-0040 (Waupaca)
Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Gary Tauchen

(608) 266-3097 (Bonduel)
Rep.Tauchen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Thomas Larson

(888) 534-0067 (Colfax) new
Rep.Larson@legis.wi.gov

Representative Erik Severson

(888) 529-0028 (Star Prairie) new
Rep.Severson@legis.wi.gov

Representative Chad Weininger

(888) 534-0004 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Weininger@legis.wi.gov

Representative Josh Zepnick

(608) 266-1707 (414) 727-0841 (Milwaukee)
Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Steinbrink

(608) 266-0455 (262) 694-5863 (Pleasant Prairie)
Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Anthony Staskunas

(888) 534-0015 (414) 541-9440 (West Allis)
Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Brett Hulsey

(608) 266-7521 (Madison)
Rep.Hulsey@legis.wi.gov

And be sure to contact your own legislators and encourage them to support the bill.

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate E-Mail Directory

Assembly  E-Mail Directory

SECOND FEATURE

TURBINES, GREEN ENERGY ACT, FACE COURT CHALLENGE

SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

January 27, 2011

By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter,

The fate of Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA), as it relates to wind turbines, might hinge on whether a Divisional Court panel of three Superior Court judges rules that the government should have sought proof that there are no harmful health effects from turbines or rules that the government considered adequately whether a standard setback of 550 metres is safe.

An application for a judicial review, brought by lawyer Eric Gillespie representing Prince Edward County resident Ian Hannah, was heard Monday in Toronto over objections from government lawyer Sara Blake, who argued that the court had no jurisdiction as it involves a wind farm proposal that should be subject to the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) is a party to the hearing but only as “a friend of the court” and so far only apparently to the extent of submitting information. But its position reflects that of the government.

“In our view this application has no merit and should not be before the court. The proper forum for issues related to setbacks for wind turbine projects is through the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process. The REA is designed to ensure that renewable energy projects are developed in a way that is protective of human health, the environment, and Ontario’s cultural and natural heritage,” said CanWEA’s media relations officer, Ulrike Kucera in an email response.

The judges have reserved their decision to allow time to review the complex submissions from both sides, but Wind Concerns Ontario is considering that a victory. It says essentially that to have had the case heard at all was a win, and cites three hurdles that it consider it has overcome.

First hurdle: having the case heard;

Second hurdle: the court heard evidence from experts whom the government side said were unqualified;

Third hurdle: the fact of the reserved judgment, as an indication that the panel is reviewing all submissions – including those of the turbine opponent.

Mr. Gillespie’s submissions generally were that the provincial ministry did not consult doctors and did not follow what is known as “the precautionary principle” by which a proposal should be rejected if there is uncertainty about its effects.

Ms. Blake defended the process of the GEA drafting as, she said, the minister reviewed scientific studies. She said the doctors cited by Mr. Gillespie lacked the (expert) qualifications required, and described one of them as “an advocate against wind farms” because an area near his home is being considered for a possible wind farm.

On Tuesday, Mono council unanimously passed a motion by Councillor Fred Nix, asking the provincial government undertake independent third-party clinical research on the health effects of low-frequency noise from wind turbines on nearby residents.

In an interview, Mr. Nix said the motion was largely symbolic, since municipalities have limited authority under the Ontario Green Energy Act.

“This says to the government what a rural municipality thinks,” said Mr. Nix. “They say a safe setback for turbines is 550 metres.

“Do we have a research that says this is safe? I say we don’t.”

While he admitted a motion passed by a single, relatively small municipality bears practically no weight, Mr. Nix was hopeful the message would bring other towns and cities on side and they could make their collective case through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) or the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA).

“There is strength in numbers, he said,” he said. “We will have a lot more powers if we can get more municipalities on our side.”

The outcome of the court hearing is of vital interest to the Whittington Coalition for Our Right to a Healthy Living Environment, the group opposing a 6.9 megawatt wind turbine installation at Mono- Amaranth Townline and 15 Sideroad, in large part because they believe the 550-metre setbacks are inadequate.

But it is of critical interest to the Ontario government itself as it has been relying on a deal with Samsung and a South Korean turbine service proponent to create thousands of industrial jobs while bolstering Ontario’s production of green wind energy.

