A woman who opposes wind turbines allegedly was pushed twice by a man who supports them on Tuesday following a town of Morrison meeting, according to a Brown County Sheriff's Department report. The suspect was allegedly picking up chairs when the incident occurred. The woman said the man bumped into her husband in a similar incident last year.
Chicago-based company Invenergy wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland. Progress has been slowed due to updated wind turbine rules.
An anti-wind turbine yard sign was stolen Wednesday from the 5700 block of Big Apple Road in Glenmore, a sheriff's report said. The sign alleged turbines were unhealthy. Similar incidents have been reported across Brown County.
The Morrison Planning Commission is holding a public meeting to update residents on changing wind turbine rules at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the Town Hall, 3792 Park Road.
***NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT WISCONSIN WIND THUGS IN ACTION***
"It's a death sentence.
This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.
It's a hit job."
- Michael Vickerman, who was a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]
REFORM BILL POSES THREAT TO WIND FARMS IN OUR STATE
Buried in a regulatory reform bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker earlier this week lies a provision that wind energy insiders say could shut down 12 wind farm projects, cost investors billions and essentially kill the industry in the state.
In the bill announced Tuesday, Walker seeks to quadruple the distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.
The governor said the provision was written to protect homeowners, many of whom have complained about the encroachment of wind turbines in the rural parts of the state. Opponents of wind farms have complained of diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant machines and loss of sleep from vibrations.
But critics this week called the provision a job killer and said it would earn Wisconsin a reputation for being hostile to alternative energy sources, such as wind.
"It would in essence shut down wind energy in the state," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "It is one of the most onerous regulations we have seen."
Bode said that, if passed, the measure would shut down 12 wind farm projects worth about $1.8 billion. Those projects, which are in various stages of planning, could produce about 950 full-time jobs for one year, she said.
"This is a shock to those of us in the wind industry," Bode said. "This will cause projects to go to other states."
Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie would not comment on specific criticisms of the bill, instead reiterating what has become the new Republican governor's mantra. "Governor Walker is focused on ensuring Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 jobs across all economic sectors," he said.
The proposal was met with applause from wind farm critics, like Elizabeth Ebertz. Ebertz, 67, lives in a little valley about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state's largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.
But according to Ebert, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden - and, on most nights, disturb her sleep.
"I think it's a terrific idea, and long overdue," she said. "I have a lot of them now and I'd like to get rid of them."
‘Death sentence'
Bode said the wind industry employs about 3,000 people in Wisconsin. The state spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.
According to the AWEA, Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its existing wind farms - enough to power about 110,000 homes. Yet it trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670.
Industry insiders hoped new rules approved by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle would end years of localized fights - often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations - that killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years and scared off several others.
Supporters hoped the new rules would help the state reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state's energy now.
But Walker's proposal has many wondering what the future holds for the industry. Currently the state requires turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The turbines are also required to have a setback of 1,250 feet from a home.
Walker's provision would push the setback from the property line to 1,800 feet (almost six football fields), a distance that industry experts say is unheard of in other states.
"It's a death sentence," said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. "This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high. It's a hit job."
Taking their business elsewhere
Vickerman said the new rules, if approved, would essentially end the industry's growth here. His sentiment is shared by many in the wind industry.
"This regulation goes far beyond what any other state has done," said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company currently planning a large wind farm in Calumet County. "This will kill our project."
The Chicago-based Midwest has developed seven wind farms in total and has 12 more in the planning stages. The company already built two wind farms in Wisconsin: the 36-turbine Butler Ridge Wind Energy Project in Dodge County and the 41-turbine Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County.
Polz said Midwest has already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project, which would employ between 150 and 200 construction workers for up to 18 months if it moved forward.
"This sends the message to us that Wisconsin does not want our business," he said.
Dean Baumgardner, executive vice president for the St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group, said Walker's proposal was disappointing, especially considering the governor's vow to create jobs.
Wind Capital, which has an office in Madison, has developed six farms and has 20 more in the planning stages - including a 40- to 60-turbine farm in Grant County. Baumgardner said Walker's proposal will likely kill the Grant County farm.
"But we will keep building wind farms," he said. "We will just do it elsewhere."
SECOND FEATURE:
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
The setbacks proposed in the Walker bill will not be the strictest in the nation as stated in the article below. The claim seems to be based on statements from Denise Bode, head of the Amercian Wind Energy Association which is the largest wind lobbying organization in the nation.
EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Who is Denise Bode? Scroll down past the RED HANDS to read more about the AWEA and Denise Bode.
PROPOSED WIND RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE STRICTEST IN NATION
The head of a wind industry trade group and a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association squared off over Gov. Scott Walker’s wind farm siting proposals.
Denise Bode, chief executive of the American Wind Energy Association weighed in Friday on Wisconsin’s proposed wind-siting rule, calling it “the biggest barrier” to wind development in the country.
