From California

SCAM WATCH

Via the LA Times:

Wind energy – A Carson man has been sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for bilking investors out of more than $1 million by making numerous false statements about a wind-energy business he said he operated.

James A. Rivera, 42, told victims that his companies, Apostles Inc. and Almighty Wind Inc., would market wind turbines and that the Nigerian government had agreed to place a $1-billion order.

In reality, there was no such order and the companies never sold any turbines. Rivera also failed to disclose to investors that he had eight prior criminal convictions, including five for fraud.

LOBBYIST HELPS A PROJECT HE FINANCED IN CONGRESS

via The New York Times, www.nytimes.com

By Erick Litchtblau

January 12, 2012

Amid the revolving door of congressmen-turned-lobbyists, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Mr. Delahunt’s transition, except for one thing. While in Congress, he personally earmarked $1.7 million for the same energy project.

So today, his firm, the Delahunt Group, stands to collect $90,000 or more for six months of work from the town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay, with 80 percent of it coming from the pot of money he created through a pair of Energy Department grants in his final term in office, records and interviews show.

WASHINGTON — Soon after he retired last year as one of the leading liberals in Congress, former Representative William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts started his own lobbying firm with an office on the 16th floor of a Boston skyscraper. One of his first clients was a small coastal town that has agreed to pay him $15,000 a month for help in developing a wind energy project.

Amid the revolving door of congressmen-turned-lobbyists, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Mr. Delahunt’s transition, except for one thing. While in Congress, he personally earmarked $1.7 million for the same energy project.

So today, his firm, the Delahunt Group, stands to collect $90,000 or more for six months of work from the town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay, with 80 percent of it coming from the pot of money he created through a pair of Energy Department grants in his final term in office, records and interviews show.

Experts in federal earmarking — a practice of financing pet projects that has been forsaken by many members of Congress as a toxic symbol of political abuse — said they could not recall a case in which a former lawmaker stood to benefit so directly from an earmark he had authorized. Mr. Delahunt’s firm is seeking a review of the arrangement from the Energy Department.

Mr. Delahunt’s work for the town raises legal and ethical questions, mainly because of federal restrictions on the use of federal funds for lobbying, several legal experts said.

Beyond the town of Hull, Mr. Delahunt’s clients include at least three others who received millions of dollars in federal aid with his direct assistance while he was in Congress, records show.

Mr. Delahunt declined repeated requests for an interview last week. In a statement released through his office on Friday, he also declined to respond to specific questions about his work, but said: “I want to be clear — I have no federal lobbying relationship with any past or current client. I have not lobbied anyone in Washington since leaving Congress.

“Further, while in Congress, I had no conversations with anybody regarding any future consulting contract,” he said, “and I am extremely proud of our work and the assistance we were able to bring to many communities throughout our district.” Federal law prohibits former congressmen from lobbying some ex-colleagues for one year after leaving office.

Mr. Delahunt was a natural choice for the job, said Philip E. Lemnios, town manager for Hull, because he was familiar with the stalled project and did impressive work getting the seed money for it while in Congress. The town now hopes to get $60 million or more in federal, state and private funds for four offshore wind turbines that might someday power the entire town and serve as a model for other towns.

“Obviously he’s got connections into the federal government that we don’t have,” Mr. Lemnios said in an interview. “We’re hoping he can open doors at the federal level that we could never open.”

An affable New Englander known for close ties with Republicans as well as fellow Democrats, Mr. Delahunt, 70, has quickly established himself as a go-to lobbyist in the Boston-Washington corridor.

He has capitalized on relationships he developed with many Massachusetts groups in his 14 years representing one of the state’s most affluent districts, which includes Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard.

The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, for instance, paid the Delahunt Group at least $40,000 to lobby for approval of a casino. Mr. Delahunt had secured Congressional earmarks for the tribe totaling $400,000 in 2008 and 2009 for a substance abuse program and other projects, the records show.

The city of Quincy, Mass., meanwhile, brought on Mr. Delahunt last year to help deal with federal officials on a downtown redevelopment program. In 2008, Mr. Delahunt secured nearly $2.4 million in earmarks for the city on a separate tidal restoration project.

And a fishermen’s group on the elbow of Cape Cod hired Mr. Delahunt to navigate regulatory issues; he had helped the group get a low-interest, $500,000 federal loan in 2010, records show. The group, which thanked Mr. Delahunt, then a congressman, for his help getting the loan, used the money to renovate a historic coastal home as its headquarters.

