Better Plan, Wisconsin

Video of a home in an Ontario wind project

WIND HISTORIAN AND BOOSTER URGES REMOTE LOCATIONS FOR NEW WIND TURBINES

Via aeinews.org

Book review by Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute

January 2, 2011

On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”  

He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response.  Now I realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”

A new book, Windfall: Wind Energy in America Today, by historian Robert Righter,  was recently published by University of Oklahoma Press.  Righter also wrote an earlier history of wind energy, published by UofO Press in 1996.  In the intervening years, of course, the wind industry has blossomed from its initial mini-boom-and-bust in the California hills (Altamont, anyone?), with bigger turbines, larger government incentives, and growing commitment to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electric generation all leading Righter to feel that an update was in order.

As a hearty advocate of wind energy and continued rapid growth of the industry, Righter will startle many with his strong call for not building turbines “where they are not wanted.”  He spends chunks of three chapters addressing the increasing problems caused by wind farm noise in rural communities, chides developers for not building farther from unwilling neighbors, and says that new development should be focused on the remote high plains, rather than more densely populated rural landscapes in the upper midwest and northeast.  While not ruling out wind farms in the latter areas, he calls for far more sensitivity to the quality of life concerns of residents. (Ed. note: Righter’s book shares a title with, but should be clearly distinguished from, a recent documentary investigating local anti-wind backlash in a NY town.)

Righter seems to be especially sensitive to the fact that today’s turbines are huge mechanical intrusions on pastoral landscapes, a far cry from the windmills of earlier generations.  At the same time, he suggests that a look back at earlier technological innovations (including transmission lines, oil pump jacks, and agricultural watering systems) suggests that most of us tend to become accustomed to new intrusions after a while, noting that outside of wilderness areas, “it is difficult to view a landscape devoid of a human imprint.”

He acknowledges the fact that impacts on a few can’t always outweigh the benefits for the many in generating electricity without burning carbon or generating nuclear waste, but goes on to ask:

No matter how admirable this is, should a few people pay the price for benefits to the many?  Should rural regions lose the amenities and psychological comforts of living there to serve the city?  Should metropolitan areas enjoy abundant electricity while rural people forfeit the very qualities that took them to the countryside in the first place?  The macro-scale benefits of wind energy seldom impress local opponents, who have micro-scale concerns.  The turbines’ benefits are hardly palpable to impacted residents, whereas the visual impact is a constant reminder of the loss of a cherished landscape.

Righter also takes a realistic stance about the fact that our appetite for electricity leads to inevitable conflicts wherever we might want to generate it. He says, “…wind turbines are ugly – but the public produced the problem and must now live with it.  Turbine retribution is the price we must pay for a lavish electrical lifestyle.”

But unlike most wind boosters, he doesn’t content himself with this simple formulation.  He goes on to stress that even as recently as 2000, most experts felt that technical hurdles would keep turbines from getting much bigger than they were then (500kW-1MW).  The leaps that have taken place, with 3MW and larger turbines in new wind farms, startle even him:  ”They do not impact a landscape as much as dominate it….Their size makes it practically impossible to suggest that wind turbines can blend technology with nature.”  He joins one of his fellow participants in a cross-disciplinary symposium on NIMBY issues, stressing:  ”Wind energy developers must realize the ‘important links among landscape, memory, and beauty in achieving a better quality of life.’  This concept is not always appreciated by wind developers, resulting in bitter feeling, often ultimately reaching the courts.”

He was obviously touched by the experience of Dale Rankin and several neighbors in Texas, who were affected by the 421-turbine Horse Hollow Wind Farm.  Righter generally agrees with my experience there, that such wide open spaces seem the perfect place for generating lots of energy from the wind.  But two of these hundreds of turbines changed Rankin’s life. These two sat between his house and some wooded hills, and Righter says that to him, “the turbines seemed inappropriate for this bucolic scene.  For the Rankins the change is a sad story of landscape loss…”  He asked whether the developer had talked with them before siting the turbines here, but they hadn’t, since the land belonged to a neighbor and local setback requirements were met, so “the utility company placed the turbines where its grid pattern determined they should be.  Perhaps such a policy represents efficiency and good engineering, but (reflects) arrogance and poor public relations….(The developer) crushed Rankin with their lawyers when fairness and reason could have ameliorated the situation…the company could well have compromised on the siting of two turbines.  But they did not.”

On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”  He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response.  Now i realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”

While offering many nods to the constructive role of better public engagement early in the planning stages and making the case for societal needs sometimes outweighing those of a few neighbors, Righter also stresses:

While some objections to wind farms are clearly economically inspired and quite political in nature, no one can deny the legitimacy of many NIMBY responses.  When the electrical power we want intrudes on the landscapes we love, there will be resistance, often passionate.  This is part of the democratic process.  The vocal minority, if indeed it is a minority, has a legitimate right  to weigh the pros and cons of wind development in the crucible of public opinion, in public hearings, and if necessary in our court system.