“This will be the biggest regulatory barrier in terms of setbacks in the country,” said Denise Bode, chief executive of the AWEA, based in Washington, D.C., in an interview Friday afternoon. “You’re adding a new regulator barrier and putting a ‘closed for business’ sign on Wisconsin for wind development.”
A restrictive environment for wind development will create a chilling effect for companies that manufacture parts for wind turbines to want to open plants in the state, following the lead of firms like TowerTech in Manitowoc and Ingeteam, which is building a factory in the Menomonee River Valley.
Many states have no setback requirements, deferring to local units of government. Of those that do, none has a setback as far as Wisconsin’s proposal, Bode said.
But Tom Larson, chief lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association, said the proposal is a strong defense for property rights.
“We think that with this bill Wisconsin would be the only state in the country to have an adequate setback for property owners,” said Larson.
He called the rule adopted by the Public Service Commission “the poster child for Scott Walker’s regulatory reform on how administrative rules are made,” noting that the rule was enacted by an agency and not elected government officials.
Developing wind farms in Wisconsin has generated more controversy than in some other states in part because its areas most suitable for wind turbines are more densely populated than rural expanses of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas that host wind projects.
Opposition to wind farms led some counties to enact wind power moratoriums and other restrictive rules. The patchwork of local rules stalled projects, prompting the state Legislature to pass legislation to set a statewide standard.
Bode said the industry wasn’t pleased with – but could live with – the standard that was adopted by the Public Service Commission last year, Bode said.
Dan Ebert, who chairs the state’s wind siting advisory council, said the end result wasn’t perfect, but it did a better job at balancing the competing interests with this issue.
“We shouldn’t have the Realtors Association dictating energy policy in this state,” he said.
The proposed rule is more aggressive than the PSC rule because it would cover large utility-scale wind farm as well as smaller wind farms, said Ebert, a senior vice president with WPPI Energy in Sun Prairie.
Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective setbacks in this bill and to also contact your senator and representative to encourage them to support it.
CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov 115 East Capitol Madison WI 53702 (608) 266-1212
"The wind industry over the last year has made a major lobbying push. In 2009, the industry tripled spending on influence efforts from a year earlier. The American Wind Energy Association paid $5 million for lobbying in 2009, compared with $1.7 million the previous year, the highest amount ever for the association and a sixth of the $30.1 million spent by all renewable companies combined. It came in the same year that the wind industry saw its prospects lifted by legislation."
The Energy Department worked closely with the wind industry lobby to discredit a Spanish report that criticized wind power as a job killer, internal DOE e-mails reveal.
The e-mails obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request show how, starting last April, lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association became alarmed that lawmakers were citing a study by Spain's King Juan Carlos University. The study found that Spain's massive investments in wind power cost 2.2 jobs for every "green" job created.
The study came out in early 2009 just as the wind lobby was building up its presence in Washington, hoping it could score big in an energy bill then being debated in Congress. Industry lobbyists feared the Spanish study would halt momentum for pro-wind legislation.
Study Fanned Wind's Fears
The e-mails show the wind lobbyists shared their concerns with DOE employees, who agreed the study needed to be refuted. In August, DOE produced a white paper specifically attacking the study.
For example, e-mails show the lobbyists requesting to know when the report would come out and DOE employees hustling to get it published because it was late.
"Is it okay if we send out our response (paper) to colleagues at AWEA and CAP? We promised it to them many weeks ago. It will soon be irrelevant," said energy analyst Suzanne Tegen, co-author of the DOE paper, in a July 29 e-mail to colleagues. CAP refers to the liberal Center for American Progress, which has pushed for renewable energy subsidies and has close ties to the Democratic Party.
CAP Senior Fellow Dan Weiss told IBD the center wasn't involved in drafting or editing the report, though it did promote it on its Web site.
The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained the e-mails via a Freedom of Information Act request and shared them with IBD. Many of the messages were redacted.
The e-mails are mainly between employees at DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Conspiracy Or Cooperation?
Chris Horner, a senior fellow with CEI, is pushing further FOIA requests to get the remaining documents. He argues that the e-mail timeline indicates the Energy Department produced its study at the wind lobby's request.
"It doesn't seem to be the department's idea," Horner said. "That is clear."
AWEA CEO Denise Bode called charges it got DOE to produce the study "absolutely false." Yes, the association worked with the administration on the issue, she said, but argued it was just how business is done in Washington.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: This sort of green manipulation makes for strange bi-partisan bedfellows.
Look a little closer at AWEA CEO Denise Bode, a conservative Republican with strong ties to the petroleum industry, and appointee to George W. Bush's Energy Transition Advisory Team.
Denise Bode (born 1954, Tulsa, Oklahoma) is a nationally recognized energy policy expert and a former Corporate Commissioner of that state.
In January 2005 she began her second and last six-year term in office, having won reelection by the most votes ever garnered by a Republican candidate for an Oklahoma.