“Bill was an ally of small boat fishermen in Massachusetts, absolutely,” said John Pappalardo, chief executive of the group, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association.

After Mr. Delahunt left Congress, the fishermen’s group hired him “to get the lay of the land politically” about possible changes in federal and regional fishing policies, Mr. Pappalardo said. The group paid the Delahunt Group $14,000 last year for its work, according to lobbying records filed in Massachusetts.

“He was sort of like an emissary,” Mr. Pappalardo said in an interview.

With nearly 400 former members of Congress hired as lobbyists or corporate “consultants” in the last decade, it has become commonplace for ex-members to work for groups or industries that they had helped get financing while in office.

For example, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, has drawn criticism over possible conflicts stemming from his earmarks. After leaving the Senate, he was paid $65,000 in consulting fees from a lobbying shop that represented clients he had helped with earmarks.

Mr. Delahunt’s financial connections to the energy project are much more direct, however.

“That’s not something I’ve ever heard of,” Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who specializes in political ethics issues, said when asked about a former congressman receiving fees from earmarks he appropriated.

Several issues could influence whether the unusual arrangement was considered illegal or unethical, Mr. Gross and other ethics lawyers said.

Questions include whether Mr. Delahunt knew that he might go work for the town at the time he requested the earmarks; whether federal funds were being used to “lobby” Congress in violation of federal restrictions; which federal officials Mr. Delahunt’s firm contacted as part of its work; and whether those contacts fell within the one-year “cooling off” period.

Barney Keller, communications director for the Club for Growth, an influential conservative group in Washington that tracks earmarks, said: “I cannot recall such an obvious example of a member of Congress allocating money that went directly into his own pocket. It speaks to why members of Congress shouldn’t be using earmarks.”

Mr. Delahunt, a former district attorney who was known in Congress for embracing liberal causes, also became known over his time in Washington for bringing home federal money. He was particularly active in 2009, ranking in the top fifth of all House members, with more than $46 million in earmarks, including the Hull and Mashpee tribe grants, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington.

On retiring in early 2011, he told home-state reporters that he was hesitant to go the typical route of lobbying. But within a few months he did just that, starting the Delahunt Group, where he serves as chairman. He brought in three top congressional aides to help lead it and set up four offices in Massachusetts and Washington, and joined with a national law firm and another lobbying shop as well.

“This is nowhere as stressful as being a congressman,” he told The Cape Cod Times last June as he showed off the firm’s new office on the cape.

But he rejected any suggestion that he was cashing in on his time in Congress. “To say that former members wouldn’t use the skill set they developed, particularly if they are passionate about the interests of their clients, I really think is wrong-headed,” he told the newspaper.

But concerns about possible financial conflicts have already slowed the Delahunt Group’s work on the wind energy project in Hull.

Executives at Mr. Delahunt’s firm have been working informally on the energy project for several months, attending meetings and offering guidance, and they are expected to meet with “key federal and state officials” and provide advice on securing grants for the project, according to a draft of the $15,000-a-month contract.

But the town and the Delahunt Group have delayed signing a formal contract for at least a few weeks. They want to first make certain that Energy Department officials have no concerns about Mr. Delahunt’s unusual dual roles in earmarking the money for the project and now getting paid as a consultant to work on it, according to Mr. Lemnios, the Hull town manager, and Mark Forest, the Delahunt Group’s executive director.

“So far, they don’t have an issue with it,” Mr. Lemnios said. “But it would be a natural thing for people to think there might be a conflict of interest, and if people do have questions about a conflict, we want to be able to address that.”

COUNTY WIND POWER DEBATE ENTERING FIFTH YEAR

Editorial staff

Via Hudson Star-Observer, www.hudsonstarobserver.com

January 4, 2012 

A legal, and neighbor-against-neighbor, battle in northeastern St. Croix County continues as the pros and cons of wind-generated power are debated. The issue has already been brewing for four years and it may not be settled anytime soon as we enter the fifth year of the controversy.

Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — that’s the easy part.

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

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

As the debate continues, we are starting to see new terms in the discussions of wind energy. Terms such as “shadow flicker” and “turbine noise levels” are things that no one thought much about in the past.

