Better Plan, Wisconsin

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: These recent photos of the We Energies wind project in Columbia county were taken by Jim Bembinster. They show how the siting of wind turbines has resulted in field fragmentation. What is not visible in the photos is the severe soil compaction that will affect crops.

CLICK HERE to see more pictures from this project, and to download larger versions of these files

Michigan

THREE RECALLED IN JOYFIELD TOWNSHIP

TRAVERSE CITY — Voters have recalled three Joyfield Township officials they believe are too closely tied to a controversial wind project.

Supervisor Larry Lathwell, Clerk Gary Lathwell, and Treasurer Debra Lindgren have been recalled leaving just two members left on the board.

The trio signed leases with Duke Energy to have turbines placed on their property. and some residents say its a conflict of interest.

The Benzie County Election Commission, which is made up of the county’s clerk, probate judge, and treasurer will now chose an interim board member for the township. That will give them enough officials to vote for new members.

Whoever is chosen will serve until the next election in February 2012.

Continue reading...www.upnorthlive.com

Wind Turbine Opponents score victories in two township elections.

In Riga Township, residents voted 440 to 236 to uphold an ordinance that wind turbine supporters say effectively bans turbines in the township.

The vote means that the turbine ordinance enacted July 6 by the township board will stay in effect. That ordinance requires turbines to be no less than four times their own height from non-participating properties and also limits noise levels to 40 decibels between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and 45 decibels between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

In Ogden Township, the candidates backed by wind turbine opponents won the races for township supervisor and township clerk.

Continue reading... Daily Telegram

Maine:  

Ban on large wind turbines approved in Brooksville:

BROOKSVILLE, Maine — Residents here voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a wind power ordinance that likely means the Hancock County town will be off-limits to commercial wind energy facilities....

Additionally, the ordinance adopts noise standards for wind turbines that are stricter than those currently required by the state. Turbines will be prohibited from generating in excess of 35 decibels for any continuous, 5-minute period — except during unusual weather events — as measured from neighboring properties. That standard is also more stringent than new, 42-decibel standards proposed by the Maine Board of Environmental Protection.

Continue reading... bangordailynews.com

Cushing approves new wind turbine ordinance

Cushing — Cushing residents voted Nov. 8 to enact a new town Wind Turbine Ordinance, limiting wind turbines to a maximum of 80 feet tall.

Residents supported the proposed ordinance by a vote of 273 to 181.

Under the ordinance wind turbines that meet the height requirement will be required to meet sound limits at the property lines. These limits will not support large commercial wind turbine installations.

Continue Reading.....Herald Gazette, knox.villagesoup.com

Rumford wind ordinance OK'd

RUMFORD — Third time’s a charm proved true Tuesday when a majority of voters overwhelmingly approved the third proposed wind ordinance in two years.

The tally was 1,137 “yes” to 465 “no,” Town Manager Carlo Puiia said. Fifty ballots were blank, meaning those voters didn’t select either answer.

The vote essentially kills any wind farms coming to Rumford until technology improves or the ordinance gets amended, he said.

Continue reading.....Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

New York State:

Hirschey defeats White in Cape Vincent; victory for anti-wind group

Regarding Mr. Hirschey’s plan to pass a moratorium on wind development to create a wind zoning law, Mr. White said that plan would “backfire” on the new town board because wind farm developers are likely to submit another application for the state to consider under the state-controlled Article X, essentially stripping Cape Vincent of home rule.

“I’m not upset,” said Mr. White, who as co-owner of White Farm holds contracts with both the St. Lawrence Wind Farm and the Cape Vincent Wind Farm projects. “I think the people of Cape Vincent will regret this later.”

Continue reading: watertowndailytimes.com

THE VIEW FROM ABOVE: FARM FIELD FRAGMENTATION IN WE ENERGIES GLACIER HILLS WIND PROJECT IN COLUMBIA COUNTY, WISCONSIN.

Photos by Jim Bembinster

Photo by Jim Bembinster, Columbia County WI 2011

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Wisconsin farmers sign on with wind developers because it seems like easy money. They are told they can farm right up to the turbine foundations. They are told about a quarter acre of land will be taken out of production for each turbine.

What they are not told is there will be access roads and trenching for each turbine that will go where the developer wants them to go, crossing at diagonals in the middle of fields, and in some areas compacting the soil so badly crop production is affected and drain tiles are crushed.  The farmer is not told that the they've given the wind company the right to use the land as it wishes. It's all in the contract, if you know how to read a contract, or take that contract to a lawyer to read over for you.

The photos below were recently taken by Jim Bembinster. They show a wind project in Columbia County being built by We Energies and the newly fragmented farm fields. 