Appointed by Governor Frank Keating, Bode took office on August 20, 1997 and was elected on November 3, 1998 with over 60% of the vote, a record for a Republican running statewide for the first time. She was reelected to her second full term in November, 2004.
Before joining the commission, Bode served for seven years as president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in Washington, D.C.
Bode was appointed to President George W. Bush’s Energy Transition Advisory Team[6] and has testified before Congress on numerous occasions, as well as lectured at the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.
She represented the United States in Oslo, Norway, at the International Union Conservative Women’s Conference.
She was elected by state regulators from the eight states that make up the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) region to serve as President of SPP’s Regional State Committee. The committee is charged with directing electric transmission expansion in Oklahoma and the other states in the SPP region.
Now look at Bode's 'cleansed' bio from the AWEA site which makes no mention of her ties to big oil and her conservative, Republican roots. Why leave this out?
DENISE BODE TO BECOME CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) today announced the appointment of Denise Bode as its new CEO, effective January 2, 2009.
Bode will succeed Randall S. Swisher, who is retiring after a 19-year stint with AWEA.
Bode, who is currently CEO of the American Clean Skies Foundation, is a nationally recognized energy policy expert and served for nine years on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Her experience in the energy field is extensive and includes seven years as President of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and nine years on the staff of then–U.S. Senator David Boren (D-OK) as his legal counsel, focusing on the areas of energy and taxation.
“Denise Bode is an extremely dynamic and well-respected leader on energy issues in Washington, D.C.,” said Swisher, “and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to AWEA. We are very fortunate to have such a talented and able individual available to lead the Association at a time when renewable energy stands on the threshold of dramatically expanding its contribution to America’s energy supply.”
“We were very lucky to have Denise’s leadership to get ACSF established as a real player in the debate on energy and the environment,” said Aubrey K McClendon, Chairman and Founder of the American Clean Skies Foundation.
“I am thrilled by my new opportunity of working with the AWEA team to grow wind power in the U.S.,” Bode said. “I am particularly proud of the role I played as Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner to bring commercial wind power to Oklahoma.”
To St. Louis based Wind Capital Group, the farmland in Southern Whitley County symbolizes new energy opportunities. They have agreements in place with a number of landowners to construct 400-foot wind turbines on their property. The first phase of the plan would reportedly erect over 150 turbines, including 4 within 2500 feet of Jake Sherman's property.
"I'm not necessarily against this, I just want to make sure my family is safe, and that our property values don't go down", said Jake Sherman, Columbia City Resident.
We met with a dozen concerned residents, who didn't know about a public meeting last month. They just found out how the plans would impact their property.
They've organized a petition requesting a 6-month moratorium on plans, saying the community needs to be educated about possible problems including property values, noise and health concerns.
"They're doing a sales pitch and they're not going to tell you the negative. The side effects and health concerns are well documented We're not against the concept, all we want is more time to study it", said Chad Shearer of Columbia City.
An official with Wind Capital Group told us much of the information on the internet is old. They say with new technology the turbines make very little noise and property values haven't been impacted in other areas. The company did confirm they've entered into agreements with a number of Whitley County landowners.
If approved, the wind farm would bring construction jobs and an estimated one million dollars per year to Whitley County. An owner with a unit on their property would also receive about 5-thousand dollars per year. We found members of a Wisconsin community who say they were misled by another company. Gerry Meyer's home has 4 turbines within 3300 feet and says the noise has changed his life.
A Chicago company called Invenergy owns the Wisconsin wind farm. Meyer has kept a 2-year diary detailing sleepless nights, not to mention what's called a shadow flicker. The flicker is created at a certain time when the turbine's blades slice through the sunlight. He also took a cortisol test, which measures a stress hormone and the results came back a high level of 254, he was tested again after 21 days of the turbines being turned off and the result was a 35.
"it has completely taken away our quality of life and the life of others around us as well"
Meyer says he's embarrassed he trusted Wisconsin officials to do what was best for his community. Meyer also says a neighbors home took 13 months to sell recently and was sold for nearly $90,000 below its appraised value. He says he can hear a turbine from 3300 feet away, one reason he feels ordinances should require the setback from homes be much longer.
Like many counties, Whitley County doesn't have a wind ordinance and the Plan Commission has been crafting one for a number of months using 18 other community ordinances as a guide. The document is 18 pages and limits the turbines to 1200 feet from property lines and 50 decibels. Executive Director David Sewell says the commission is *not* approving the wind project, but putting regulations in place. "They still will have to go through public hearings and rezoning. They'll have an opportunity to present arguments", said Sewell.
If approved Wednesday night, the issue will move to the County Commissioners. Plan Commission member David Schilling is expected to abstain from the vote, since he reportedly has an agreement to place a wind turbine on his property.
Wind Capital says the process takes 3-4 years and the next step for them will be installing meteorological towers to test the wind in the area. It's expected they will receive federal tax dollars for the project.