The latest developments in the Forest project find that the company attempting to build the turbines, Highland Wind Farm LCC, increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts. The Highland Wind Farm project has been a controversy in the town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008.

In 2010 the town board was recalled and replaced by turbine opponents. They had made things difficult for the proposal with various town regulations and citizen lawsuits. The 102.5 megawatt proposal is significant because it makes the plan subject to state approval instead of town approval. The cutoff is 100 megawatts.

A bit of history finds that the original project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall. Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began. Battles erupted over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety, “shadow flicker” and more.

With the latest proposal now involving the state, the clock began ticking last week on state regulators to review the application to construct the larger 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon. By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension. The town’s role in the decision is now uncertain.

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

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

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The people in the video below live in the last wind project to be developed by this wind company. That project has just 8 turbines but they've made life hell for several families, at least two of whom have abandoned their homes because of noise and vibration from the wind turbines.

Click on the image below to meet some of them and hear their story

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

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

FEDS PROPOSE ALLOWING WIND-FARM DEVELOPER TO KILL GOLDEN EAGLES

By James Eng,

Via msnbc.msn.com

January 4, 2012 

“As a former USFS employee, I am appalled that the Forest Service would approve the wholesale damage to critical black bear habitat in order to squeeze out a few kilowatt hours of electricity,” says Wright, in a press statement. “This is a serious error in judgment by the Obama administration for little or no effective climate change result.”

The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.

Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. In this case “taking” would be the killing of eagles hit by the wind turbines’ huge blades.

The federal government is proposing to grant a first-of-its-kind permit that would allow the developer of a central Oregon wind-power project to legally kill golden eagles, a regulatory move being closely watched by conservationists.

The Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday released a draft environmental assessment that would allow West Butte Wind Power LLC to kill as many as three protected golden eagles over five years if the company fulfills its conservation commitments.

It’s the first eagle “take permit” application to be received and acted on by U.S. Fish and Wildlife under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. (“Take” means to kill, harass or disturb the birds, their nests or their eggs.) [Ed. Read the application here]

The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.

Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. In this case “taking” would be the killing of eagles hit by the wind turbines’ huge blades.

Public comments on the draft environmental assessment of the Wind Butte project will be accepted until Feb. 2.

The permit, if ultimately issued, stipulates that there must be no net loss to breeding populations of golden eagles from the wind farm project. That means for every protected bird permitted killed, developers must contribute to conservation efforts for breeding them.

“Our goal is to maintain stable or increasing populations of eagles protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,” said Chris McKay, assistant regional director for Migratory Birds and State Programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Region.

“Regulations under the Act allow us to issue permits for activities that are likely to take eagles provided the activity is otherwise lawful and the taking is not the purpose of that activity, the take is unavoidable even though advanced conservation practices are being implemented, and the take is compatible with eagle preservation,” McKay said in a press release.

California-based West Butte Wind Power LLC is proposing to build a 104-megawatt wind energy generation facility on ranchland in Oregon’s Deschutes and Crook counties, consisting of up to 52 wind turbines. Electricity generated by the project could power as many as 50,000 homes.

Conservation groups expressed cautious optimism at the government’s proposal to award the eagle take permit.

“This is a type of project where it’s appropriate for them to issue this kind of permit,” said Liz Nysson, energy policy coordinator with the Oregon Natural Desert Association She noted that only a small number of golden eagles are believed to be in and around the area where the wind turbines will be built.

“I say ‘cautious optimism’ because we fear that the agency is going to go forward and start issuing these permits … for a multitude of golden eagles every year, and that would be a bad use of the policy,” Nysson said.

It’s not mandatory for wind-power projects to apply for the eagle “take” permits.

Kelly Fuller, wind campaign coordinator for the American Bird Conservancy, praised West Butte for being the first company to apply for one. She described the latest development as “precedent-setting,” according to the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, a bipartisan group of the nation’s governors dedicated to expanding the development of wind energy.

Fuller said the eagle permit process gives conservationists more opportunity to participate in the development process.

She said the conservancy group will ask Fish and Wildlife to extend its public comment period an additional 30 days beyond the Feb. 2 deadline, according to the Wind Energy Coalition.