To see larger versions of these pictures CLICK HERE

To read about a farmer who signed on with the We Energies project, what has happend to his land, and why he now regrets signing onto the project, CLICK HERE

Better Plan will be posting more photos by Jim Bembinster of the Columbia County We Energies wind project in upcoming days

Photo by Jim Bembinster, 2011 We Energies Glacier Hills wind project, Columbia County WI

FROM ILLINOIS

FARMER UPSET WITH WIND COMPANY

BY DAVID GIULIANI, www.saukvalley.com 7 November 2011 ~~

COMPTON – Gale Barnickel, a Compton farmer, says he’s not against the wind farm being built in his area.

He and his parents decided against having turbines on their farm, but he said they respected the rights of others to have them.

“We have no problems with what the neighbors want,” he said.

Now, he is alleging that wind energy company Goldwind USA has been repeatedly trespassing on his family’s property. And that has resulted in crop damage, he said.

The property is well posted, he said, so trespassers knew what they were doing.

He brought the allegations to last week’s meeting of the county Zoning Board of Appeals, which is recommending changes to the county’s wind energy ordinance.

On Sunday, Goldwind admitted that its contractor mistakenly crossed into Barnickel’s land.

“When they realized this, they contacted Mr. Barnickel to apologize and address the issue,” spokesman Colin Mahoney said in a statement.

Since then, he said, the contractor has taken “concrete steps” to clearly mark Barnickel’s land, so it’s more visible to construction crews.

At last week’s meeting, those attending expressed concern about Barnickel’s situation. Another wind company weighed in, saying such things shouldn’t happen.

Goldwind, a subsidiary of a Chinese company, is putting up 71 turbines in an area of roughly 6 square miles near Compton in eastern Lee County. It hopes to finish the project – known as Shady Oaks – by year’s end.

In September, a farmer reported that the company had built a road through his cornfield that, he said, was unnecessary. He and another farmer pointed out roads and easements that, they contend, the company mistakenly built through faulty planning.

Other paths for transmission lines were curved, when a straight line would have taken out less cropland, they said.

Unlike Barnickel, those farmers allowed wind turbines on their property, which means they’ll get money every year from the company. In the contracts, Goldwind has agreed to compensate farmers for cropland lost in the construction project.

Barnickel has no agreement with Goldwind.

“Something has to be done to control these guys,” he said. “We try to be neighborly, but we’ve caught them mowing down our crops. They’re cutting corners wherever they can.”

Board member Tom Fassler asked Barnickel whether he had called authorities. The farmer said he had filed two reports with the Lee County Sheriff’s Department, but that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money to keep calling out the sheriff.

“It’s nerve-wracking being pushed around,” Barnickel said. “Why should I have to put up with that?”

“You shouldn’t,” Fassler responded.

Franklin Grove Village President Bob Logan, who attended the Zoning Board meeting, said that was what happens when wind farms are rushed through.

“You’re seeing the rush in the southern part of the county,” he said.

Logan warned that the county may face class-action lawsuits because “rights aren’t being respected.”

“It’s not a level playing field,” he said. “We are here to level it.”

John Martin of Mainstream Renewable Power, which plans a three-county wind farm, told Barnickel that “it’s just not right. No company should operate like this.”

The next day, Barnickel’s wife, Christina Barnickel, said in an interview that the state should fine companies that trespass.

“We have tried to stop them and showed them where the property line is,” she said. “You put so much hope and investment in the crop, and then someone knocks it over. It rubs you wrong.”

Mahoney said the company would continue to work hard to make sure it is a responsible neighbor throughout the rest of the project. He noted that the project is complex, with more than 100 workers busy building access roads, erecting turbines and delivering components on site.

“Despite this complexity, Goldwind is committed to minimizing the impact on the local community, including both participating landowners and neighboring landowners alike.”

NEXT FEATURE:

FROM WISCONSIN

More images of field fragmentation in the Columbia County We Energies wind project.

Photos by Jim Bembinster, 2011

AN OPEN LETTER FROM A WISCONSIN FARMER WHO REGRETS SIGNING A WIND CONTRACT

 "By signing that contract, I signed away the control of the family farm, and it's the biggest regret I have ever experienced and will ever experience."

-Gary Steinich, Cambria, Wisconsin. June 2011

     Sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, a wind developer working for Florida Power and Light showed up near the Wisconsin Town of Cambria looking to get in touch with someone at the Steinich family farm.

He wanted to talk to the landowner about leasing a bit of land for the installation of a met tower. He needed to measure the winds in the area for a possible windfarm and Walter Steinich's land looked like a good place to do it.

