Better Plan, Wisconsin

WIND GENERATORS STILL CAUSING PROBLEMS

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

April 14, 2011

I live about 2,100 feet from a wind generator and had experienced interference on my television as soon as it went into operation.

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm made arrangements to remedy the interference. I was given two years of basic Satellite TV service at no cost.

Then, I received a notice that Alliant, owners of the wind farm, had decided to grant us compensation equal to the cost of getting only the Green Bay local channels. All I needed to do was to sign a “Release of Claim,” which states in part “the undersigned… hereby fully and forever releases and discharges Wisconsin Power and Light … from any and all claims, demands, actions and/or rights … arising from…”

The three paragraphs protect Alliant forever in every way from any future actions. There is no mention of what we might expect in the coming years.

Does this sound like a good faith effort to correct a wrong done to those of us who have no commercial interest in the wind farms?

Feeling put upon by Alliant following both written and oral communications with their representative, last February I proceeded to contact my local Assembly representative, Richard Spanbauer. I received a letter from him stating, “The Joint Rules Committee recently held a public hearing about the proposed rules changes.”

He offered no suggestions regarding the restraints Alliant is imposing upon us.

Sensing that I might get a better response from our native son, U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, I delivered copies of all correspondence to his office in Fond du Lac. No response. I sent an email to him reminding him of my concern. No response.

I suppose my next attempt at obtaining fair treatment from Alliant would be to file a class action. Why must it come to that?

Allan Loehndorf

Town of Empire

FOREST RESIDENTS CONTINUE FEUD OVER WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Pierce County Herald, www.piercecountyherald.com

April 14, 2011

Jeff Holmquist

The Town of Forest has been a quiet, rural community for much of its long history. But these days there is an atmosphere of unrest throughout the township, thanks in part to a proposed wind farm proposal that has been debated over the past couple years.

Supporters of the wind energy idea and opponents have been feuding over an agreement with Emerging Energies LLC to place up to 39 wind turbines on private properties. The agreement would pay landowners and residents within a half mile of each turbine an annual payment. The township and county would also have received annual payments.

“Residents and landowners are either for or against this,” said Jaime Junker, newly elected town board chairman. “There really is no in between ground. The division line is fairly well divided between people who would get compensated by the project and those who would not.”

Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years. The Forest area was found to be a favorable location for large wind turbines due to sustained winds in the area.

The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.

According to the original plans, the turbine system would have been hooked up to a new or existing electric substation and the power would have ended up on the grid.

While there was support for the idea among some residents and the Forest Town Board during the initial planning stages, a number of residents are less than happy with the project.

A citizens group, called the “Forest Voice,” formed in an attempt to stop the project from moving forward.

The group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2011, claiming that the Town Board had bypassed open meeting law requirements to push through an agreement with Emerging Energies. The group also claimed that several board members should not have participated in the vote for the wind farm plan as they or their relatives stood to gain financially from the project.

The disgruntled Town of Forest residents also petitioned for a recall election of the former town board members. All of the challengers eventually won election to the board. The support of the majority of the residents was reaffirmed last Tuesday when wind turbine opponent Jaime Junker was re-elected as town chairman, and newly elected Patrick Scepurek and Richard Steinberger were returned to their supervisor positions.

After gaining office, the new board members voted on March 17 to rescind the wind energy development agreements, driveway permits and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The board also approved a temporary stay on the location and construction of the turbines in the township.

According Forest Voice’s Attorney Glenn Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were “completely unaware” that the former town board members had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on Aug. 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.

A postcard announcing the project was the first many heard about the plan, he claimed.

No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period, he further claimed.

The opponents of the wind project allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them.

Despite the fact that the agreements have been rescinded and the town board has been replaced, Stoddard said the federal lawsuit is likely to continue. He said Emerging Energies has indicated that it may seek legal action in an effort to continue with the previously approved project.

Officials with Emerging Energies did not want to comment on the Forest project when contacted.