MORE ON THIS SUBJECT:

LOWELL WIND OPPONENTS DECRY USDA FOREST SERVICE APPROVAL OF DEERFIELD WIND PROJECT

by Ken Picard,

Via Seven Days, 7d.blogs.com 

January 3, 2012 

Just three days into 2012, Vermont’s critics of industrial wind power already have a new ridgeline in the sand to fight about: The USDA Forest Service just granted final approval to Iberdrola, Inc. to build more than a dozen, 393-foot wind turbines on two ridgelines in the Green Mountain National Forest in southern Vermont.

The project, known as Deerfield Wind, located near the towns of Readsboro and Searsburg, gained federal approval for 15 of the 17 turbines that were OK’ed two years ago by the Vermont Public Service Board. The PSB approval came despite objections from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and others that the project would damage critical bear habitat. The new ridgeline development will be located not far from the existing Searsburg Wind Power Facility, Vermont’s first industrial wind project, which went online in July 1997.

According to Iberdrola, Deerfield Wind is expected to generate enough power to light 14,000 Vermont homes, or roughly three-quarters of the households in Windham County. In September 2010, Central Vermont Public Service announced a long-term, fixed-rate power purchase agreement with Iberdrola Renewables to buy 20 of the 30 megawatts generated by the Deerfield project for its Vermont customers. According to the Iberdrola website, it’s now looking to secure other Vermont-based purchasers of the Deerfield electricity so all the power is consumed locally.

If Vermont’s industrial wind opponents thought they were in a David-and-Goliath fight with Green Mountain Power — now in the process of merging with CVPS — their latest nemesis is exponentially larger. Portland, Ore.-based Iberdrola is the second largest wind developer in the United States, with more than 40 utility-grade energy projects nationwide, including wind, solar, biomass and gas-fired generators, as this map reveals. Iberdrola Renewables is the U.S. division of its Spanish parent, Iberdrola, S.A. Iberdrola S.A.’s website claims it has the largest renewable asset base of any company in the world, which includes 11,400 MG of renewable energy globally. ¡Muy enorme!

A familiar cast of local enviros have sounded alarm bells about this latest regulatory action. To wit: Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) put out a press release this afternoon condemning the decision — even before the USDA Forest Service had a chance to announce it.

Steve Wright of Craftsbury is the former Forest Service employee and Vermont Fish and Wildlife commissioner who’s led the fight against th Kingdom Community Wind Project in the Lowell mountains.

“As a former USFS employee, I am appalled that the Forest Service would approve the wholesale damage to critical black bear habitat in order to squeeze out a few kilowatt hours of electricity,” says Wright, in a press statement. “This is a serious error in judgment by the Obama administration for little or no effective climate change result.”

As Wright points out, the ridgeline turbines would be located less than two miles from the George D. Aiken Wilderness, a fact that he and other opponents say was initially downplayed by both wind developers and the Forest Service. They claim that maps used at the public meeting for the project as recently as several months ago did not identify the nearby wilderness area.

“The decision is based on a process plagued with conflict of interest,” alleges VCE executive director Annette Smith. “Experts were working for Iberdrola, the developer on a wind project in New Hampshire, at the same time they prepared the supposedly independent analysis for the Forest Service.”

Smith claims the final EIS also violates the management plan for the George D. Aiken Wilderness, noting that the turbines would be visible from more than half the wilderness, “completely eviscerating” its whole purpose.

Justin Lindholm, a Mendon resident who serves on the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board and is a frequent visitor to the Aiken Wilderness, says that politicians “want to turn the Aiken Wilderness into nothing more than a tree park.”

Added Smith, “This is a bad project based on bad information leading to a bad decision.”

Spokespeople for Iberdrola Renewables and the USDA Forest Service did not return calls as of press time.

IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT...

Click here for instructions

Public Comments

We invite public comment on the proposed DEA. If you wish, you may submit comments by any one of the methods discussed above under ADDRESSES.Show citation box

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. You can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

DATES: 

To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by February 2, 2011.Show citation box

SEND YOUR COMMENT:

You may download a copy of the DEA on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/nepa.html. Alternatively, you may use one of the methods below to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” on all correspondence.Show citation box

Submitting Comments: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by one of the following methods.Show citation box

• Email: pacific_birds@fws.gov. Include “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” in the subject line of the message.Show citation box
• U.S. Mail: Please address written comments to Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.Show citation box
• Fax: Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, (503) 231-2019, Attn.: DEA for the West Butte Wind Project.Show citation box

For more information contact Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (503) 231-2019 (phone); pacific_birds@fws.gov (email, include “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” in the subject line of the message). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

Next Feature

From Vermont

PRECEDENT-SETTING WIND PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE APPEALED

by Susan Keese,

via Vermont Public Radio, www.vpr.net

January 4, 2012

(Host) A 15-turbine wind project just approved by the Green Mountain National Forest could set a precedent as the nation’s first commercial wind farm on national forest land.