The wind developer seemed like a good guy to Mr. Steinich who was in his early 70's at the time. The money seemed good. A met tower didn't seem like a big deal. It was just a tall pole with some guy wires, and it was temporary. Mr. Steinich signed the contract.

That was nearly ten years ago. Mr. Steinich has since passed away and now his son, Gary, runs the farm. He's written an open letter to Wisconsin farmers about his experience with the wind company since then.

Photos below are of access roads and turbine foundations in various farm fields in the Glacier Hils project now under construction in Columbia County, Wisconsin

Turbine access road cutting diagonally across field in Glacier Hills project. May 2011

From One Wisconsin Farmer to Another:

This is an open letter to Wisconsin farmers who are considering signing a wind lease to host turbines on your land. Before you sign, I’d like to tell you about what happened to our family farm after we signed a contract with a wind developer.

In 2002, a wind developer approached my father about signing a lease agreement to place a MET tower on our land. My father was in his 70’s at the time. The developer did a good job of befriending him and gaining his trust.
 
He assured my father that the project wasn’t a done deal and was a long way off. They first had to put up the MET tower to measure the wind for awhile.

He told my father that if the project went forward there would be plenty of time to decide if we wanted to host turbines on our farm. There would be lots of details to work out and paperwork to sign well before the turbines would be built. The developer said my father could decide later on if he wanted to stay in the contract.
 
In 2003 the developer contacted us again. This time he wanted us to sign a contract to host turbines on our land. We were unsure about it, so we visited the closest wind project we knew of at the time. It was in Montfort, WI.
 
The Monfort project consists of 20 turbines that are about 300 feet tall and arranged in a straight line, taking up very little farmland with the turbine bases and access roads. The landowners seemed very satisfied with the turbines. But we were still unsure about making the commitment.

We were soon contacted again by the developer, and we told him we were undecided. Then he really started to put pressure on us to sign.

This was in March of 2004, a time of $1.60 corn and $1200 an acre land. It seemed worth it have to work around a couple of turbines for the extra cash. We were told the turbines would be in a straight line and only take up a little bit of land like the ones in Monfort.

And we were also told that we were the ones holding up the project. That all of our neighbors had signed, and we were the last hold-outs. It persuaded us.

What we didn’t know then was the developer was not being truthful. We were not the ‘last hold-out’ at all. In later discussions with our neighbors we found out that in fact we were the very first farmers to sign up. I have since found out this kind of falsehood is a common tactic of wind developers.
  
My father read through the contract. He said he thought it was ok. I briefly skimmed through it, found the language confusing, but trusted my father's judgment. We didn’t hire a lawyer to read it through with us. We didn’t feel the need to. The developer had explained what was in it.
 
The wind contract and easement on our farm was for 20 years. By then my dad was 75. He figured time was against him for dealing with this contract in the future so we agreed I should sign it. A few months later, my father died suddenly on Father's Day, June 20th, 2004
 
After that, we didn’t hear a whole lot about the wind farm for a couple years. There was talk that the project was dead. And then in 2007 we were told the developer sold the rights to the project. A Wisconsin utility bought it.
 
After that everything changed. The contract I signed had an option that allowed it to be extended for an additional 10 years. The utility used it.
 
The turbines planned for the project wouldn’t be like the ones in Monfort. They were going to be much larger, 400 feet tall. And there were going to be 90 of them.

They weren’t going to be in a straight row. They’d be sited in the spots the developer felt were best for his needs, including in middle of fields, with access roads sometimes cutting diagonally across good farm land. Landowners could have an opinion about turbine placement but they would not have final say as to where the turbines and access roads would be placed. It was all in the contract.

Nothing was the way we thought it was going to be. We didn't know how much land would be taken out of production by the access roads alone. And we didn't understand how much the wind company could do to our land because of what was in the contract..

In 2008 I had the first of many disputes with the utility, and soon realized that according to the contract I had little to no say about anything. This became painfully clear to me once the actual construction phase began in 2010 and the trucks and equipment came to our farm and started tearing up the field.

 In October of 2010 a representative of the utility contacted me to ask if a pile of soil could be removed from my farm. It was near the base of one of the turbines they were putting on my land. I said no, that no soil is to be removed from my farm.

The rep said that the pile was actually my neighbor’s soil, that the company was storing it on my land with plans to move it to another property.

Shortly afterwards I noticed the pile of subsoil was gone.

 In November of 2011 I saw several trucks loading up a second pile of soil on my land and watched them exiting down the road. I followed them and then called the Columbia County Sheriff. Reps from the company were called out. I wanted my soil back.