THIRD FEATURE

SOURCE: Wind Turbine Syndrome News

Art Lindgren, a leader of the effort opposing excessive noise from Vinalhaven wind turbines, suffered a heart attack last night at a board meeting of the Fox Island Electric Cooperative.

Lindgren had been in the midst of an evening presentation about the reporting by Fox Island Electric to ratepayers and ongoing complaints about violations of state noise standards. The informal entity Mr. Lindgren leads—Fox Islands Wind Neighbors—has urged the  State of Maine to enforce the law against Fox Islands Wind, the turbine operator.

At considerable effort, cost, and often under severe weather conditions, Mr. Lindgren mastered complex acoustic measurements, providing data from wind turbines from this rural, quiet area in Maine.

Lindgren was airlifted from Vinalhaven, ten miles from the Maine coast, by LifeFlight helicopter last night after being resuscitated by observers.

He is under treatment at Eastern Maine Medical Center in Bangor, ME.

Art Lindgren, Vinalhaven, ME

Below, a view of a wind turbine from the Lindgren home

Stray voltage an ongoing issue in wind farm areas

By TROY PATTERSON , KINCARDINE NEWS STAFF

Municipality of Kincardine had an education on the effects of stray voltage and electrical pollution caused by area wind power projects last week.

Ripley's David Colling, an expert and electrical pollution tester, has tested over 300 homes and farms within four Ontario wind projects over the last five years.

After working with stray voltage issues on dairy farms, the added issue of wind turbines was a surprise to him when he discovered electrical pollution in nearby homes.

"I never would have believed this would have happened," said Colling regarding the "wind victims" he has come to know.

Working with other experts in Canada and the United States, Colling is convinced many of the issues surrounding wind power health issues stem from either electrical pollution caused by turbines through their distribution system, or the low frequency noise that comes off the blades. He said people from Ripley, Bruce Township and Shelburne have fallen ill to what he called 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' and 'Electrohypersensitivity' caused inaudible noise and "dirty electricity" polluting the electrical systems of homes within range of wind turbines.

He said people have had to shut their power off, or in worst cases move from their homes. In many of these cases those people have been unable to sell their homes.

"We have four empty homes in Ripley due to this," he said, adding the wind company has attempted to resolve the issue by burying power lines but with limited effects.

Colling gave a detailed presentation with photos and figures to back up his claims, along with examples of his electrical tests in the area. He said "Harmonic Distortion' is something that has been acknowledged by wind companies, although they dismiss the other impacts, he said.

"And I know more people out there who are sick," he said. "I didn't ask for this. I just happened to be dropped into an area where it's happening."

Counc. Ron Coristine said he found the presentation "deeply troubling" and said the data should be used to continue the wind power debate in the area.

"As long as there is a debate, it's our responsibility to engage in it," said Coristine. "It's not good enough for us to ignore this. We shouldn't have to be an electrical engineer to protect ourselves from electricity."

Colling said the issues will continue and for council to be mindful, as the area is on an "outdated, overloaded (electrical) system," where this is bound to continue, he said.

WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:

 Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.

Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations.  Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.

When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.

The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.

Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.

The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.

Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.

PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.  The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.  

SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM

Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for the provisions in Senate Bill 9, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

RED ALERT!

It's very important that you contact these key legislative committee members and urge them to support this bill and vote to move it forward. Every phone call and email to these committee members matters.

 Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.

-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174   Capitol 323 South

-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R)  Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2635   Capitol 313 South

-Senator Pam Galloway(R)

Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2502   Capitol 409 South

Senator Fred Risser (D)  Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-1627   Capitol 130 South

Senator Jon Erpenbach (D)  Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-6670   Capitol 106 South

 Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
 
Representative Mark Honadel (Chair)

(888) 534-0021 (414) 764-9921 (South Milwaukee)
Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair)

(888) 534-0088 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Klenke@legis.wi.gov

Representative Kevin Petersen

(888) 947-0040 (Waupaca)
Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Gary Tauchen

(608) 266-3097 (Bonduel)
Rep.Tauchen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Thomas Larson

(888) 534-0067 (Colfax) new
Rep.Larson@legis.wi.gov

Representative Erik Severson

(888) 529-0028 (Star Prairie) new
Rep.Severson@legis.wi.gov

Representative Chad Weininger

(888) 534-0004 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Weininger@legis.wi.gov

Representative Josh Zepnick

(608) 266-1707 (414) 727-0841 (Milwaukee)
Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Steinbrink

(608) 266-0455 (262) 694-5863 (Pleasant Prairie)
Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Anthony Staskunas

(888) 534-0015 (414) 541-9440 (West Allis)
Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Brett Hulsey

(608) 266-7521 (Madison)
Rep.Hulsey@legis.wi.gov

And be sure to contact your own legislators and encourage them to support the bill.