But opponents say the Deerfield Wind project will be appealed.

VPR’s Susan Keese has more.

(Keese) Deerfield Wind is a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, a Spanish company that’s one of the largest wind developers in this country.

The development covers 80 acres of National Forest in Readsboro and Searsburg. It was one of 14 renewable power projects fast-tracked this summer by the Obama administration.

The proposal has been under scrutiny for years. The state Public Service Board approved it, with conditions, in 2009.

Green Mountain National Forest spokesman Ethan Ready says the Forest Service’s decision was scheduled for the end of December, even without the president’s help.

(Ready) “With projects of this magnitude we have to go through the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires us to do in-depth policy analysis and… a lot of scientific work. So we’re really proud of the work we’ve done… and we think that it’s been an extensive and thorough process which has involved the public.”

(Keese) Ready says the forest received more than a thousand comments. They’re addressed in the 400 page environmental impact statement and 70-page decision.

At 410 feet tall, the new turbines would be twice the height of towers at an existing adjacent wind farm, and will require aircraft safety lighting.

That’s a major concern for the group Vermonters for a Clean Environment. Annette Smith directs the group. She says the lights will be visible from the 5,000 acre George D. Aiken Wilderness, a few miles away.

(Smith) “More than half the area inside the wilderness you will be able to see the wind turbines from, with their blinking lights… and this is totally contrary to everything that the wilderness plan calls for.”

(Keese) The project has also drawn concern from biologists and wildlife advocates, who worry about the removal of beech groves used by black bears as a food source.

The permits require the developer to set aside 144 acres of comparable bear habitat and to continue extensive bear, bat and bird impact surveys once the turbines are running.

The Forest Service says the public will have 45 days to appeal the decision, after legal notices are published.

Annette Smith says her group will appeal, and she expects others to do the same.

For VPR News, I’m Susan Keese in Manchester.

NEXT FEATURE

From West Virginia

TURBINE NOISE MARS QUALITY OF LIFE

Letter from Gary Braithwaite

Via Mineral Daily Dews-Tribune, www.newstribune.info

January 4, 2012

I can verify there is noise from the windmills, and it has ruined my way of life in my home, out in the yard and even in the garage with the radio playing. I name all three areas because the noise of the windmills can be heard anywhere on my property.

I have lived in the Cross area of Mineral County my entire life and have done so because of the peace and quiet of the small community. However, over the past months, things have changed, and the reason is the windmills on the mountain across from my home.

The windmills cause an extremely loud disturbance to the point that lying down at night to have a good night’s sleep is impossible. I recently attended a county commission meeting, to see what the commissioners could do to help the Cross residents with the noise from the windmills. The three commissioners showed no interest in helping with this problem. One in particular spoke to a relative and said, “You wanted the windmills, now live with them.”

I personally did not want the windmills in the county. Prior to the approval of the windmill project and the construction, I do not remember hearing anything or reading newspaper reports concerning how much noise would be produced by the windmills. I can verify there is noise from the windmills, and it has ruined my way of life in my home, out in the yard and even in the garage with the radio playing. I name all three areas because the noise of the windmills can be heard anywhere on my property. For those living near railroad tracks, I agree there is a time to become adjusted to the noise of passing trains. The sound from the windmills is like having a train come through the middle of my house for seven or eight hours straight.

On another comparison subject, the smell emitted by what was called the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company was one to be tolerated. Those living in Luke, Westernport and Piedmont did tolerate the smell because the paper factory that created the unpleasant odor was the company that sent paychecks to many homes in the Tri Towns. That odor put the food on their plates and a roof over their heads.

Edison Mission, the owners of the Pinnacle Wind Farm, has nothing to do with whether my family eats or has suitable housing, so there is no reason for me to tolerate the noise from the windmills.