As a bottom line, and despite his support for the industry and belief that we may learn to appreciate a landscape with more turbines, Righter calls strongly for new development to proceed in ways that minimize or eliminate intra-community conflict.  Recounting one of many stories of a community torn apart by hard feelings between nearby neighbors (at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in New York), he concludes:

Should the wind companies shoulder the blame?  I believe they should.  Good corporate citizens must identify potential problems and take action, and that action should precede final placement of the wind turbines….The most optimal ridge need not be developed at the expense of residents’ rights to the enjoyment of their property.

“In the final analysis,” writes Righter, “we can best address the NIMBY response by building wind turbines where they are wanted…and where they do not overlap with other land use options.”  He elaborates:

Conversely, wind developers should give serious consideration to not insisting on raising turbines where they are not wanted…Unlike Europe, our nation has land.  there are vast areas of the United States that have excellent wind resources and welcome the wind turbines….We can hope the industry will adopt the attitude of Bob Gates, a Clipper Wind Power vice president: “If people don’t want it, we’ll go someplace else.”  Fortunately, the country can accommodate him.

Righter also stresses that current setbacks requirements encourage the building of wind farms in ways that almost inevitably cause heartbreaking problems for some neighbors.  While at one point he makes the mistaken assumption that most setback limits are already a half mile or more, he addresses in some detail the findings of a 2007 report from the National Research Council’s Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects.  Righter observes that scientific difficulties with subjectivity led the committee to “shy away from the most important subject,” the impacts on humans, including social impacts on community cohesion and psychological responses to controversial projects. But he’s pleased to note:

Yet they did address one key impact on human beings: the fact that those individuals and families who suffer negative visual or noise effects from the turbines live too close to them.  This is not the fault of the homeowners, for in most cases the home was erected before the wind turbines arrived.  Usually it is attributable to local government regulations, which often allow setbacks of only 1,000 feet.  Significantly, in their study the NRC’s wind committeee observed that ‘the most significant impacts are likely to occur within 3 miles of the project, with impacts possible from sensitive viewing areas up to 8 miles from projects.’

One might expect that this would preclude setbacks of less than at least a mile.  But the industry prefers setbacks measured in feet rather than miles.

Righter’s book also includes chapters addressing grid integration, government incentives, reliability, and smaller turbines.  He repeatedly makes the case for more research and development into smaller, vertical axis turbines, which, even with their smaller outputs, could be far more acceptable in many locations where landscape disruption and noise issues are paramount.  Anti-wind campaigners won’t find Righter to be very comfortable company, for he sees the technological and grid challenges as easily surmountable, and the government support and investment in the industry as both warranted and of proper scale. He also supports various efforts to achieve better community consensus, including making royalty payments to those not hosting turbines.  Make no mistake, this is an avid supporter of the industry.

Indeed, his long history and his deep knowledge of wind energy make his final recommendations about siting all the more striking.  Righter’s experience and stance has fueled my confidence that the path AEI has been pointing to for the past year or so is more than the pipe dream of a tiny non-advocacy nonprofit.  Larger setbacks, to protect unwilling neighbors from quality of life upheavals, combined with easements obtained via royalty-sharing or annual payments to neighbors who don’t mind hearing turbines a bit more often, is a fair and promising path forward.

As Righter says in his conclusion:

The days of an oil patch mentality of greed and boom-bust cycles are about over.  Most developers understand that it is in their best interest to operate openly and in good faith with the local community.  More problematical is the question of landscape.  Wind turbines placed in a pleasing agrucultural, scenic, or historic landscape evoke anger and despair.  At the heart of the issue is visual blight. Residents do not want to look at the turbines and are willing to fight wind development.  Their wishes should be respected.

Wind developers should take to heart geographer Martin Pasqualetti’s advice: “If developers are to cultivate the promise of wind power, they should not intrude on favored (or even conspicuous) landscapes, regardless of the technical temptations these spots may offer.”  The nation is large.  Wind turbines do not have to go up where they are not wanted.  We can expand the grid and put them where they are welcome.

NEXT FEATURE

From CNN

NEXT FEATURE

From The Waubra Foundation

From ABC

FROM ILLINOIS

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to this December 20th news article , wind company NextEra  (formerly Florida Power and Light) has quietly settled with DeKalb County residents who brought a lawsuit against them.

Details of the settlement are unknown, however, a website that chronicled the  Hulthen family's daily experience of living with turbine noise and shadow flicker in the NextEra wind project is suddenly gone from the web.