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate E-Mail Directory

Assembly  E-Mail Directory

THE LATEST ON THE ONTARIO WIND LAWSUIT:

UPDATED JANUARY 24, 2011

ONTARIO LAWYER CHALLENGES CREDIBILITY OF LEADING WITNESSES IN CHALLENGE TO WIND FARM LAW

Read it at the Source: Ottawa Citizen

January 24, 2010

By Lee Greenberg

TORONTO — An Ontario government lawyer attacked the credibility of three star witnesses in a key legal challenge to the province’s new green energy legislation.

Sara Blake said Dr. Robert McMurtry and two other physicians, who cast doubt on the safety of wind turbines, are not reliable witnesses.

The three are named as experts in the case brought against the government by Prince Edward County property owner Ian Hanna. Hanna and his fellow anti-wind campaigners believe turbines emit low-frequency noise that lead to a range of health problems, including sleep deprivation, stress, chronic depression and even cardiovascular disease.

The case is the first major test of new regulations introduced in September 2009, four months after the province passed its Green Energy Legislation. According to those new rules, wind turbines will have to be placed a minimum of 550 meters from the nearest home.

That “setback” is at the centre of Monday’s court challenge.

Hanna and his backers say the government failed to fully examine the medical studies on the health affects of turbines. The government denies the claim.

Blake says McMurtry, an orthopedic surgeon and former medical school dean who also has advised the federal government on health policy, is neither an expert on the issue of noise emissions nor is he impartial.

He and the other two doctors cited in the court challenge all took an interest in wind turbines because they were being built near their homes, the prosecutor said. (McMurtry, who is the brother of former Ontario chief justice and attorney general Roy McMurtry, owns property in Prince Edward County and is the founding member of an anti-wind group there).

Blake said McMurtry expresses opinions in a deposition that he is not qualified to give.

“This is pure advocacy,” she told a three-member panel at Osgoode Hall in Toronto Monday. “He is not an expert ... It is the belief of a passionate person.”

She also cast aspersions on the study of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, who concluded people living within 1.1 kilometres of a wind farm in Maine suffered numerous health affects, including hearing problems, increased psychiatric symptoms and overall increased use of prescription medication.

The study is not published and is not peer reviewed, she said.

Eric Gillespie, the lawyer for Hanna and the anti-wind advocacy group behind him, contends that the rule placing turbines 550 meters from the nearest house was made without sufficient scientific evidence.

But under questioning from the three judges hearing the case, Gillespie acknowledged the science is inconclusive on the health effects of turbines.

He also takes issue with the fact that a planning expert — and not a public health expert — reviewed the science on the impacts of turbines.

“On a matter of human health it is not enough to have a land use planner say we considered it,” he said in court.

Gillespie also withdrew a request for an injunction on all new wind farms in Ontario. He is asking the court to strike down regulations laying out the 550-meter setback. It is unclear what sort of temporary regulations would emerge if he is successful in the request.

It is unknown when — if at all — the court will issue a decision on Monday’s one-day hearing.

While the three judges listened to arguments, they are also considering an argument by the attorney general that the case should be sent to an environmental tribunal.

Previous story:

The Green Challange

SOURCE: Owen Sound Sun Times

January 24, 2011

Jonathan Sher

Ian Hanna has asked an Ontario court to strike down part of the province's Green Energy Act, enlisting doctors who argue human health was compromised when the act created a buffer of only 550 metres between wind turbines and homes.

* If Hanna prevails, the burgeoning wind industry could grind to a halt until medical studies are done.

* The lobby group for the wind industry has intervened in the case.

* The Ontario government dismisses medical claims as irrelevant and says Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for a challenge.

* Three judges in Toronto will hear evidence Monday and Tuesday.