Junker said many expect the company to seek a legal opinion in the matter.

“Now it’s pretty much a wait and see situation,” he said. “It’s hard to predict what the short term future is going to be.”

Whatever the future holds, residents on both sides of the issue say they are frustrated by the continuing feud over wind turbines.

“What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed,” said Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice LLC.

“Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be.”

Salseg said it’s unfair to force wind turbine opponents to live near such a large project.

“The statement we continually hear that wind energy is green, clean and renewable is nothing more than deception,” she said.

Gary Heinbuch, who continues to be a supporter of the wind project, said the atmosphere in Forest is now “as foul as can be.”

“It’s neighbor against neighbor. It’s niece against uncle,” he said. “I never thought it would get this bad.”

Rick Heibel, 53, who signed an agreement to have three turbines sited on his 240 acres, agreed.

“It’s gotten way more heated than I ever thought it would,” he said. “I never thought it would get this divisive.”

Heibel, who has lived his entire life on the farm that was first settled by his grandfather 99 years ago, said he remains convinced that the wind project would be good for him and for the town.

The annual payments to landowners and local units of government would mean a lot, he said.

“It would greatly enhance my retirement,” Heibel said. “Right now, my retirement is Social Security. All my savings is in my land, and I don’t want to sell my land. It would make my standard of living more comfortable.”

Apart from the financial benefits, Heibel said wind generation just makes sense.

He said all energy generation methods have their drawbacks. The burning of coal contributes to global warming and the mining of coal harms the land, he noted. With the ongoing disaster in Japan, Heibel wonders if more nuclear plants are a good idea. Even natural gas has its problems, he added.

“With wind, I think it’s one of the least damaging forms of generation as far as the environment goes,” he said.

Next Story

BPA, WIND DEVELOPERS ARGUE OVER LOOMING PROBLEM OF TOO MUCH POWER FROM RENEWABLES

SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

April 14 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

Under pressure from wind developers and investor-owned utilities around the region, the Bonneville Power Administration this week backed away from a plan to start pulling the plug on wind turbines when it has too much water and wind energy at the same time.

BPA Administrator Steve Wright is still reviewing a controversial plan to occasionally “curtail” wind farms in the region, a move the federal power-marketing agency has said is necessary to maintain grid reliability, protect migrating salmon and avoid passing big costs onto its public utility customers.

Wind developers and utilities who buy their output say such shutdowns are discriminatory, will breach transmission agreements and compromise wind-farm economics because the projects rely on lucrative production tax credits and the sale of renewable energy credits that are generated only when turbine blades are spinning.

They also maintain the plan is simply unnecessary, a sop to public utility customers that can be solved by other means.

In one sense, the debate is simply the latest wrinkle in the perennial debate over who should bear the costs and benefits of operating the federal hydroelectric dams and transmission system. But it illustrates the growing complexity of integrating into the grid intermittent sources of renewable energy.

“This is going to be a major issue for the region,” said John Saven, chief executive of the Northwest Requirements Utilities, a trade group representing 50 public utilities that buy their power from the BPA. “We’re in the first inning.”

The capacity of wind farms connected to the BPA’s transmission network has ballooned from 250 megawatts in 2005 to more than 3,500 today and is expected to double again in the next two years. That outstrips demand growth in the region and is being driven in large part by California utilities, which are required to meet a third of their customers’ electricity needs with renewables by 2020.

Oregon and Washington have their own mandates, but more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest is sold under long-term contact to California. Congested transmission often means the only things exported are the associated renewable energy certificates that buyers use to comply with state mandates. The electricity often stays in the region, dumped into this region’s wholesale market, depressing prices for electricity from all sources.

Grid balance

The BPA, which operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission grid in the region, is responsible for balancing the minute-to-minute variations in supply and demand on the grid. The agency says growing wind capacity requires it to reserve more of its hydro generation as backup reserves, either to fill in for scheduled electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or back off hydro production when wind-farm output is higher than scheduled.