Wind companies often refuse to settle unless a gag-order is part of the deal. Was this one of the terms of the settlement? Is this why the website is gone?

Residents of a wind project in DeKalb Illinois talk about their experiences.

uploaded to YouTube by preservelenoxmtn on Dec 31, 2011

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen | "Life with Dekalb Turbines" | February 5, 2011 | Blissfield Middle School

The Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a group opposing the location of wind turbines in Riga, Ogden and Fairfield townships, hosted a seminar at the Blissfield Middle School.

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen spoke on "Life with Dekalb Turbines". They are from DeKalb County, IL. They live in the middle of an industrial wind farm. There are thirteen industrial wind turbines located within one mile of their home, two within 1400 feet

Next features:

A letter from North Dakota:

Subject: Life with turbines
From: Paul L Meisel Photography
Date: Sat, May 07, 2011 5:55 pm
To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com

Hello,

I happened to hear you on KTLK a couple of weeks ago. I live south of
Minot, ND. A year and a half ago a wind farm of approximately 80
turbines was installed south of Minot. There are 42 in my township, the
nearest one is a little over one mile from me.

I have a 50% hearing loss, yet even on relatively calm days I can hear
the sound of the turbines. And on windy days I can feel them. It is as
if a diesel truck was idling nearby. I can hear that sound while in my
house, but not when I go outside. Therefore I conclude that it is caused
by low frequency sound or perhaps earth vibrations which cause my house
to vibrate. I now experience occasional vertigo and nausea often while
the low sound is occurring.

Driving near the turbines in winter can be dangerous. Ice dislodges from
the turbine blades, and if the wind is in the right speed and direction
the ice pieces land on the road. I have had several hit my car at night.

It was quite disconcerting.

Opposing wind development is not a very popular activity in this area.
When a neighbor and I tried to speak in opposition to the turbines at
our annual township meeting, we were quickly told that our opinions did
n

ot matter.

Prior to the turbines this was on a prime Bald Eagle migration path. I
have only seen one Baldy since the turbines went up. Also, this area was
an overnight stopping point for Sandhill Cranes. Accompanying the
Sandhills I would occasionally see Whooping Cranes. Now the cranes avoid
the region. Speaking out publicly is strongly discouraged and I am not
aware of any local action groups.

There is nothing which can be done up here, it is all too late. However
I am devoted to helping others avoid what has happened here. If I can
help in any way, please let me know. Also, I am attaching a photo of a
local turbine which experienced a blade failure several days ago. The
wind was less than 50 knots when the incident occurred (I maintain my
own weather station). Feel free to use and disseminate the image.

Regards,
Paul L Meisel

From Lee County, Illinois

A LOT OF NOISE ABOUT NOISE

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

VIA www.saukvalley.com

December 30,  2011

John Martin of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, which is planning a three-county wind farm, suggested that the county could collect from landowners with unreasonable complaints by placing liens on their properties.

DIXON – The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals had planned to discuss at its meeting Thursday the controversial issue of how far wind turbines should be from homes.

Instead, the panel discussed another issue that had gone unresolved in a previous meeting — noise regulations for wind farms.

After 2 hours of debate, the five-member board decided to delay a vote on proposed noise rules.

Member Mike Pratt presented a proposal for noise that would require wind energy companies to conduct sound studies before and after turbines are built – all paid by the firms.

No such assessments are required under the current ordinance.

The proposal also includes a complaint procedure. After a complaint is made, an investigation would be conducted. If the property owner’s complaint is determined to be reasonable, the wind energy company would pay for the study’s costs.

But if the complaint is deemed unreasonable, the property owner must pay. Members of the audience said such studies cost thousands of dollars.

Under the proposal, both the company and the property owner would put money in an escrow account before the investigation.

The complaint procedure would apply to property owners within a mile of a turbine.

Members of the audience suggested wind energy companies pay for the costs of investigations. They said that if property owners had to front some money, that would deter them from complaining.

Pratt said the provision was included to avoid frivolous complaints. But others, including member Tom Fassler, questioned whether there would be such a problem.

Fassler, who lives near turbines, said noise is an “elusive thing” and that turbines’ noise can be bothersome one day but not the next.

He acknowledged that much of the discussion of decibel levels was “over my head.”

John Martin of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, which is planning a three-county wind farm, suggested that the county could collect from landowners with unreasonable complaints by placing liens on their properties.

Some audience members groaned.

Fassler responded, “If you were out of compliance, what are you going to do for the years that you interfered with people’s lives?”

Martin then proposed companies could pay for the first investigation of a complaint, but property owners would have to put up money for subsequent ones.