- - -

Health effects

Several doctors are saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including:

* Headaches

* Irritability

* Problems with concentration and memory

* Dizziness

* Tinnitus

* Rapid heart rate

* Nausea

- - -

'The right thing to do'

Last week Free Press Reporter Jonathan Sher spoke with the Prince Edward County man who sought the judicial review, Ian Hanna, and his Toronto lawyer, Eric Gillespie. Below are excerpts of their conversation:

Q Prior to getting involved with wind turbines had you been involved with environmental issues or activism?

Hanna: No to both questions.

Q You never led petitions before, subscribed to newsletters on environmental issues or tried to interject yourself into public debate?

That's absolutely correct.

Q What things attracted you to move to Big Island from the GTA?

The idea of a more rural atmosphere appealed to us. The openness, the stars, the birds. You have to come here sometime and walk outside on a summer's afternoon. It's just unbelievable.

Q What about adverse health effects of wind turbines?

People appear to be emotionally drained, unable to really function on a calm, natural basis. We know people can't sleep properly at all when they are close to industrial wind turbines . . . They appeared to be very tortured by the effects.

Q Why did you continue to pursue the case even though your home and Big Island no longer in harm's way?

Because it's the right thing to do. I have three children who if I gave them nothing else . . . I think I at least gave them the strength or assisted them with gaining the strength to stand up for what they believe in and for what's right.

Q How has the legal action been financed?

We put every cent we could put in to it so far and if we have to put more, we'll find it . . . 100% of the money that's been contributed has come from people just like us, other families all over Ontario . . .

Q How much has been raised so far? Ballpark?

Close to $200,000

Q How are you feeling as you head toward the hearing in Toronto?

I'm excited, I'm confident, I'm grateful for the incredible capable way it's been handled . . . and to be really fair I'm exceedingly sad and disappointed . . . It's all been based on facts and realities and truths coming from just regular people like myself who have no axe to grind with anybody beyond the fact that we're frightened by the potential of this, yet, the other side has done one thing and one thing only: They've circled their wagons.

WIND ON TRIAL

A burgeoning billion-dollar industry and the political fortunes of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals may turn on a legal challenge by a single man whose day in court arrives Monday.

Ian Hanna lives far away from the corridors of power in Queens Park and Bay Street in a century-old farmhouse on Big Island in Prince Edward County. But Monday he finds himself in the epicentre of a debate that could shape the economic future of the province and the political fate of the ruling Liberals.

It's a fight over wind turbines that have been rising across Ontario with ever greater frequency, an industry the Liberal government has subsidized with plans to double its energy capacity in this year alone.

But those plans in Queens Park -- really the heart of the Green Energy Act -- were placed in judicial crosshairs 15 months ago. That's when Hanna, 58, challenged a provision that creates a buffer of only 550 metres between turbines and homes.

Several doctors have lined up behind Hanna's challenge, saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate, irritability and problems with concentration and memory.

Those concerns have been dismissed as irrelevant by lawyers representing the Ontario government, who instead will try to convince three judges in Toronto that Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for his claim -- that there is no provision in the Green Energy Act itself or elsewhere that allows a citizen to challenge a regulation.

The dismissive approach concerns Hanna's lawyer Eric Gillespie.

"That's been a significant concern for all the experts that are part of this process on behalf of Mr. Hanna. These are medical doctors from Ontario, the United States and England, all of whom have seen what they believe to be first-hand sufficient evidence to say that industrial wind turbines do pose a very real risk to residents," Gillespie said.

Gillespie is an environmental lawyer who cases include one that landed a $36-million award since appealed.

The government's decision to object solely on procedural grounds worries the wind industry that over the next 20 years has planned about $20 billion in investments that would be subsidized by Ontario taxpayers.

A lawyer for the Canadian Wind Energy Association declined to comment about Hanna's case but did provide a copy of its written arguments.

An Ontario Environment Ministry spokesperson defended the Green Energy Act.

"Our process is based on science, modelling and jurisdictional comparisons. It will be protective of public health and the environment," Kate Jordan said.

Read more about the Ian Hanna Legal Challenge:

Application for Judicial Review against the Ontario government goes to court Jan. 24-25

CLICK HERE for Donation Information

Second Feature:

JUDGE SETS ECOGEN, PRATTSBURGH HEARING

SOURCE Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com

January 23, 2011

By Mary Perham,

Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.