The BPA charges wind farms for that flexibility. But it says there’s only so much it can absorb before those reserves start to compromise regular operations.

Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams’ spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.

The result, BPA officials say, is that the agency is left with more power than regional customers need or that an already congested transmission system can ship out of the region.

“Eventually, you just run out of places to put it,” said Doug Johnson, a BPA spokesman.

Long-term fixes

The BPA has worked during the past two years — some say been pushed and dragged — to accommodate more wind by improving forecasting and transmission scheduling. Adding transmission or new storage is a potential solution, as is transferring the responsibility for balancing some of the variable supply and demand to other utilities. But those are expensive, long-term fixes.

Meanwhile, new wind farms keep mushrooming on the Columbia Plateau, exacerbating the problem. Last June, high wind and water nearly forced the BPA into “negative pricing,” when it is forced to pay utilities and independent power producers in the region to shut down their plants and take BPA power instead.

That’s expensive for wind farms, where the cost of curtailment is not just replacement power, but the loss of production tax credits and renewable energy tags they generate when operating. The BPA recently estimated the combined impact at $37 a megawatt hour.

That’s not a price the BPA or its public utility customers want to pay.

Wind producers are the Johnnys-come-lately to the Northwest’s energy scene. But they argue that any move to single them out and curtail their production is discriminatory and violates the equal-access provisions of the laws governing the federal transmission system.

They have the support of Oregon’s Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, two Democrats who have criticized the agency in the past for dragging its feet on wind issues.

The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative.

Next Story

BIRDS & BATS VS BLADES

SOURCE: Prince George Free Press, www.bclocalnews.com

April 14 2011

By Allan Wishart -

What happens when a bird or a bat gets involved with a wind turbine?

It’s not usually a good result for the animal, UNBC instructor Ken Otter told a Cafe Scientifique audience at Cafe Voltaire on Wednesday evening.

Otter, an instructor in the ecosystem science and management program, said people have been researching the idea that wind farms and birds have a collision problem.

“Most research suggests the problem is not much worse than with other tall structures, such as high-rise buildings or radio towers,” he said in an interview with the Free Press, “but certain species seem at a higher risk.”

Most of the at-risk species are migratory birds, which may encounter the turbines on their regular route, and “soaring” birds.

“These are species which make use of a lot of updrafts when they’re flying, birds like hawks or eagles and cranes.”

With the wind-farm technology still relatively new in Canada, the opportunity is there to work with industry to make it as safe as possible for the animals, he said.

“What we’re finding s it doesn’t take much to make the farms safer for birds. A lot of it is looking at weather patterns.”

Generally, he said, the birds are flying at elevations well above the turbines. Sometimes, however, a weather pattern will push them lower, to where they may be at risk.

“We can plot out the tracks of their migrations and see how they use the ridges and rises. That allows us to predict where the patterns will occur, and we can get very specific information.”

How specific? Otter says in some cases it could be a question of just idling one turbine in a group for a few minutes to allow a flock of birds to get by.

“Most of the turbines can be idled in about two minutes. It might just be a question of having someone out there to keep an eye on the conditions and, if needed, call back to the main operation and ask them to shut one of the turbines down for a few minutes.”

Otter said a University of Calgary study found bats ran into a different problem when it came to wind turbines.

“They have very thin walls in their lungs, and a lot of capillaries to distribute the blood. the study found groups of sometimes hundreds of bats dead near a turbine, but with no contusions on their body to indicate they had been hit by one of the vanes.”

Autopsies showed the capillaries had burst inside the bats. This led researchers to take a look at how the turbines affected wind pressure in their area.

“What happens with any fan is there is a low-pressure area created right behind the vanes. The bats were coming into this area, and their capillaries were bursting because of the sudden drop in pressure.”