 A few days later the rep admitted they couldn’t give it back to me because my soil was gone. It had been taken and already dispersed on someone else's land. I was offered 32 truck loads of soil from a stockpile they had. I was not guaranteed that the soil would be of the same quality and composition as the truck loads of soil they took from my farm.

I was informed by the lawyer for the utility that I had until April 30, 2011 to decide to take the soil. There would be no other offer. Take it or leave it.

I contacted the Public Service Commission for help. The PSC approved the terms of project and I believed the utility was violating those terms. The PSC responded by telling me they could do nothing because the issue involved a private contract between myself and the utility.

They told me my only option was to sue the utility.

My father and I both worked those fields. Watching the way they’ve been ripped apart would sicken any farmer. But what farmer has the time and money it would take to sue a Wisconsin utility?

By signing that contract I signed away the control of the family farm, and it’s the biggest regret I have ever experienced and will ever experience. I have only myself to blame for not paying close enough attention to what I was signing.

We had a peaceful community here before the developer showed up, but no more. Now it’s neighbor against neighbor, family members not speaking to one another and there is no ease in conversation like in the old days. Everyone is afraid to talk for fear the subject of the wind turbines will come up. The kind of life we enjoyed in our community is gone forever.

I spend a lot of sleepless nights wishing I could turn back the clock and apply what I've learned from this experience. Now corn and bean prices are up. The money from the turbines doesn't balance out our crop loss from land taken out of production. The kind of life we enjoyed on our family farm is gone forever too.

I would not sign that contract today.  As I write this, the utility is putting up the towers all around us. In a few months the turbines will be turned on and we'll have noise and shadow flicker to deal with. If I have trouble with these things, too bad. I've signed away my right to complain. These are some of the many problems I knew nothing about when I signed onto the project.

If you are considering signing a wind lease, take the contract to a lawyer. Go over every detail. Find out exactly what can happen to your fields, find out all the developer will be allowed to do to your land. Go through that contract completely, and think hard before make your decision.

I can tell you from first hand experience, once you sign that contract, you will not have a chance to turn back.

Gary Steinich
Steinich Farms, Inc.
Cambria, WI
June, 2011

UPDATE: JUNE 5, 2011 Gary Steinich contacted Better Plan to let us know he and the utility have reached an agreement on his soil restoration.

EXTRA CREDIT READING:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT WIND LEASE CONTRACT  MUCH LIKE THE ONE THE STEINICH FAMILY SIGNED.

It can be found on the PSC Docket for the Glacier HIlls project. [ #6634 CE 302]

NEXT STORY: From Rock County, WI

SPRING VALLEY CONSIDERING BAN ON WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: The Janesville Gazette, gazettextra.com

June 4, 2011

By GINA DUWE

SPRING VALLEY TOWNSHIP — Town officials in Spring Valley are considering a new moratorium on wind turbines after the largest wind company in North America inquired about town wind ordinances.

The town board will discuss and likely vote on a moratorium at its Monday, June 13, meeting, Clerk Judy Albright said.

Spring Valley is among several area townships that wrote wind moratoriums while new rules to regulate wind projects less than 100-megawatts are decided at the state level.

Town officials discovered their previous moratorium expired Dec. 1 after Ted Weissman of NextEra Energy recently inquired about ordinances related to wind development and the process for placing a met tower.

A met tower gathers weather data to help wind developers determine if a site is good for development.

Weissman said he couldn’t comment but the company was looking at the area and hadn’t made any decisions. A company spokesman, however, said NextEra is not pursuing a met tower in Rock County.

Spokesman Steve Stengel said Weissman might have conducted some inquiries, but “we are not proposing it at this point,” he said. “What may or may not happen in the future (is) all speculation.”

NextEra owns and operates two wind farms in Wisconsin: 36 turbines at Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center in Dodge County and 20 turbines at Montfort Wind Energy Center in Iowa County.

Neighboring townships Magnolia and Union became possible sites for wind turbines a few years ago, and one met tower was placed in each town to gather data.

A spokeswoman for Acciona, the company that eyed those townships, said this week it is not pursuing “the early stage development project in Union and Magnolia. This enables (Acciona) to focus efforts and resources on other projects that are a better fit for their portfolio.”

Developers would be interested in hooking into the major transmission line that runs east-west through the northern part of Spring Valley, town officials said.

Smaller wind projects are permitted through local ordinances until lawmakers enact statewide rules.

Under state law, the Public Service Commission has to develop the rules, and a committee worked through most of last year to write the rules. When the rules were set to take effect in March, Republican lawmakers suspended them. It’s now up to legislators to approve new rules by May 2012 or the suspended rules would go into effect, a PSC spokesman said.