The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.

Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.

Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.

Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.

“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.

Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”

Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.

Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.

An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.

Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.

“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.

Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.

“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.

In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.

The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.

FROM OUR 'WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?' VIDEO FILE-- Or Why aren't those turbines turning?

AND: What they're finding out about big wind in Taiwan

SECOND FEATURE

PRATTSBURGH RESIDNETS UPDATED ON WIND FARM LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com

December 5 2010

By Mary Perham,

Prattsburgh — An informational meeting Tuesday night on the status of a lawsuit between a wind energy company and the town of Prattsburgh drew sharp lines between a divided town and a divided town board.

Ed Hourihan, the attorney defending the town in the lawsuit filed by wind farm developer Ecogen, told a crowd of 100 residents state Supreme Court Justice Ark has given the two groups time to reach an out-of-court agreement.

He said John Calloway, a representative from Ecogen’s largest shareholder, Pattern Energy, has agreed to talk to representatives from Prattsburgh and the neighboring town of Italy. Italy also is being sued by Ecogen on a related wind farm matter.

Ecogen maintains an agreement reached 3-2 by the outgoing pro-wind Prattsburgh town board in December is binding, despite the fact the new town board rescinded the agreement 4-1 the following January.

The majority of the new board believes the December agreement violates a number of laws, including the right to home rule.

Hourihan said the new board’s action prevented Ecogen from going ahead with its plans to build a 16-turbine wind farm in the town.

He said other court decisions support the new board’s action.

“It’s safe to say had the board not rescinded the settlement you could have turbines in your backyards right now,” Hourihan said.

Preventing the construction didn’t please some residents, who said they had wanted the project to go forward this year.

“You came in and stopped something (a lot of us) wanted,” one woman said.

But the cost of the lawsuit – pegged this year at $49,393 – was the chief concern of the meeting, with some angrily charging other legal costs had been hidden.

Hourihan also privately represented councilmen Chuck Shick and Steve Kula in the fall of 2009, and some residents charged those bills were hidden in the town costs.

However, Hourihan said his bill itemized every action taken on behalf of the town after Jan. 1. Any personal – or town — expenses in 2009 had not been charged to the town, he said.

Hourihan said current town Supervisor Al Wordingham told him the new board was not authorized to pay $35,000 for legal services last year.

“Now, would I like the money? Sure,” Hourihan said. “But I’m not getting it.”

When councilwoman Stacey Bottoni pointed out the town had apparently paid Kula’s and Shick’s final account, they said they would check out the $200 fee, and repay it if a mistake had occurred.

Bottoni, who supports Ecogen, also complained she had been “kept in the dark” about the bills. Hourihan said the information has always been available to here.

But Bottoni said she relied on frequent calls to Ecogen representatives for her information.

“Well, and that concerns me, Stacey,” Hourihan said, adding her contacts with Ecogen seemed to violation of client-attorney confidentiality.”

Other concerns were raised about the proposed talks with Calloway. Prattsburgh officials have suggested the developer use its original 100-site map to find other locations and reduce noise levels.

One resident asked if property owners in those other locations had been contacted to see if they wanted the 400-foot tall turbines on their land.

Kula questioned whether the town government could approach owners, but said it might be possible to form a citizens’ committee.

Bottoni angrily countered Ecogen already has spent millions on the project and doesn’t want to spend more money for new studies.

However, Shick pointed out the basic environmental studies for all the sites have been completed.

Some residents were worried because action on another ruling by Arkhas been put on hold while the parties try to work out a compromise.

Arksupported the town’s request for sworn statements from the previous town board and other officials on the events that led to the December agreement. The deadline for the statements was Nov. 24.

Hourihan said he notified Arkthe sworn statements would be delayed because of the proposed talks.

Hourihan said it would cost the town $25,000 to get the statements – and might be unnecessary if a compromise was reached.

Bottoni told the group the town was trying to prove the town illegally sided with the developer. She said there had been no illegal collusion.

“We wanted it,” she said. “We’ve wanted it for three years.”

SECOND FEATURE

WIND MILL NOISE LIMIT STILL UP IN THE AIR

 SOURCE: Journal and Courier, www.jconline.com

December 4 2010

By Dorothy Schneider,

As wind energy farms prepare to sprout in Tippecanoe County, some residents are fighting a proposal that would allow for more noise — and they fear nuisance — from the developments.