Again, the solution may be as simple as varying the speed the vanes turn at to ease the drop in pressure.

And, he says, the industry seems to be willing to look at making these changes.

“We’re working with them, showing them how these small changes can keep the birds and bats safe, and they’re listening.”

ENERGY SOLUTION OR LEGAL TROUBLE?

SOURCE: Hudson Star Observer

March 31 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIDWEST WIND SUSPENDS DEVELOPMENT WORK IN STATE

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

Source: JSOnline.com

March 31, 2011

By Thomas Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WIND TURBINE PLANT ON HOLD

Source: Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune

March 31, 2011

By Nathaniel Shuda

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

LAWSUIT FILED BY RESIDENTS OF TOWN TARGETED BY WIND DEVELOPER

SOURCE: Forest Voice, March 24, 2011

A controversial western Wisconsin wind energy project has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens group on February 9, 2011, and by decisive action by a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election of the former town board members who had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.

After taking office following a recall election on February 15, 2011, the newly elected town board members for the Town of Forest, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, voted to rescind a controversial wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer, in a decisive vote on March 17, 2011. As a result, the project, which was proposed by a private wind energy developer named Emerging Energies, LLC, is now under fire and may be stopped.

The federal lawsuit was filed on February 9, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, by a Western Wisconsin citizens group named Forest Voice, LLC, and several individual citizens, against the Town of Forest, its former town board members, and Emerging Energies, LLC.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by attorneys Glenn M. Stoddard and Patricia Keahna, of Stoddard Law Office. The suit alleges that the Town of Forest, its former board members, Roger Swanepoel, Carlton Cress and Douglas Karau, and Emerging Energies, LLC, acted in concert to intentionally violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, by approving two different wind energy development agreements during 2008 and 2010.

According to Attorney Glenn Stoddard, “[t]he suit alleges that the former town board members had conflicts of interest and illegal and secretive dealings with Emerging Energies, LLC, in order to reach the agreements, which provide substantial financial benefits only to property owners who support the proposed wind energy project and who own residences within a half mile of the proposed wind turbines.” The lawsuit seeks to nullify the 2008 and 2010 agreements, halt the proposed wind energy project, and other relief.

Forest Voice, LLC is a citizens group comprised of individual landowners, and Town of Forest property owners, whose goal is to create community awareness about the realities of wind energy development.

The Town of Forest is located in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, approximately midway between Clear Lake and Glenwood City, Wisconsin. The group formed early in the fall of 2010 after its members learned that their 36-square mile community was targeted for a wind energy project consisting of 39, 500-foot tall wind towers.

According to Attorney Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were completely unaware that the former the town board members, who lost a special recall election on February 15, 2011, had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on August 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project. The landowners who signed contractual leases to allow wind turbines on their properties are prohibited contractually from talking about the leases and the proposed project, so the project was kept secret for some time.

That the first public notice of the controversial wind energy project to the broader community arrived in the form of a postcard which was mailed to each Town of Forest property owner with postage paid out of Town funds, announcing the project and a planned bus trip to Glenmore, Wisconsin, to view the “Shirley Project”–which was represented as having “the same wind turbines that are coming to Forest, WI.” No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period marked by secretive deliberations between the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC.

Because the Town of Forest is a densely populated rural area consisting of farms, hobby farms, and small acreage homesteads, many non-participating property owners believe the utility-scale wind turbine project is inappropriate for their township, because of unacceptable setback and noise allowances from non-participating residences in the two agreements. The plaintiffs in the case allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them. Moreover, the process that led to the two agreements, and the substance of the agreements, allegedly violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

Attorney Stoddard said, “[t]he plaintiffs are concerned that installation of the proposed project would unfairly stigmatize and devalue their properties and interfere with the quiet, rural quality of life they currently enjoy. Residents who had no knowledge of the size and scope of the project, and no input into the development are unwilling to be so adversely affected by the health and safety issues associated with the proposed project, which includes 39 massive wind turbines.”