Republican Sen. Frank Lasee has proposed a bill that would add additional requirements to the PSC rules. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy, Biotechnology and Consumer Protection, but no hearing is scheduled.

If you go

The town board will discuss and likely vote on a wind moratorium at its 7 p.m. meeting Monday, June 13, at the Orfordville Fire Department, 173 N. Wright St., Orfordville.

From the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules:

(Emphasis ours)

Motion on

Ch. PSC 128

That the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspend Ch. PSC 128, pursuant to s. 227.26 (2) (d), Stats., effective March 1, 2011, on the basis of testimony received at its February 9, 2011 meeting, and on the grounds that the contents of Ch. PSC 128 create an emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare; are arbitrary and capricious; and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites as stated in s. 227.19 (4) (d) 2 and 6.  

COMMITTEE VOTES TO SUSPEND WIND-SITING RULES
SOURCE: WisBusiness.com

March 1, 2011

By Andy Szal

The Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules this morning voted to suspend wind turbine siting regs that were set to take effect today.

The committee voted 5-2 along party lines to suspend PSC rule 128 and now has 30 days to submit a bill repealing the measure to the full Legislature.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, accused the majority of going around the normal legislative process and flip-flopping, since a number of Republicans supported the wind siting bill last session.

"This wasn't a flash in the pan, fly by night rule," Hebl said.

Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa and the committee co-chair, said the committee had a duty to reconsider the PSC rule after lawmakers voiced concerns about the issue early in the new session. Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Cascade, added, "We didn't vote for the rule. We voted to give them the authority to promulgate a rule."

Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, said the bill would have a particularly detrimental effect on the wind turbine industry in Manitowoc.

"These jobs probably will go to other states," Kessler said.

SECOND FEATURE: Different state, same story: The trouble with wind turbines sited too close to homes. Above, shadow flicker in the home of an Illinois family, below stories from more families having trouble.

WIND FARM COMPLAINTS

Source: KWQC-TV6

March 1, 2011

"As the sun comes across the sky, it hits the turbine blades and causes this flicker," she said.

Nearby homeowners say it can go on for hours. "When it first happened, we felt there was something wrong with the electricity because it felt like every light was blinking,"said Barb Draper.

People crowded a meeting in Princeton, Illinois Monday night to express their concerns about wind farms. Residents packed into a meeting with the Bureau County Board of Appeals. Some want to put a stop to the proposed Walnut Ridge wind project. It would build 150 turbines over more than 15,000 acres and affect more than 75 landowners.

Others at the meeting are already surrounded by wind turbines from the Big Sky wind farm. They want the county and the companies to focus on issues caused by the current turbines. They complain that the turbines are noisy, cast flickering shadows that can cause seizures and even block television reception.

The Anderson family in rural Ohio, Illinois says it has turned their quality of life and turned it into living in an industrial park. THe nearest wind turbine is 1,750 feet from their home. Deb Anderson says ever since the turbines started running, their life hasn't been the same.

"As the sun comes across the sky, it hits the turbine blades and causes this flicker," she said.

Nearby homeowners say it can go on for hours. "When it first happened, we felt there was something wrong with the electricity because it felt like every light was blinking,"said Barb Draper.

"On, off, on, off as the blade caught the sun it made a very disturbing motion. It almost made you sick to your stomach." added Bob Draper.

Another problem that came up after the turbines were turned on is with their TV reception. The family says it varies, depending on the direction of the blades. Some days, the family gets 15-20 channels. During our visit, they could only get in two.

On top of that there's the noise that won't go away. These property owners say they understand the benefits of the wind farms. But they'd like the problems fixed before more wind turbines come into the area.

The wind power company has put up two antennas on their house, but the family says they didn't help. They company also offered them money to buy a better delivery system, like satellite TV.

Ryan Light in the Director of Renewable Energy for the Eastern Iowa Community College District. He says those are some of the drawbacks for people living near large wind farms.

"One effect we need to look at a little harder into is the flicker effect, which is the spinning of blades and shadow cast. For people with certain medical concerns it can cause seizures," Light said.

He says there are companies working to alleviate the radio interference with a new kind of blade and there is more research being conducted on noise reduction systems.

SPLIT DECISION FINDS WE ENERGIES DIDN'T EARN TOO MUCH

SOURCE: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

March 1, 2011

By Thomas Content

In a 2-to-1 vote, state regulators ruled Thursday that We Energies won’t have to issue credits to its 1.1 million electricity customers for profit it earned in 2008 and 2009.

Commissioner Lauren Azar sided with customer groups that had called for the commission to vote to return money to customers, saying the commission should decided that the utility earned more than its maximum profit allowed the regulated utility – 10.75% in 2008 and 2009.