Wind Capital says the industry setback standard is 1000 feet, that's what Wells County has approved, they hope to start construction of their wind farm in 2013.
VINALHAVEN – A year ago, Fox Islands Wind began operating wind turbines on Vinalhaven Island. As a result, a community effort that began with eager anticipation is now tarnished.
As a neighbor of the wind turbine farm, this year has been a journey from hope to anger and disgust. Fox Islands Wind continues to misrepresent and mislead our community while using its authority to bully state regulators on the issue of violating noise standards.
Our experience has forced me to look into the deeper issues of industrial wind — the technology, the economics and the politics. It has been an uncomfortable journey that has changed my once honey-eyed vision of easy, green power to a view that industrial wind energy is, at present, bad science, bad economics and bad politics.
I add my voice to the growing number of Mainers who are demanding a moratorium on wind projects all over Maine.
Jonathan Carter, once an advocate for wind power, travels statewide to expose the arrogant destruction of mountaintops. David P. Corrington, a registered Maine Master Guide, has a new website, realwindinfoforme.org, that provides information about grid-scale industrial wind power development nationwide and industrial wind in Maine.
And there are the many voices of the residents of Camden, Montville, Bucksfield, Thorndike, Jackson and Dixmont who have repelled the efforts to locate windmills in their towns.
These voices, and countless others, are shouting truth in response to the half-truths, misrepresentations and distortions of wind developers.
Wind energy proponents continue to demand that we provide them with unprecedented resources and that we waive basic, traditional rights to discussion and debate.
They undermine local autonomy, enjoyment of property, and health and safety. They thumb their noses at environmental compliance and demand that citizens forgo normal, time-honored mechanisms of due process.
So, we must ask a simple question: How many more years will citizens be expected to pay, and what rights will we have to surrender, to benefit an unproven technology and the smoke-and-mirror economics that seem to be the foundation of industrial wind?
George Baker, vice president for community wind at the Island Institute and CEO of Fox Islands Wind, must be held responsible for the damages inflicted on our community. His Island Institute website says, “We will demonstrate how wind projects in the coastal area can be sited without adverse environmental and aesthetic impacts, and provide long-term economic benefits for local residents.”
Their failure to demonstrate success has placed our quiet community on the front pages of the nation’s top newspapers, including The New York Times.
How can the institute’s formula of 70 percent acceptance be deemed a success? What happens to the other 30 percent of us? Dismissed? Excused? Collateral damage?
Where do our neighbors find the money that has been stolen from them in lowered property values that they will never be able to recover? What happens with the increasing medical bills that families must shoulder from the stress of living with days filled with tortuous light flicker and sleepless nights of low-frequency rumblings?
How can the Island Institute justify Fox Islands Wind’s preposterous use of the ridiculous efforts of the National Renewable Energy Laboratories, compiling data from summer residents with an experiment that started in October?
How can anyone call this past year a success when Fox Islands Wind refuses to share financial information to show exactly where the purported savings are coming from and what the projections for the next several years might be?
I know that the Baker/Island Institute strategy is to wear the neighbors down. That is not going to happen. It gives us strength to know that, while Baker, the Island Institute and their cronies congratulate themselves in their boardrooms, they should be aware the nation is watching them with a jaundiced eye.
After this long year I can only shake my head and say: Shame on the Island Institute, shame on Fox Islands Wind, shame on all the other wind projects that are changing the face of Maine for the profit of a few ex-governors, ex-public utility chairmen and ex-Harvard professors.
Cheryl Lindgren is a member of Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, a group of concerned residents working toward responsible renewable energy on Vinalhaven.
Glenbrae farming couple Carl and Sam Stepnell walked away from their nine-year-old home last week, claiming turbines near their property were making them sick.
Mr Stepnell, 39, said the family had bought a second home in Ballarat, and now return to the property during the day to run the family farm.
“Our parents are in their seventies and live at the other end of the place,” Mr Stepnell said yesterday.
“For Dad to pull over at the shed, come over here and have a cuppa… and his grand kids aren’t here.
“The heart and soul has gone out of our home, which was us and our kids.”
Mrs Stepnell, 37, said she began to suffer symptoms immediately after turbines were turned on near her house 14 months ago.
“I’ve never suffered anything like it before,” she said.
“Instant pressure in the ears and in the head, inability to sleep.
“The trouble is that it is not like a broken arm or leg. You can’t see it.
“Some nights the noise was unbearable. You cannot relax. You can’t get to sleep.”
Mr Stepnell said he suffered symptoms more slowly than his wife, but after eight months he was regularly experiencing heart palpitations, “weird sensations.
“It just didn’t feel right,” he said.
The couple built their home nine years ago on the family farm.
They said they conferred with their doctor but felt there was no other option but to move out.
Mr Stepnell said all symptoms had immediately abated since they stopped sleeping at their Lobbs Road home.
He said they had declined to have wind turbines on their property when the wind farm was being planned because they were aware of alleged health problems.