Most disturbing to the plaintiffs and other non-participating residents were the contents of open records which laid out the secretive dealings between attorneys for the Town and the developer and the former town board members.

The agreement of August 12, 2010, superseded an earlier agreement of April 2008. Former Town Chairman, Roger Swanepoel, who allegedly contracted with Emerging Energies, LLC for two wind turbines on his property, signed the 2008 agreement. When conflicts of interest centering on financial gain became apparent between all members of the former Town board, a scheme was allegedly devised to circumvent and replace the 2008 agreement with a new agreement to allow development of the proposed wind energy project. Evidence of corruption and collusion and “creative” measures to remedy conflicts of interests surfaced in over 83 pages of documents obtained through public records requests by Town of Forest residents.

According to Attorney Stoddard, “Town of Forest meeting minutes revealed inconsistencies in communications between the former town board members and the town plan commission, and failure to follow agenda rules. Former Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel recused himself from voting on and signing the 2010 agreement, but it was approved and signed by former town supervisors Carlton Cress and Douglas Karau. Since both Cress and Karau stand to receive substantial financial gains under the 2010 agreement, they allegedly had serious and illegal conflicts of interest and should not have voted on or approved the agreement.”

Bill Rakocy of Emerging EnergiesIn October 2010, Forest Voice requested that the Town board rescind the allegedly illegal 2010 agreement, signed on August 12, 2010 with Emerging Energies, LLC and Bill Rakocy, the owner of Emerging Energies, of Hubertus, Wisconsin.

On December 2, 2010, recall petitions were served on the Town of Forest town clerk with petitions containing 93 signatures, above the 50 that was required of the electorate. The process culminated in the recall election held on February 15, 2011. All three town board members were recalled and a new town board was elected.

On March 17, 2011, the new Town board voted to rescind the August 12, 2010 wind energy development agreement and took other action to rescind and nullify other wind energy project approvals that had been made hastily by the former town board members at about the time of the recall election.

Attorney Stoddard said: “The recent actions by the new Town board are a welcome development but the federal lawsuit against the town, the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC is likely to be continued, since the company has apparently threatened the new Town board with legal action and has taken an aggressive stance. As a result, we are expecting the company to try to push ahead with the wind energy project despite the recall, the rescission and the federal lawsuit.”

Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice, LLC, said: “What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed. Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety, and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be. We believe the people who have reported they are suffering from the effects of the Blue Sky/Green Field wind project in the Fond du Lac area of Wisconsin, as well as countless similar stories throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Something must be done to make more people aware of the negative consequences of industrial wind energy to people, animals, and ecosystems. To force non-participating residents to live inside a wind factory on a scale unheard of in any other type of energy producing resource is a violation of our constitutional rights. And the funding to developers for these projects with taxpayer dollars for an inefficient and parasitic form of renewable energy is unacceptable. The statement we continually hear that ‘wind energy is green, clean, and renewable’ is nothing more than deception.”

Is this St. Croix County's Future? Fond du Lac County home in the Invenergy wind projectLOCAL COMMUNITES COMING [TOGETHER] AGAINST WIND FARMS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, Pierce County Herald www.piercecountyherald.com

February 24, 2011 By: Chris Hamble - Hudson Star-Observer and Jeff Holmquist -

The question of wind turbine location has roiled communities in St. Croix County. The township board of Forest was recently recalled in the Feb. 15 election and the Town of Troy has passed a moratorium on wind farm development.

At its board meeting Thursday, Feb. 10, the town of Troy passed a resolution putting a temporary moratorium in place for the development of wind-energy turbines in and around the town.

A four-man committee was organized by town chair Ray Knapp to look into the “what and how” of possible turbine energy generators and to make an ordinance for the town regarding the building, regulation and usage of possible turbines in the future.