“That would penalize landowners,” said Rick Porter, a Rockford attorney representing a Lee County farm.

Porter encouraged the county to include a specific limit for turbines’ noise – 5 decibels above background noise. That number has been suggested by experts, he said.

Pratt’s proposal called for following Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations. Others pointed out that those rules were created before wind farms.

The board’s chairman, Ron Conderman, repeatedly tried to wrap up the discussion on noise regulations and get a vote. In the end, members agreed to hold off.

The panel has been meeting for 6 months to review the county’s wind ordinance. The Lee County Board will have the final say.

From Massachusetts

REMARKS PRESENTED ON WIND TURBINES TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH

Louise Barteau,

VIA www.southcoasttoday.com

December 29, 2011

Editor’s note: Louise Barteau made the following remarks to the Board of Health on Dec. 19.

By Louise Barteau

As I watched online videos or read many first-person accounts in the studies, I was struck by how often the folks telling their stories were originally in favor of the wind turbines, but later were accused in their own communities of being liars — despite having suffered unexplained and debilitating physiological symptoms, and often the complete disruption of their economic life as their houses lost 30, 50 or 100 per cent of their value.

I try to imagine what that might feel like, to feel physically ill, to not be able to live in your house, and then be accused of being a liar.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Louise Barteau and I am an artist, a writer, and an environmentalist. I used to teach art to Grades 3-6 at an elementary school. My late husband was a pediatrician. I care deeply about both sustainable energy as well as the health and well-being of children and adults in our community.

When I spoke at the School Committee meeting last week, I had just located the August issue of the Bulletin of Science Technology and Society and read the abstracts. I have since obtained the whole articles, read them, and submitted them to the committee. If you want to get a crash course in the Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Public Health, Wind Turbine Noise, Infrasound, and other scientific aspects of IWTs, I highly recommend these articles.

The reason the information in them should be highly valued is that they have been submitted, reviewed and accepted by an academic journal that reviews them for accuracy and good science. It further requires the authors to disclose any financial support or conflict of interest.

This is important because information funded by the wind industry has an innate tendency to suppress dangerous safety information because it will lower demand for their product. If wind turbines are perceived to be dangerous, it will be harder to sell them to towns like Fairhaven.

But although I respect the science behind the journal articles, I also value highly the first person accounts of ordinary citizens like myself. These reports should also be considered as data. As I watched online videos or read many first-person accounts in the studies, I was struck by how often the folks telling their stories were originally in favor of the wind turbines, but later were accused in their own communities of being liars — despite having suffered unexplained and debilitating physiological symptoms, and often the complete disruption of their economic life as their houses lost 30, 50 or 100 per cent of their value.

I try to imagine what that might feel like, to feel physically ill, to not be able to live in your house, and then be accused of being a liar. When many citizens living next to wind turbines first started reporting their symptoms, there wasn’t much independent science available to back them up and there wasn’t any context to understand their symptoms, so they were met with a lot of scepticism. A certain amount of scepticism is healthy, but to completely discount people’s experiences makes no sense to me either.

So when I received a very recently written study by two extremely respected scientists that verified people’s experiences by measuring sound scientifically while the authors themselves were actually experiencing symptoms, I knew it was very important. Every citizen in Fairhaven should read it.

What makes this study unusual is that both authors started experiencing physiologic symptoms within 20 minutes of entering the Falmouth home where they were measuring sounds for the study. They experienced headaches, nausea, dizziness, and had a difficult time performing their usual research the first day when symptoms were at their worst and wind speeds were at their highest.

These observations confirm the first-hand accounts of our Falmouth neighbors who experienced the same symptoms. It turns out that low frequency sounds are actually amplified by our houses, which end up acting a bit like a drum. People experience actual pressure in the ears, head and chest, which is further worsened by dizziness, confusion and anxiety as the body seeks to balance and orient itself while receiving pressure pulses, which distort the vestibular experience. One of the authors experienced vertigo for seven months following the study.

There has been a question raised as to whether the private funding of the study by Mr. McPherson, for whom the study has been named, in any way lessens the importance of the conclusions. What is extremely chilling and should give us all pause is that Mr. McPherson funded the study privately because he could not get the developers or the state to do it.

Furthermore, the authors of the McPherson study, Mr Ambrose and Mr. Rand, are both members of INCE, the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, a professional certifying association, and must agree to comply with the institute’s “Canon of Ethics,” which includes up front disclosure about funding and conflicts of interest, which they comply with. Their first conclusion is that we need more studies to study how brain waves and heart activity are affected by these pulsing low frequency sounds.

That may be true, but I don’t think Fairhaven residents should be the guinea pigs in those studies. If we build those turbines despite this growing and independent body of research, we may be doing just that.