But commissioners Eric Callisto and Mark Meyer voted not to require any profits to be returned to customers. Meyer said it was inconsistent for the commission to be seeking to return profits to customers when a utility earns above its maximum profit level since the commission does not allow utilities to raise rates when utilities fail to earn as much in a given year as the profit level, or return on equity, set by the commission.

Over the past 10 years, utilities have more often earned less than their return on equity, Meyer said.

The debate at Thursday's meeting ended up boiling down to how Callisto and Azar interpreted whether management bonuses paid to utility executives should be included in the calculation of a utility’s profit.

Callisto said the commission specifically excludes management bonuses and incentive pay from being collected in utility rates and that the commission staff will be conducting an investigation of utility bonuses in upcoming rate cases.

He said his position in this case was consistent with how the commission interpreted the issue in setting new rules for how utilities can raise rates when fuel prices climb.

Azar, who wanted the issue of bonuses addressed in the new fuel rules last year, said she has not changed her view. She said she considered utility bonuses too high for a regulated utility, given the state of the economy, high poverty rates in the We Energies service territory. The utility's "shareholders are doing quite well," she said.

In filings with the commission, We Energies had argued that the commission was shifting from utility regulator to utility micro-manager if it adopted the proposal of Azar and customer groups. The utility also argued that the commission has not had a consistent definition for utilities to determine what would and would not be included in a PSC calculation of whether a utility earned too much profit.

Callisto agreed. The issue came up in one prior case – in which the commission also ruled in We Energies’ favor – but the commission’s guidance to utilities on this issue has been “ephemeral.”

An analysis by We Energies prepared last week indicated that the utility could have been required to return $53 million to customers. Based on the majority decision Thursday, the commission determined that the utility earned profit of 10.36% in 2008 and 10.52% in 2009, below the 10.75% profit allowed by the PSC.

That means the utility $25.7 million less than the maximum, according to the filing.

Third Feature

FALMOUTH OFFERS PARTIAL TURBINE SHUTDOWN

SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

March 1, 2011

By Aaron Gouveia,

FALMOUTH — Falmouth officials have offered to turn off the town’s wind turbine for three hours a day, following noise complaints from neighbors.

Acting Town Manager Heather Harper proposed the partial overnight shutdown, calling the offer a “good faith effort toward a mutual resolution of the matter.”

After tracking complaints regarding the 1.65-megawatt turbine off Blacksmith Shop Road, known as Wind I, town officials found residents are most affected during periods of high winds in the late evening and early morning hours, Harper wrote in a Feb. 23 letter.

“We intend to modify the operation of the machine between the hours of midnight and 3 a.m., the times at which the background noise may be lower than the sound emanating from our wind energy equipment,” Harper wrote.

Details of the town’s offer are still unclear, however. Harper’s letter did not specify whether the turbine would be turned off for three hours every night or only during periods of high winds.

When approached by a Times reporter prior to Monday’s selectmen’s meeting, Harper said she did not know the answer and was unable to provide one before the start of the meeting. The meeting was still in progress as of the Times’ deadline.

But Gerald Potamis, the town’s wastewater superintendent who oversees operation of Wind I, said the change will go into effect as soon as the turbine manufacturer, Vestas, sends a technician to reprogram the turbine.

The shutdown is an “interim solution” until town officials and neighbors can work out a permanent solution, Potamis said.

But Christopher Senie, an attorney representing 18 residents who claim they are adversely affected by turbine noise, vibrations and shadow flicker, has said the town’s offer is not good enough.

Senie, who was not available for comment Monday, penned a Feb. 25 letter that stated this is the second time in four months Harper has made the offer to his clients.

Senie called the three-hour reprieve “wholly inadequate” in his letter, and wrote the suffering of neighbors “will not be lessened in any meaningful way.”

The only acceptable interim solution, he wrote, is to shut off Wind I whenever wind speeds reach 23 mph. It is a proposal Harper has repeatedly rejected, according to Senie’s letter.

“This is the only meaningful way to provide my clients some relief while the ultimate solution is developed and implemented,” Senie wrote.

Todd Drummey, who lives approximately 3,000 feet from Wind I, said the town’s offer “completely misses the point” because it assumes residents will be satisfied with three hours of sleep every night.

“It’s the same offer from back in October,” Drummey said. “It was ridiculous then and it’s ridiculous now.”

The ultimate goal, according to Senie and his clients, is to convince the town it was wrong not to require a special permit before the turbine became operational.