The Waubra Wind Farm comprises 128 wind turbines, about 35kms north west of Ballarat.
Earlier this year the federal government’s National Health and Medical Research Council found no published scientific evidence linking wind turbines with illness.
Property owners gagged by wind turbine companies will be able to give evidence to a Federal Senate inquiry.
Family First Senator Steve Fielding was in Glenbrae yesterday to encourage locals to make submissions to the inquiry into the social and economic impact of wind farms in rural areas.
Standing against a backdrop of rotating Waubra wind turbines, Senator Fielding said it would be a “real concern” if anyone was gagged from coming forward on the issue.
“Clearly people in this region, in Waubra and beyond, haven’t been heard and this is your chance to have your say,” Senator Fielding told a group of about 20 residents.
“I don’t know of any other country at the federal level having an inquiry like this.
“If a confidential agreement has been made you have to honor that as well, but it would be a shame not to hear views in a way that doesn’t reveal details.”
Under Senate inquiry rules, a person is prohibited from inducing another person to refrain from giving evidence.
Senate inquiries also carry Parliamentary privilege and evidence may be given confidentially.
It is understood further advice is being sought in relation to confidentiality agreements signed with wind farm companies, and Senator Fielding said he will make further investigations into the matter.
The meeting was held at the former home of Carl and Sam Stepnell.
Mr and Mrs Stepnell and their three children relocated to Ballarat last week due to claimed adverse health effects from living in close proximity to turbines.
“We couldn’t handle it any more,” Mr Stepnell said after the meeting. “All the symptoms…”
Mr Stepnell said the house had five turbines located within a kilometre.
Meanwhile, the Clean Energy Council was in Ballarat this week with a report confirming that noise from wind farms does not have any adverse health effects.
FIFTH FEATURE:
SYMPOSIUM DELIVERS FACTS ON WIND ENERGY
SOURCE: http://countylive.ca/blog/?p=7647
November 11, 2010
by Henri Garand, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC)
The First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects, held this past weekend in Picton, brought together American, British and Canadian acousticians, physicists, physicians, and medical researchers. The audience came from across Ontario and the United States and from as far as Australia.
Our understanding of how wind turbines can affect human health is steadily increasing. Since the facts often contradict the Ontario government’s and wind industry’s claims, it may be useful to clarify the current state of knowledge.
1. Claim: Ontario’s regulations are the best in the world.
FACTS: Orville Walsh, CCSAGE chair and APPEC vice president, studied government regulations in every country hosting wind turbines. The standards differ widely and most are based on noise, not setback distances. Ontario’s noise level is 40 dbA, measured outside a home. Countries, like Germany, with lower levels cite either 35 dbA or +3 dbA above ambient sound. Night time ambient sound in a rural area is typically 30 dbA or less. (On the dbA scale, the ear can detect a difference of +/- 2-3 decibels and perceives 10 decibels as a doubling of sound.)
2. Claim: The sounds heard from wind turbines are no louder than whispers or a refrigerator.
FACTS: Dr. John Harrison, a physicist, explained that wind turbine sounds, especially the “swoosh,” are different because of their amplitude and can exceed the 40 dbA regulatory limit because turbine sitings are based on computer models, not live measurements. Moreover, turbine noise is not masked by natural sounds and can sometimes be perceived over great distances. Depending on weather conditions and cloud cover, a large installation of wind turbines, such as those planned for Lake Ontario, could emit over 40 dbA of noise as far as 9-15 km away.
3. Claim: Wind Turbines do not produce low-frequency sound.
FACTS: Acoustician Rick James exhibited spectrograms of the sound coming from land-based wind turbines in which the low-frequency component was substantial and could be measured more than 5 km away. He also compared the symptoms of people suffering from “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to the identical symptoms reported in the 1970’s and 80s by those working in so-called “sick buildings.” The latter problem was eventually identified as due to infra low-frequency sound (ILFN) transmitted through ducting.
4. Claim: People cannot detect infrasound.
FACTS: Dr. Alex Salt, a physiologist, described his recent research findings in which parts of the inner ear reacted visibly to infrasound. His research shows that the ear does respond to low-frequency sound even though we do not perceive it as sound. Further research will be required to understand how these impulses are transmitted to the brain, with possible disturbance and detrimental effects.
5. Claim: Complaints about wind turbine noise indicate annoyance, which is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Arline Bronzaft, a noise researcher, explained how daytime transit noise near a New York City public school went well beyond annoyance and affected students’ academic achievement. The effects of noise disturbance are not restricted to nighttime, and the effects of noise on children can be profound, impacting development.
6. Claim: Wind turbine noise is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Christopher Hanning, a specialist in Sleep Medicine, explained how noise can disrupt the sleep patterns necessary for health and how loss of sleep affects memory and thinking, and can lead in the long term to risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician and researcher and author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained how auditory systems react to sound and the negative effects of wind turbine sound on the patients she has studied.