Louise Barteau

West Island

STUDY: FALMOUTH TURBINES HURT ABUTTER'S HEALTH

By SEAN TEEHAN,

Via Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

December 26, 2011 

FALMOUTH — A study released last week concludes wind turbines in Falmouth negatively affect abutters’ health.

The analysis was partially funded by a grant from Bruce McPherson, who opposes the Falmouth wind project and other turbine projects on Cape Cod. Its results assert that wind turbines cause “visceral” physical reactions and that sound waves from turbines are felt more intensely indoors than outside.

“We did not expect it,” said Stephen E. Ambrose, a Maine environmental sound consultant who co-authored The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study.

Ambrose declined to release the amount he was paid but said he and a partner each spent about 800 hours on the study.

Ambrose and Robert W. Rand, who also specializes in sound studies, conducted their research over three days in April, Ambrose said.

The two former employees of Stone & Webster Inc., a Stoughton engineering firm that designs and builds power plants, have conducted peer reviews on acoustics from turbines for several towns in Massachusetts, Maine and Wyoming.

For this study, Ambrose and Rand lived in a house near Blacksmith Shop Road for three days while measuring pressure originating from infrasound. They documented the intensity of sound frequencies from a privately owned turbine in the Falmouth Technology Park and how their bodies responded to it. The turbine studied is roughly the size of Falmouth’s two municipal turbines.

When the two arrived at the house — located 1,700 feet from the turbine — on April 17, they began feeling effects within 20 minutes, according to the study. Both felt nausea, dizziness and anxiety, among other side effects.

They also reported having difficulty performing “normal activities” associated with the investigation, which included setting up instruments and observing measurements, the report states.

According to a chart included in the study, the discomfort and sick feelings intensified as wind speeds increased and the blades spun faster.

Previous sound studies that showed no negative health effects were done outdoors, Ambrose said. The recent study, which used low-frequency microphones to measure sound waves, showed sounds are more intense indoors than out. Data from this study showed a 10 dbG (a measurement for infrasound) increase outdoors and a 20 dbG increase indoors. The effect is similar to "living in a drum," he said.

An independent review of the acoustics data indicates it is scientifically valid, Nancy S. Timmerman, chairwoman of the Acoustical Society of America's Technical Committee on Noise, said in an email. She added that she can speak only to data on acoustics, not physiological effects reported in the study.

Jim Cummings, executive director of Acoustic Ecology Institute, another expert who looked at the study, said in an email the results could be a red flag on the correlation between infrasound and negative health effects, but more data are needed to establish proof.

"This is an indication, for sure, but a short sampling to base large claims on," Cummings wrote. "This and one other recent paper from the Association for Noise Control Engineers conference, Noise-Con, are both good indications that infrasound could be more problematic than generally assumed."

Falmouth Selectman Mary Pat Flynn, chairman of the board, said the study is one of many the board has received about wind turbines. Others show little or no harm caused by turbines, she said.

"We've had a number of studies sent to us, and they all have different points of view, and they all have different outcomes," Flynn said.

Ambrose and Rand's study comes as the state Department of Environmental Protection prepares itself for a sound study of the Falmouth-owned Wind 1 turbine. Environmental regulators agreed in September to conduct the study after Falmouth selectmen reached out to the department in September.

"It's still in the works, still under review," said Ed Coletta, a DEP spokesman. "We're hoping to get it done soon."

Last month selectmen announced the town would shut down the 1.64-megawatt Wind 1 — except during the tests — until April's town meeting. The town also plans to start up the Wind 2 turbine for 60 days, during which time officials plan to log complaints from residents.

The announcement came as a compromise after Wind 1 abutters filed a nonbinding town meeting article that asked selectmen to keep both turbines off until "mitigation options are fully explored and the existence of injurious conditions upon nearby residents can be qualified."

Wind 2, which has sat idle for about a year, could begin spinning for its trial period before mid-January, said Gerald Potamis, Falmouth's wastewater superintendent, who oversees the two municipal turbines.

Next month, Falmouth selectmen will choose a consultant to help advise the town on minimizing the impact of wind turbines on neighbors, Flynn said. Four firms were presented to selectmen during a meeting Dec. 19. The board will accept suggestions from residents until Jan. 4 and plans to choose one Jan. 9, Flynn said.

[Click here for Ambrose and Rand's study.]

Next Feature:

GROUP TARGETS WIND FARMS: ADVOCATES WANT STRICTER RULES TO PREVENT BIRD DEATHS

by Cody Winchester,

VIA www.argusleader.com 

December 26, 2011 

“Developers typically build at the site they’ve chosen, regardless of wildlife concerns,” she said. “We’ve written letters stating the proposed location is likely to have high wildlife impacts … but the projects were constructed (anyway).”