Building Commissioner Eladio Gore deemed the turbine a municipal use, and cited zoning bylaws that exempt “all municipal uses” from the special permit process. Senie, on the other hand, cited another local bylaw specifically pertaining to windmills, that requires a special permit in all instances.

Last month, three members of the zoning board of appeals said Gore made a mistake in interpreting the bylaws. But the appeal failed because two ZBA members recused themselves, meaning a 4-0 vote was necessary to uphold the appeal.

But the neighbors are still hopeful because selectmen — acting as the owners of the turbine — can request a special permit at any time.

To that end, several neighbors showed up at Monday’s meeting hoping to persuade selectmen to start the special permit process, which will give neighbors a chance to negotiate some potential compromises. But they were not on the agenda, and as of 9:30 p.m. it was unclear whether they would be allowed to speak.

NEXT FEATURE:

WOLFE ISLAND WIND PLANT STILL HARMING BIRDS IN IMPORTANT BIRD AREA

SOURCE: Nature Canada, www.naturecanada.ca

Last May, Nature Canada’s Ted Cheskey blogged about a report that described how birds and bats have been affected by the TransAlta wind plant on Wolfe Island, a globally significant Important Bird Area in southern Ontario known for its waterfowl, raptors and swallows. He called the numbers of birds and bats being killed by TransAlta’s turbines “shockingly high,” indeed the highest recorded in Canada and one of the highest in North America.

However, since the report only studied a six month period, TransAlta’s spokespeople argued that it was premature to reach conclusions so soon, especially when comparing the Wolfe Island deaths to yearly casualty rates for other wind plants. Besides, TransAlta reasoned, the results appeared to be within the thresholds of acceptable limits set by provincial and federal government regulators.

Then last month, Stantec Consulting, the firm that produced the original report, released its report on the second half of the year: January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010.

And the results for birds are troubling.

Wolfe Island: Most Deadly Wind Plant in Canada

Though casualty numbers for birds did not skyrocket in the second sixth month period, a time that included the spring migration, they still were high enough to make the Wolfe Island wind plant the most deadly for birds in Canada.

The 13.4 birds per turbine casualty rate is about 7 times the industry average in Canada according to Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) but below the so-called “adaptive management” threshold for TransAlta facility, as set by various government agencies. That level is 11.7 birds per MW which translates to 21 birds per turbine, which just happens to be the highest level ever recorded at any wind facility in North America (Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). Using the highest level recorded as the threshold before which any mitigation is even considered seems a bit dubious to say the least.

Estimated and actual numbers of birds killed, proportioned by the species actually found, over the entire 12 month period, paints a disturbing picture:

• Tree Swallow 218 (calculation based on 31 corpses)
• Purple Martin 49 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
• Bobolink 73 (calculation based on 9 corpses)
• Wilson’s Snipe 50 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
• Red-tailed Hawk 10 (actual count)

It is important to note that the calculated numbers are arrived at using Stantec’s formula to calculate total casualty rates. A sample of turbines are visited either weekly or twice a week and a search for bird corpses on the ground beneath the blades is conducted. As the method is not intended as a comprehensive search, determining the casualty rate requires taking in factors like the ability of the search team to find carcasses, the percentage of the area searched and the rate of predation between searches. The 31 Tree Swallow corpses, in other words, represent about 15% of the calculated number of tree swallows killed, based on Stantec’s calculations and field testing.

Birds Most Effected are Already in Serious Decline

While the report and the research behind it appear to be quite solid, the authors contend that the casualty rates are quite sustainable and will not have any effect on the species populations. They do this by contrasting the kill numbers from the turbines with the estimated Ontario population of the most affected species – Tree Swallow, numbering about 400,000 and Bobolink, about 800,000. (They do not do this for Red-tailed Hawk, which in fact may not meet their sustainability criteria). They also contrasted the numbers with estimates of birds killed by other human activities or artifices such as tall buildings, vehicles, cell towers, and pets.

While this argument has gained considerable traction among some in the wind industry and even the scientific community, it fails to consider that the turbines at Wolfe Island are killing different species than the tall buildings, cats and cars. Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture and Bobolink rarely if ever show up on lists of casualties from tall buildings, and are unlikely victims of cats, with the possible exception of the Bobolink. And vehicle collisions, well – while this is a legitimate concern, Turkey Vultures have arguably had a net benefit from the carnage caused by vehicles.

But it is some of these very species – the ones most likely to be harmed by Wolfe Island’s turbines – that are already experiencing declines.