Currently, there is talk at the state capital that the new administration is looking to make strict regulations and standards regarding wind turbine usage, visibility and setbacks. According to Knapp, in a situation such as this, the town may not be “more strict” with its regulations than the state.

Since the state has yet to fully develop a plan, it was suggested that the town issue a moratorium on the building of wind turbines, even though there is currently no plan to build any. The board hopes to keep prospectors and developers from looking into the possibility of constructing turbines until the town can get a hard ordinance on the books. This move was also suggested by the Wisconsin Towns Association.

The moratorium unanimously passed, and is effective until Sept. 26.

“This temporary stay in wind permits will give us time to come up with something right for the town,” said Knapp.

In addition to the moratorium, Knapp also reported that under the current project timeline, the committee would like to draft a possible town ordinance by the regularly scheduled July board meeting, and also compile a list of possible sites for developers to inspect.

_________________________________________________________

The ongoing wind farm controversy has blown the sitting Town of Forest board out of office.

A recall election on Tuesday, Feb. 15, held in conjunction with the Wisconsin primary, went to the three challengers in the contest.

For the chairman position, Jamie Junker gathered 194 votes and incumbent Roger Swanepoel had 123 votes.

For the position of supervisor, challengers Rick Steinberger (207 votes) and Patrick Scepurek (185 votes) were elected. Incumbents Carlton Cress (123 votes) and Douglas Karau (113 votes) were voted out of office.

The recall election was the result of a group of Town of Forest residents who circulated a petition to remove the current board. The petition included the signatures of 93 town residents. A total of 50 signatures was required for a recall election to be conducted.

The group’s main issue with the current board was their approval of a wind project proposed by Emerging Energies LLC, which calls for some 39 turbines to be installed on parcels scattered throughout the township.

Opponents of the plan claim the proposal was approved without appropriate notice and participation from the public.

“The recall election pretty much speaks for itself,” said Junker following his successful run for the chairman post. “The Forest residents have concluded through simply reading a vast number of documents that a number of legal irregularities have taken place. These irregularities are easily understood by anyone that took the time to read the public documents to know what happened in Forest. With great confidence that they had the legal proof, the residents of Forest moved for the rare recall of its officials from office, and to nobody’s surprise they won.”

Junker said the town residents “were never told of the project details until the evening the agreement was actually approved, never knowing of the placement, size, or number at any point during what has repeatedly been said was a public process.”

The towns’ plan commission was also never publicly told of the details, Junker said, yet the formal agreement says the plan commission recommended the agreement.

“Clearly the residents of Forest feel that the previous town board, proven through the records, tried to pull the wool over the residents’ eyes and we’re finding out it didn’t work,” he said.

Junker pledged that the new town board will do “everything legally possible” to stop the wind turbine project now that they’re in office.

He said the chances of the project being stopped are good.

In a phone interview, Steinberger said he was pleased with the results of the recall.

“It was just what I had hoped for,” he said.

Steinberger said he is ready to take on the job of town supervisor and he promised to “represent the people.”

“I want to keep the process open and honest,” he said.

Scepurek was pleased with the outcome as well.

“The citizens of the township decided enough is enough,” he said.

He noted that almost all of the registered voters in the town cast a ballot in the recall, which was an encouraging sign.

“People are waking up and taking notice,” Scepurek said. “People have to start being informed and make sure that things don’t happen under the radar.”

Outgoing supervisor Cress said he didn’t have much to say in the wake of his recall, other than to say he was frustrated by the single-issue focus of the campaign to kick the board out.

“It was unfortunate that it came down to a wind turbine issue and not what it takes to run a township,” he said.

Swanepoel and Karau did not return phone calls to get their reaction to the results of the election.



Bill Rakocy, founder of Emerging Energies, is named in the lawsuitFOREST RESIDENTS FILE SUIT AGAINST TOWN OFFICIALS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com

February 17, 2011

By Kevin Murphy,

Three Town of Forest Board supervisors subject to a recall election are defendants in a federal lawsuit alleging their secret agreement of a wind farm developer violated some property owners’ constitutional rights.