As the Obama administration moves on a plan to speed permitting of wind projects in the Great Plains, a major bird conservation group is asking the government to enact stricter standards for wind energy development.

The American Bird Conservancy has formally petitioned the Department of the Interior to develop mandatory siting rules for wind projects, claiming that existing guidelines, which are voluntary, constitute a “counterproductive and almost certainly unlawful approach” to enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

“Most wind energy projects that are already in operation are in ongoing violation” of the act, since most birds killed at wind farms are protected, the petition says. The conservancy group alleges a “systemic failure” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce the law.

The conflict highlights an ongoing tension between conservationists and a rapidly expanding industry seen as the linchpin of a clean energy future – although the petitioners also note that climate change driven by the combustion of fossil fuels “indisputably poses an unprecedented threat to species and ecosystems.”

Fueling the conflict is territory overlap: Windy corridors that are prime candidates for energy projects also tend to be migratory flyways. With the growth of the industry in wind-rich states such as South Dakota, conservationists are worried not only about collisions with turbines and power lines but further fragmentation of a habitat already under pressure from urban and agricultural expansion.

“There are impacts beyond the towers sticking up out there,” said K.C. Jensen, an associate professor of wildlife management at South Dakota State University.

Federal officials have worked for years to develop siting standards for wind projects and earlier this year released a set of draft guidelines. As the guidelines evolved, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, accused Fish and Wildlife of trying to “impose new guidelines that are not based on sound science.” But the American Bird Conservancy says the guidelines were in fact crippled by pressure from a federal advisory board dominated by industry.

“At first we were optimistic,” said Kelly Fuller, the conservancy’s wind campaign coordinator. “But over the last year, our view has changed. We have seen drafts of the guidelines repeatedly weakened under industry pressure. We’ve seen Fish and Wildlife Service abandon much of what its own scientific experts wrote, and so we felt that we now have to respond to this worsening situation.”

The group wants the rules strengthened and made mandatory, so wind developers would have to obtain a permit that specifically considers the project’s effects on migratory birds before beginning construction.

Such a permitting scheme would give the industry greater certainty, since wind developers are technically in violation of federal law every time a migratory bird is killed at a wind installation, said Shruti Sharesh, an environmental lawyer who filed the petition on behalf of the conservancy.

“On the one hand, we have the federal government promoting wind industry,” Sharesh said. “And on the other hand, we have a situation where both the government and the industry is well aware … (of) widespread violation of federal wildlife law.”

But Ron Rebenitsch, executive director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association, argued that the opposite is true. He said new regulations would create greater uncertainty and make it more difficult to plan wind projects, which already require significant up-front financing and can take years to approve.

“This is not a good thing for wind,” he said. “I would be very cautious about how the rules are developed.”

The industry takes pains to minimize harm to wildlife, Rebenitsch said, adding that concerns about bird strikes are overblown.

“There has never been a recorded instance of a whooping crane impacting a turbine,” he said. “A whooping crane could fly into a building. … Do you shut down the industry (for the sake of birds)? That’s a very real concern.”

Rebenitsch said the number of birds killed at wind farms is inconsequential compared with the number killed by cats, windows and other causes related to human activity.

Fish and Wildlife already has a mechanism for permitting “take” of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws, but not for migratory birds.

The conservancy group says this “legal anomaly,” coupled with the lack of enforcement by Fish and Wildlife, is unfair: Oil companies are prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when birds fly into oil sump pits and die, the group argues. Why should wind energy be exempt?

Developers ‘build where they want’

On its website, the South Dakota Wind Energy Association urges developers to “consult the environmental and cultural offices in the state as early as possible” and provides contact information for each office.

But this doesn’t always happen, said Natalie Gates, a biologist in the migratory bird program at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ecological services field office in Pierre.

Sometimes, developers contact Gates about a new wind project as a courtesy. Most of the time, however, she hears about proposals from other federal agencies that need input on how the project would affect endangered species.

“Some developers are more conscientious than others,” she said. “Some work with us a little and some ignore us entirely. All tend to build where they want.”

Once her office knows where the company intends to build the project, Gates sends a comment letter outlining the agency’s concerns about habitat and wildlife populations, and typically she requests that the company undertake a baseline study of birds and bats in the area.

“Sometimes when I write a letter like that, I never hear back from the company,” she said.

Some companies hire consultants to collect pre- and postconstruction figures on bird and bat mortality, and this data can be helpful to wildlife agencies, Gates said. But a suggestion to avoid sensitive habitat “seems to get no traction with developers,” she said.