7. Claim: Wind turbine noise affects few people seriously.
FACTS: Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reported on his studies of people living near wind projects in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Both studies indicate that residents within 2 km and beyond, compared to a control group outside the project areas, suffered serious sleep disturbance and stress.
8. Claim: Wind turbines are safe because no peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise.
FACTS: Dr. Carl Phillips, an epidemiologist, explained that clinical reports around the world are sufficient evidence of adverse health effects and that wind industry denials reflect misunderstanding of the stages of scientific inquiry and the value of peer review.
9. Claim: Wind development serves the public good.
FACTS: Carmen Krogh, board member of the Society for Wind Vigilance, applied the concept of social justice to public health and presented testimonies from Ontario, Germany, and Japan of people suffering from wind projects. Ontario rural residents are dismayed, to put it mildly, that every government agency has ignored their plight.
10. Claim: Ontario’s Green Energy Act is unchallengeable.
FACTS: Lawyer Eric Gillespie outlined the legal actions Ontario residents can take against wind development, including the appeal process for the Ministry of Environment’s Renewable Energy Approval of projects. Appeals, however, must meet a high standard by proving that harm to health is serious or harm to the environment is both serious and irreversible. By contrast, the Ian Hanna case has only to prove scientific uncertainty about the harm to human health.
11. Claim: Wind development saves lives by closing coal-burning electricity plants.
FACTS: Economist Dr. Ross McKitrick reported that Ontario’s air pollution has declined steadily since the 1960s and that, according to data from government measuring stations, coal-related emissions are no more than one part per billion. Statistics of 250 to 9,000 Ontario deaths annually related to coal burning are based on dubious computer models from elsewhere; they are not founded on actual certificates of death. There is simply no problem on which wind energy development could have a positive effect.
12. Claim: Wind Energy Development is a solution to the Need for Electricity.
FACTS: Journalist Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, described society’s need for reliable electric power, not intermittent, variable wind energy. Since there is no technology for mass storage of electricity, the power produced from wind cannot contribute substantially to electricity supply, let alone replace base load.
Considering the adverse health effects and practical limitations of wind energy, how is it that wind development remains so popular? The answer lies in twenty years of social marketing, environmental fears, and the false economic hope of green jobs. The Symposium should make everyone question what the Ontario government and wind industry would like us to believe.
With high transmission capacity and adequate wind levels, southeastern Minnesota is poised to be one of the next hot spots for wind development, according to wind resource analysts.
“Almost all the way across is very good,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis-based wind advocacy group.
But as large-scale wind development moves from places like the sparsely populated Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota’s southwest corner to more densely settled areas like Goodhue County, what sorts of problems develop? Are people willing to live among wind turbines?
That question has taken on special bearing in Goodhue County, where the proposed Goodhue Wind project has sparked two years of heated public meetings. Opponents of the project say the 50 400-foot tall turbines would be sited too close to many neighboring homes.
Developers have countered that they have voluntarily agreed to 1,500-foot setbacks from homeowners not participating in their project, above the state-mandated 750 feet.
Both supporters and opponents are expected to make one final case to state regulators Thursday in St. Paul as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decides on the fate of the project.
Living in the shadow
Among those there will be Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. In a recent letter, they called on Gov. Tim Pawlenty to speak out against the Goodhue Wind project, arguing that the region’s dense settlement and topography make it unsuitable for large wind development.
Those opposed to the project would be forced to “live within its shadow” against their will, they wrote.
In an interview with the R-E Monday, Kelly argued that the state takes a “cookie cutter” approach to the permitting of large wind projects, ignoring regional differences.
“They’ve already developed on the best areas,” he said. “Now, we’re encroaching on spaces that are maybe higher in population density.”
To correct the issue, he’s seeking legislation that would give increased control over permitting to local government bodies like townships and counties.
But not all area legislators agree.
Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said that giving too much control to local governments would result in hodgepodge development that limits the state’s ability to meet renewable energy goals. The state adopted a “25 percent by 2025″ green energy goal in 2007.
He argued that under safe setbacks, people in more densely settled areas could and should be able to live near wind turbines.
“I actually think it’s a good thing that we’re trying to develop wind in places where we need the electricity,” he said.
‘Issue of annoyance’
As wind development has accelerated across the state — capacity jumped from 273 megawatts to 1,810 from 1999 to 2009 — state officials have struggled to come up with clear answers to questions about the impacts of wind turbines on people living within their footprint.
In early 2009, the state Office of Energy Security responded to concerns about the proposed Lakeswind Wind Power Plant in northwest Minnesota by commissioning a “white paper” from the Minnesota Department of Health evaluating possible health effects of wind turbines.
The report, titled “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” and conducted by MDH toxicologists Carl Herbrandson and Rita Messing, found that annoyance from noise levels and “shadow flicker,” caused when turbine blades spin in front of the sun, were the biggest complaints from people living near the towers.