According to the suit filed Feb. 9 in Madison:

A group of town residents calling themselves “Forest Voice” alleged board supervisors Roger Swanepoel, Douglas Karau and Carl Cress approved an agreement with Emerging Energies of Wisconsin in April 2008 without notifying affected property owners or holding a public hearing.

In the plan, not announced publically until Aug. 12, 2010, EE sought town approval to construct 39 wind towers of up to 500 feet tall. According to “Forest Voice,” EE’s turbines would create noise and “shadow flicker” up to one-half mile away when operating, diminishing the value of use of the affected properties.

Swanepoel, Karau and Cress also had a conflict of interest in representing the town because each of them or a family member could obtain annual financial payments from EE because they would host or were considering hosting a wind turbine on their property, the lawsuit alleges.

Calls to Swanepoel’s and Karau’s residences Monday seeking comment on the allegations weren’t returned before deadline. Cress said he had no comment Monday on the suit’s allegations.

The agreement approved in April 2008 with EE was reached through a “walking quorum” of phone calls, e-mails and personal conversations in apparent violation of state open meeting laws, the lawsuit claims. The agreement grants annual payments to property owners including Swanepoel, Karau and Cress, living within one-half mile of a wind turbine.

While the agreement creates a “financially favored” class of persons within the town who would benefit from annual payments, it also creates a “financially disfavored” class in terms of safety, quality of life, use of property and property values, the lawsuit claims. Those residents would all be adversely affected by EE’s proposed wind energy project, “Forest Voice” members claim.

Alleged “financially disfavored” residents include:

• Property owners not selected by EE to host a wind turbine but living within one-half mile of one owned by another individual:

• Persons living more than one-half mile from a proposed wind turbine location:

• Persons owning non-occupied residents within one-half mile of a turbine:

• Those living within one-half mile of a turbine who opposed the wind energy project.

“Forest Voice” members including Judi Beestman, Bill Dyer, Jeff Erickson, Scott Voeltz and Brenda and Robert Salseg, are town residents opposed to the EE project on safety and quality of life issues. The board failed to tell the Salsegs about the proposed agreement when approving the Salseg’s request for a trailer home on property within one-quarter mile of a proposed turbine.

The “Forest Voice” residents aren’t eligible for annual payments under the agreement because either the property they own isn’t within one-half mile of a proposed turbine or their property is within a half-mile of a turbine on land owned by someone else.

This “differential selective treatment” of residents in the 2008 agreement is not only “patently arbitrary and irrationally discriminatory, with no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose,” according to the suit, it’s also designed to financially reward participating property owners including Swanepoel, Cress and Karau or their families.

By 2010, the town’s attorney became concerned about the conflict of interest Cress and Swanepoel created by signing the agreement, especially Swanepoel, according to the suit. To disguise and remedy Swanepoel’s conflict, the suit alleges, attorneys for the town and EE and EE co-founder, William Rakocy, devised an illegal “walking quorum” which violated open meeting laws but where the town board would adopt a new agreement without Swanepoel voting.

The 2010 agreement was also developed though secret negotiations between board members and EE and approved without holding a public hearing, “Forest Voice” alleges.

The agreement creates annual payments of $4,000 per megawatt, up to 50 megawatts, to be divided equally among the town, St. Croix County and each property owner of an occupied residence within one-half mile of turbine on their property.

Calls to the attorney for Forest Voice wasn’t returned before deadline.

Attempts to contact Rakocy on Monday weren’t succesful.

The suit claims the board’s approving the 2008 and 2010 agreements without holding a public hearing and completed for their financial reward violated the due process and equal protection rights of the members of “Forest Voice.”

The suit seeks unspecified damages from the town, the three board members and EE.

The suit also seeks a permanent injuction against constructing the EE wind energy project.