“Developers typically build at the site they’ve chosen, regardless of wildlife concerns,” she said. “We’ve written letters stating the proposed location is likely to have high wildlife impacts … but the projects were constructed (anyway).”

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks also has guidelines for wind projects, and the agency’s wildlife biologists have provided expert testimony at hearings before the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which issues siting permits for wind projects.

The commission carefully considers the input of wildlife experts when issuing rulings and crafting permit conditions, PUC Chairman Gary Hanson said.

Hanson, who has served on the governing board of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, is concerned about whooping crane numbers and would not necessarily oppose stricter federal guidelines for siting.

Fed’s plan would fast-track projects

The Interior Department, meanwhile, is developing a plan to fast-track wind projects in the Great Plains by allowing developers to go through the federal permitting process en masse.

The 200-mile-wide development corridor would follow the central flyway of the endangered whooping crane, which has a wild population in the low hundreds, from Canada to the Texas coast.

A consortium of wind energy companies, including Iberdrola Renewables and NextEra Energy Resources, which operate wind farms in South Dakota, would be granted incidental take permits in exchange for offsetting the losses with conservation efforts elsewhere. Fish and Wildlife still is hammering out the details.

—

Determining bird kill numbers a tough task

Estimates of birds killed at wind installations vary, and federal field agents face numerous obstacles in gathering accurate numbers.
“The (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) has no way of obtaining on a regular basis crucial information about birds and bats being killed at these projects,” said Shruti Sharesh, a lawyer at Meyer, Glitzenstein and Crystal, an environmental law firm .
The conservancy group partly blames this problem on confidentiality agreements between wind developers and private wildlife consultants, which can can make data sharing problematic.
In September, the Argus Leader submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife asking for records of migratory birds killed by power lines or wind energy projects in South Dakota.
The agency returned a packet of investigative reports detailing 15 bird kills in North and South Dakota since 2008, all of them power line strikes.
This doesn’t mean there were no bird strikes or electrocutions prior to 2008, just that they weren’t necessarily entered into the agency’s computer system, said Rich Grosz, the resident agent in charge of the Office of Law Enforcement for the Dakotas.
Until recently, South Dakota had only one or two field agents, and Grosz said the agency is “completely dependent on the public” to notify it of bird electrocutions. In any case, further investigation may show that the bird died from other means, in which case the agency would not pursue an investigation.

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- visit their website by clicking HERE

"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."

-The Forest Voice

Next Feature:

WIND FARM IDEA ZAPPED BACK TO LIFE

By Kevin Murphy,

Via New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 

December 22, 2011 

MADISON – The clock began ticking Friday on state regulators to review an application to construct a 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon.

By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension.

The HWF project has been a controversy in the Town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008. That agreement was modified in 2010 but proved to be unpopular with residents who removed the board in a recall election in February.

Rick Steinberger, elected in February, said that within a month the new board rescinded previously adopted wind development agreements and in August enacted a wind energy system licensing ordinance that Steinberger said better “protects the town than existing state regulations.”

“Realistically, we’re not protected by the state guidelines,” which is why the town adopted an ordinance with more restrictions than state regulations on turbine setbacks, noise levels and shadow flicker,” he said.

In response, HWF increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts, making it subject to state and not town regulation. How much involvement the town will have in the state’s approval process remains to be seen, said Steinberger.

“I’m just one vote on the board…and I haven’t read through the application yet and I don’t have a comment on it,” Steinberger said Monday.

Town Chairman Jamie Junker also said he would withhold any comment on the wind farm application and what response the town should take until he has reviewed it.

William Rakocy, a founding member of Emerging Energies, now EEW Services LCC, said the project was increased in size in response to an unresponsive town board.

“We would have been pleased to work with the town; we tried to in the past. The previous town board was reasonable to work with, but the new town board has not responded to any attempts to communicate with them so we’re going ahead,” Rakocy said.

Rakocy said the $250 million wind farm represents Wisconsin’s best option for renewable energy and should be approved.

“Every other energy source has a fuel requirement to bring it the state; there’s a fuel cost associated with bringing in coal, uranium for nuclear power and even natural gas. We don’t have any of those energy sources in Wisconsin but we do have wind,” he said.

Rakocy, of Hubertus, Wis., also said the project will need approval from several other state and federal agencies including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Unlike public utilities, EEW Services LCC won’t have to prove there is a demand for the electricity produced by the project. Rakocy could sell the project once it’s approved but he disputed he was taking a route through the regulatory process that avoids having to prove demand.

“This doesn’t avoid anything. There’s been a clearly defined process in the state of Wisconsin for several years. There are questions to be answered by utilities and questions to be answered by independent power producers. We’ve answered the questions the application has required,” he said.