“This is not just a ‘I can’t stand that mosquito’ kind of noise,” said county resident Julie Peretin. “This is about quality of life.”

Peretin and other concerned neighbors are fighting a move being considered by the Tippecanoe County commissioners that would allow turbine noise to be as loud as 50 decibels any time of day, up from the current 45-decibel limit.

That’s the allowable noise level — about the sound of quiet dishwasher — as measured 25 feet from the dwelling of a non-participating landowner.

A non-participating landowner is one who has not permitted construction of a wind turbine on his or her property and who has not contractually granted rights to a wind farm developer, under the ordinance.

The board was due to vote on the proposal Monday, but the decision is being pushed back to the Dec. 20 meeting while further research is done on the issue. Commissioner Tom Murtaugh said the county is getting additional input from an acoustic consultant out of Chicago.

That extra consideration is one of the steps residents like Peretin have been pushing for.

The commissioners approved an ordinance in August that set the wind turbine noise limit at 45 decibels. Peretin said she and others had wanted the limit set at 35 decibels.

Lobbied for change

After the 45-decibel limit was set in August, representatives of wind energy companies sought the change to 50 decibels. Commissioners said even at 50 decibels the county’s wind ordinance would remain one of the strictest in the state.

Murtaugh hopes the consultant review will help decide if the county’s sound limit is still in an OK range “so we can put this issue to bed.” The commissioner said ordinances often need to be changed after the fact, but he doesn’t expect the county would have to make many substantive changes beyond the ones being considered.

Official plans for Tippecanoe County’s first wind farm were announced in early September.

Carmel-based Performance Services plans to build a 25-turbine wind farm on about 2,500 acres in the northwest part of the county.

In the southwestern part of Tippecanoe County, Invenergy Wind LLC of Chicago is planning a wind farm with 133 turbines.

Greg Leuchtmann, development manager for Invenergy’s project, spoke in support of the proposed noise limit changes at last month’s meeting.

Comparable noise

According to Purdue’s audiology department, 50 decibels of sound equates to the noise of soft talking, a washing machine, a quiet air conditioner or an electric toothbrush.

But the sound levels are not the only issue in play, according to Carmen Krogh.

Krogh, a board member with The Society for Wind Vigilance in Canada, is helping collect information from people worldwide who’ve reported adverse health impacts from living close to wind turbines.

Krogh is a retired pharmacist who used to work with a group that monitored symptoms and reports after new drugs were released on the market. Now she’s trying to carry that practice into the study of wind energy developments, which she and others believe merit further scrutiny.

“We’re finding the number one issue (being reported) is sleep disturbance,” Krogh said. “If it’s chronic, that can lead to sleep deprivation, and medically it can lead to a lot of other conditions,” such as anxiety, stress and cognitive issues.

Debra Preitkis-Jones, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said wind plants are generally quiet and that developers try to be good neighbors.

And she pointed to a report from the chief medical officer of health in Ontario — where Krogh and others are collecting information — that found no scientific evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

But Krogh said there’s simply too many unknowns. In the absence of human health studies, she said, companies have been relying on computer models to determine proper setbacks and noise levels.

“We would never put out a new drug without figuring out the impact to the human body,” she said. “Our position (on wind turbines) is we really need to pause and conduct the human health studies that correlate.”

Tippecanoe County officials dismissed a request residents made earlier this year to put a moratorium on wind farm developments here.

But Peretin said she’s still optimistic that the county will work with acoustic professionals through this process to make sure the quality of life for residents is protected.

Want to comment?

The Tippecanoe County commissioners will discuss and vote on the wind energy ordinance when they meet at 10 a.m. on Dec. 20.

The board also will meet at 10 a.m. Monday, and it takes public comment at all commissioners meetings.

The meetings are held in the Tippecanoe Room of the County Office Building, 20 N. Third St. in Lafayette.

Symptoms

Some of the symptoms that have been linked to living in close proximity to wind turbines include:
# Sleep disturbance
# Headache
# Dizziness, vertigo
# Ear pressure or pain
# Memory and concentration deficits
# Irritability, anger
# Fatigue, loss of motivation

Source: Audiology Today