“It really is, in a lot of ways, an issue of complaints, an issue of annoyance,” Herbrandson told the R-E Tuesday.
He said people generall start complaining about noise around 35 to 45 decibels, comparable to a humming refrigerator.
According to noise models conducted by National Wind, the company that manages Goodhue Wind, 12 percent of the 482 homes in or near the project area would see noise levels between 40 and 45 decibels under “worst-case” conditions.
Ultimately, Herbrandson said, complaints are subjective and rely on a variety of factors, particularly if an individual is participating in a project or not. He said complaints tend to reduce with distance from turbines.
“As you move away from it, there’s a place where that stops. And that’s going to be a different place for everybody,” he said.
Conflicting opinions
Supporters and opponents of the project are, predictably, divided on the health impacts.
National Wind senior wind developer Chuck Burdick said that annoyances have been reported, but aren’t any more severe than those associated with feedlots or other agricultural uses.
The company develops projects as far east as Ohio and has heard few complaints, he said.
He equated public criticism of the Goodhue Wind project over the past two years to “misinformation and fear.”
“The kinds of worst-case scenarios that opponents present are simply not represented by community’s experiences around the country,” he said.
Opponents, however, have repeatedly argued that Goodhue County’s population is simply too dense to support the scale of wind development Goodhue Wind proposes.
Marie McNamara of Belle Creek Township said the large towers would clearly affect the quality of life of her family and others living throughout the project’s area.
“They do affect people, and people don’t want to live with them,” she said.
SECOND FEATURE:
HOT AIR? WHITE HOUSE TAKES CREDIT FOR BUSH ERA-WIND FARMS
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed before funds were handed out
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.
Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed. ( See a list of the projects here.)
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on the stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were provided by a wind industry trade and lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites a government study, which found that most of the jobs are short term.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University fact-checked that claim, using the federal government's own documents. Not only were 19 of the wind farms already in place before the first stimulus payments were made, but 14 of them were already sending electricity to the grid.
First comes the project, later the stimulus Here's how we checked the administration's claim: Wind towers are tall — hundreds of feet tall — making them dangerous to low-flying planes. The Federal Aviation Administration requires every structure over 200 feet to be recorded in a database, including the date each structure was built. We reviewed these records filed by the wind farms that received stimulus grants. We also checked records kept by utility regulators, showing when wind farms began producing electricity.
In western New York, for example, in the hills near the economically hard-hit cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, the Canandaigua Wind Farm could have created the sort of green-collar jobs that the Obama administration promised would be generated by the stimulus package. The feathery blades of the farm's 88 gigantic turbines reach more than 400 feet in the air. Each turbine contains 8,000 components and is almost as sophisticated as a jet engine. Hundreds of construction workers were needed to haul and erect the steel towers, each weighing hundreds of tons.
The wind farm was built in two phases. The developer, First Wind, received a total of $61.8 million in stimulus grants on Sept. 1, 2009, when the administration began rolling out money for the program. But FAA records indicate both were completed at least 15 months earlier — by May 20, 2008.
There are other examples.
In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania, FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first day a project could be eligible for a stimulus grant. But the other 50 turbines were built in 2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected. The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables, the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected $59.1 million in stimulus money.
High above the rolling plains southeast of Lubbock, Texas, the 166-turbine Pyron Wind Farm represents the new wave of American wind farm development. In the heart of the country's "wind belt," it's far larger and more labor intensive than the projects in Pennsylvania and New York. German developer E.On Climate and Renewables estimated that 620 construction jobs were created, and on Sept. 22, 2009, the project received $121.9 million in stimulus money. FAA records show the last tower had been built on Dec. 11, 2008.
The program, known as the Section 1603, reimburses developers of renewable energy facilities, such as wind and solar farms, up to 30 percent of the project's cost. Applicants need only prove they built the facility and are automatically awarded the money. Unlike other stimulus programs, the wind farms aren't judged on job creation or required to abide by "Buy American" clauses. The money also comes with virtually no strings, and there is no obligation to reinvest it.
Administration officials and the companies did not dispute that much of the work on the wind farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but said the stimulus money was vital for creating jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that received the grants had been completed, they said, the money was vital to ensure that the next generation of wind power plants is built.
As the stimulus program continues to be hotly debated on the campaign trail, the Obama administration's record of touting all these grants for creating "real jobs" continues.
"These programs were particularly effective in getting money out the door quickly to put people back to work on great projects that would otherwise have been idled in the face of the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this year. At other points in his written testimony, Rogers said the Section 1603 program was responsible for "50,000 additional jobs in 2009."
In an interview in late September, however, Rogers did not dispute the records showing that a large portion of work on many projects was completed before 2009. But he defended the grant program as a vital tool to ensure the recipients continued to invest in wind farms in the United States.
"With the first set of projects that were done before the passage of the Recovery Act — in almost every case, what they did was reinvest in the next set of projects," Rogers said. "Because we now have a set of incentives, project developers and sponsors are reinvesting in the U.S. market, instead of seeing a lot of that money go to other places. That's one of the most exciting parts of the job creation story."