Rakocy said he hopes the economy recovers in the two to three years it takes to approve and construct the wind farm so there is more electrical demand. If the project is approved he will be look for an investor to fund and build it.

If the project goes according to plan, construction could start in early 2013 and be completed in about a year, Rakocy said.

The PSC retains siting jurisdiction over the HWF project. Although siting regulations approved by the PSC earlier this year have been suspended by the Legislature, the PSC will at least need to consider if the application is consistent with the suspended rules, according to statement the PSC issued Monday.

The PSC welcomes public comment on the project once it determines the application complete. The application has been posted to the PSC’s website: psc.wi.gov. The HWF docket number: 2535-CE-100.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: William Rackocy is the same developer who put together the Shirley Wind project, the subject of the video above. Read more about Mr. Rakocy HERE and HERE

Watch the trailer from the award-winning documentary "Windfall" which includes video from Wisconsin wind projects. "Windfall" will be released nationally in February of 2012

"Wind power... it's sustainable ... it burns no fossil fuels...it produces no air pollution. What's more, it cuts down dependency on foreign oil.

That's what the people of Meredith, NY first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement the rural farm town's failing economy with a farm of their own -- that of 40 industrial wind turbines. But when a group of townspeople discover the impacts that a 400-foot high windmill could bring to their community, Meredith's residents become deeply divided as they fight over the future of their community. With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, Windfall is an eye-opener for anyone concerned about the environment and the future of renewable energy."

Next Feature:

From Illinois

DISPUTE STILL STANDS AS WIND CAPITAL PAYS UP

by Andrew Gaug, St. Joseph News-Press,

via www.newspressnow.com

December 22, 2011 

What appeared to be an early Christmas present has turned into an unholy mess, as Wind Capital Group dropped off its property tax payment to DeKalb County on Thursday.

Receiving two checks totaling $1,967,572, delivered to the DeKalb County Courthouse by Stephen Bode, Wind Capital Group operations manager, county officials aren’t sure if they can distribute any of it.

Though the attitudes remain heated between the county and wind farm company, which runs the Lost Creek Wind Farm, over a property tax assessment, County Assessor Ruth Ross was originally pleased to see the company pay part of what she said it owes.

While awaiting judgment from the Missouri State Tax Commission concerning property tax assessment, more than $1 million of the paid taxes will be placed in an escrow account. Not disputing the remaining $951,021.62, the amount Wind Capital Group stated it feels is the correct total it should pay, it was expected to go immediately to DeKalb taxing entities such as schools and fire protection.

“I think this is a wonderful thing that Wind Capital is doing. They’re not disputing it all, and the taxing entities of Missouri will benefit greatly from that money … being dispersed before the first of the year,” she said.

That may not be the case, County Treasurer Jody Pearl stated, as she considered Ms. Ross’ information conflicting with what she was told — that all of the money, including the undisputed amount, would go into the escrow account.

“According to my attorney, (it will) not (be distributed) without an order from the State Tax Commission instructing me how to distribute it,” she said.

Citing Missouri State Statute 139.031, concerning disbursement of tax money during a dispute, Ms. Ross said the undisputed money should be ready to be sent out. In the meantime, she will be contacting her attorney to see what can be done.

Though Ms. Ross was smiling when talking about the schools, fire and police receiving money, she made it clear that issues with the company are anything but dashed.

In a release, Wind Capital stated its pride in paying what it felt was a fair share of the property tax and doing so in a timely manner. “Wind Capital Group believes very strongly in paying our fair share of property taxes in DeKalb County and has now done so,” Mr. Bode said. “For the Lost Creek Project, we have now paid more in property taxes than has ever been paid on a wind energy project in the state of Missouri.”

Considering the company’s statement a misnomer, Ms. Ross said the reason they’re paying more is because they have three times the wind turbines as any other wind farm in the state, and they’re still asking to pay less.

“I always take exception to the fact that they’re paying a lot more taxes to DeKalb County than they are to other counties,” she said. “That’s like you buying a new car and me buying three new cars and I’m expecting my taxes to be the same as yours.”

The company is disputing Ms. Ross’ assessed property tax value of about $297,000 per wind turbine, an amount she came to when using a formula created by former Wind Capital Group CEO Tom Carnahan. Assessors in several other counties in Northwest Missouri with wind farms have told the News-Press they used the same formula as Holt County, without conflict.

Protesting the proposed tax assessment, Wind Capital stated Ms. Ross’ formula is overblown and should be about $142,000. The case awaits a decision from the tax commission.

“We’re still a long ways from being settled, but I want to commend Wind Capital for letting us at least distribute that amount,” Ms. Ross said.

“It will be a huge benefit. Not as much as we would like, but it’s a step.”