Take swallows, for example. Most species of swallow have declined significantly in Canada over the past 20 years. Adding additional threats to already stressed populations is not prudent. According to trend data on this species from Breeding Bird Survey routes in Ontario, the Tree Swallow has declined by about 6% annually over the past 20 years, a cumulative decline of almost 80%! In other words, the current estimated population of 400,000, was 2 million only 20 years ago. Bobolink, recently added to COSEWIC’s list of threatened species, declined 4.1% over the same period. We should not trivialize the impact of removing dozens, or hundreds of individuals from a population of species that are clearly in trouble.

In the meantime, good documentation of the impacts is essential. While TransAlta had to deliver these studies – they were a condition of the wind project’s approval – the company and Stantec should be recognized for doing good work. Once one takes the spin out of the document, the data and the methodologies are solid. The quality of the monitoring appears to be high, and some weaknesses, such as a potential bias to undercount the number of raptor fatalities, are recognized in the report.

With regard to birds of prey, even if they were not undercounted, the number of casualties is excessively high at .27 per turbine. This was the highest recorded rate for raptor kills outside of California. The victims included:

• 10 Red-tailed Hawks,
• 1 Northern Harrier,
• 1 Osprey,
• 2 American Kestrel,
• 1 Merlin
• 8 Turkey Vulture

This number crossed the “notification threshold” for the project, meaning that the CWS and MNR were notified about the high rates. The report states that TransAlta and MNR have initiated discussions regarding “adaptive management” in response to the raptor deaths. We look forward to hearing what the response might be.

Next Steps to Reduce Bird Deaths

With the plant already in operation, the only option now is to mitigate the risk to wildlife perhaps by slowing down the blades of the turbines at hazardous moments of the year, or turning them off. However, unless the numbers of casualties increase even further in the next two years, it is unclear how far the threshold must be exceeded and how often, before mitigation is implemented. It is reported in the document that four notifications were made by the company to the government for raptors alone, yet none appears to have led to mitigation.

Today, several wind farms are being proposed around the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the most worrying being Gilead’s Ostrander Point wind farm. Ostrander Point is an area that is arguably even more significant for birds than Wolfe Island, because of its specific geography. Ironically, the land on which the Gilead project is being proposed is owned by the Province of Ontario – a Crown forest block.

Opposition to turbines in agricultural areas appears to have persuaded government officials to meet their renewable energy agenda by prioritizing “crown lands” as locations for wind energy plants. While this might be appropriate and acceptable for some properties, when a wind plant is located in an area of great significance to wildlife, as is the case with Ostrander Point, so-called green energy ceases to be green at all. The Ontario government needs to think more carefully about where they allow wind turbines. It is not too late for the Province to design a policy that promotes green energy and also protects key biodiversity sites including Important Bird Areas.

Otherwise, as more of these facilities are built in bad places, wind energy will become a significant contributor to the declines of several species that are already in trouble, and the Green Energy Act will be recognized and remembered for all of the wrong reasons.

About Wolfe Island

Wolfe Island, located in the eastern end of Lake Ontario, a shore distance from Kingston, is about 32 kilometres long and about 11 wide in the widest area covering about 12,140 hectares.  The west end of the island is exposed to the westerly winds blowing across much of the length of Lake Ontario.   The island is a mixture of agricultural land under various regimes of management from annual crops to pasture, natural habitats from woodlands and patches of second-growth forest, to grasslands, wetlands and the residences and farms of the Wolfe Islanders.   TransAlta’s 86 turbines tower 80 metres above the farmland, pasture, and grasslands, and are constructed largely on the western side of the islands where the winds are probably the strongest.   The wind plant has a nameplate capacity of 198 Megawatts, but the average output in its first year of operation was only 48 Megawatts, a quarter of the capacity, due to the variability of winds.  This output number appears to be about average for Ontario’s wind industry. 

Wolfe Island is a Globally significant Important Bird Area, (IBA) recognized for its significance for waterfowl primarily, but also for its importance to raptors (birds of prey including hawks and owls) and Tree Swallows.  Being at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the island’s habitats are also important stop-over destinations for migrating birds and bats.  Nature Canada believes that industrial wind plants should be excluded from IBAs, and other sites that are known to be highly significant for wildlife, particularly birds.   No wind plant, even the notorious Altamont plant in California, has ever, to our knowledge been decommissioned because of impacts on wildlife.   Once these things are built, then are not turned off until they stop working or break down.   For us at Nature Canada, this a strong incentive to encourage provincial policies to exclude wind plants from IBAs and important migratory corridors and fight the few existing proposals within IBAs.   However, the Wolfe Island plant is built and operating, so its impacts on birds and bats will be instructive for other projects being proposed or considered in areas that are significant for birds. 

"On, off, on, off as the blade caught the sun it made a very disturbing motion. It almost made you sick to your stomach." added Bob Draper.