Because of the way the law was written, the Section 1603 grant program has no language requiring that recipients reinvest their grant money in the United States. Rogers said he was basing his claim on the fact that many companies have reported to the administration that they reinvested their grants in future wind projects in the U.S.
Most of the job gains are short term, study finds Although the administration has described 50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed, speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being created, saved or supported. He said these figures were provided by the American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobbying group. In February, for example, that group said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."
The association, in turn, cites a study by the Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which estimated that the grant program supported more than 51,600 short-term jobs during the construction phase, the equivalent of that many people working full time for one year, and an additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the stimulus. ( Read the study here.)
When the wind association and the Obama administration cite such figures as 50,000 jobs, however, they don't mention that the study found that most were short-term jobs.
Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop previously reported that the majority of the money was going to foreign-owned developers, and that the majority of turbines being installed were built by foreign-owned manufacturers. ( Read those stories here.) The Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of Information requests by the Investigative Reporting Workshop seeking grant applications, citing trade secrets.
Only one of the companies identified by the Investigative Reporting Workshop as having finished construction on a project before Jan. 1, 2009, disputed the date its turbines were listed as built. The FAA records show that the final turbine on the Wheat Field wind farm in Gilliam County, Ore., was built on Nov. 10, 2008. But in a statement, Horizon said construction on the project began in September 2008 and the first turbine wasn't "mechanically completed" until Feb. 2, 2009. In the statement, Horizon said the FAA information was filed in February 2008, and the November 2008 date was only an estimate to make sure the FAA had the structure on its maps by the time the tower was built.
Power generated during Bush administration The Investigative Reporting Workshop also reviewed publicly available data on each wind project's electrical generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records of nearly all commercial energy transactions — recording the time, quantity of power, price and total cost of the transaction.
The records show that at least 11 wind farms were generating at least some electricity and selling it into the grid by March 1, days after the stimulus bill was passed in late February. And 14 wind farms were generating electricity and selling it into the grid by the time the stimulus money was first given out in September 2009.
For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project, in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m. Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the holding company that owns the facility sold 687.6 megawatt/hours of electricity to PJM, charging a total of $32,788.
Paul Copelman, a spokesman for Iberdrola, said the Locust Ridge II wind farm wasn't in full commercial operation until March 2009. The electricity generated in 2008 was the result of testing, he said.
How they qualified These wind farms qualified for the stimulus grants for two reasons.
First, the stimulus bill allowed a wind farm to qualify if it was "placed in service" on or after Jan. 1, 2009. The money didn't start flowing until Sept. 1, 2009, so it was inevitable there would be payments for work previously done, particularly for large wind farms that can take years to develop. To get the money, these companies didn't have to create new jobs; they just filled out an application after the fact.
Second, "placed in service" has a peculiar meaning. Generally, it means a piece of equipment, like a wind turbine, is ready to be used for the purpose it was intended. But, when a developer finishes building the tower and attaching all the parts — the labor intensive part of the process where most jobs are created — there are several more steps, including testing and installing the equipment that regulates the flow of electricity and feeds it into the grid, before it is deemed "in service."
In the operation of other federal incentive programs for wind energy, each turbine in a large wind farm is evaluated individually before being "placed in service." However, under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys and the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said that developers were allowed to count all of their turbines on a wind farm as one. In other words, what counted was when the last turbine was "placed in service," and the whole farm was ready to operate at full capacity.
Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he specializes in representing renewable energy firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm to generate electricity — and even sell it — before being "placed in service." Wind farms may need to start turbines and generate electricity to test them or prove viability for commercial production.
In addition, all the wind farms contacted stressed that the process of qualifying a wind farm as "placed in service" involves a number of steps, like testing and building associated transformers and transmission equipment. Iberdrola also noted that it was required to submit third-party certification of the "placed in service" date.
Rogers, the Energy official, said that some of the wind farms cited by the Investigative Reporting Workshop could have been left half-built during the recession, but that once Obama was elected in November 2008, developers decided to finish the work in hopes of a stimulus package. When pressed for examples, Rogers declined to name any projects.
"It's a question you've asked; I've answered. It's an incredibly successful program," Rogers said.
Several of the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said they had considered halting construction during the recession. These include Iberdrola, which considered halting construction on half of its projects, spokesman Paul Copelman said, regardless of how far along they were in the construction process. And E.ON Climate and Renewables said it had considered halting the giant Pyron Wind Farm in Texas, which was substantially constructed in 2008. Neither company ultimately halted construction.
When asked how to reconcile claims from the administration that the jobs associated with these projects were a result of the stimulus — even though the work was done months before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did not offer a direct response.
"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been working on these projects since they were passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."
The Investigative Reporting Workshop is a professional journalism center in the School of Communication at American University in Washington. More about the program.
The BPRC Research Nerd