Dave Friend and Jim Cookman, top people with US WindForce, the developers of the wind farm, visited in this area to gain support for the windmills. They have been contacted about the noise factor and their response is that it is now a problem for Edison Mission. If that is the case, why do they continue to be the spokespeople for windmills at advisory meetings?

Then on the subject of windmills creating a green environment for the area, the comment I have about that is the only thing green the developers and owners are interested in the kind they fold and put in their pockets.

I was told by Edison Mission that they knew the Mitsubishi wind turbines were a lot louder than the ones that are normally used. In addition, surely there were noise studies conducted prior to the plans to build the windmills on Pinnacle, but the company installed them anyway. Everyone talks of how quiet other wind farms are, but that is only if a person stands directly beneath them, where there is little noise. Further away from the windmills, there is noise as we can hear in Cross.

I feel like the county commissioners should not have allowed US WindForce to place these noisy wind turbines so near to private homes. They and the Public Service Commission have ruined the lives of those residing near the Pinnacle Wind Farm. I was told the windmills would shut down during the night until a way was found to correct the noise. This has not happened.

How does the wind farm think they are protecting the environment by clear-cutting over 2 miles of timber to erect 23 noisy windmills? I understand additional wind farms could be built in Mineral County Those that may live near them are in for a real treat, that is if they want to get a good night’s sleep. Better yet, get all the sleep you can now, because you will not be able to if any future windmills are built close to your house. With a situation like this, causing disruption and unsettling problems with quality of life, something must be done.

One more thing, I have lived with the deposit of sludge from NewPage in the ground near my home, and this has been ongoing for 30 years. The sludge is at least 100 feet deep over many acres, with the possibility of ruining the water supply.

Gary Braithwaite
Cross

LETTER FROM VESTAS: WORRIED ABOUT REGULATION OF LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE

"At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so..."

Author:  Engel, Ditlev

Dear Karen Ellemann,*

Following previous correspondence, I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the limits for low frequency noise from wind turbines now being proposed.

Back in January 2011 we applauded your announcement of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise and the fact that you also then emphasised that those regulations would not be tightened and that it was a question of improving the security in connection with the installation of wind turbines. Accordingly, the reaction from the industry branch back in January 2011 was positive, although as an industry we were uneasy about having heavier demands imposed on us than other industries.

When the new regulations were then published on 26.05.2011, we were of course convinced of your initial point of view. As a result, we were extremely surprised to find that the proposed new regulations do in fact include a significant and severe tightening of the previous noise regulations.

In fact, according to our analyses, the most economical turbines, the 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements to neighbours for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years.

In a small country such as Denmark this means that a significant number of projects will not be viable as the increased distance requirements cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.

The Danish market for wind turbines is of minor importance for Vestas in terms of sales, typically less than 1% of our sales per year. However, the Danish market provides a number of other functions for Vestas which are of considerable value from a business point of view. By means of its high wind penetration, 24% in 2010 – still a world record – Denmark has a role as a forerunner country and a full scale laboratory for conversion to renewable energy.

This means that other countries often look to Denmark when adjusting their legislation regarding wind energy. We are therefore concerned – justifiably so as history shows – that the proposed Danish regulations for low frequency noise from wind turbines will spread to a large number of other markets with much higher commercial impact for Vestas and consequently for employment in the business.

The Danish wind turbine industry employs approx. 25,000 people in Denmark and boasts an export which is about 8.5% of total Danish exports. Such “over-proportional” presence has become possible because Denmark has been able to create the conditions for good correlation between demonstration, education and industry research and development. In reality we fear that the demonstration element will suffer irreparable damage as a result of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise. When combined with the imminent danger that important markets will copy the new Danish regulations, I consider the new regulations to be extremely damaging to the prospects of further popularisation of land-based wind energy.

At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all.

In the light of this it seems strange that the wind turbine industry is being discriminated against compared to other industries. All other industries are subject to differential noise requirements regarding low frequency noise for night and day (20, respectively 25 dB), whereas the wind turbine industry are subject to requirements of 20 dB 24 hours a day.

The proposed low frequency limit values may hinder the development of onshore wind in Denmark, including meeting our commitments in relation to the EEC. Ultimately, we consider there is a danger that the regulations will be copied by other countries and accordingly this will provide an obstacle to the popularisation of wind energy at a global level. Both issues will damage Vestas as a business, including affecting Danish activities.

Yours sincerely,
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
[Signature]
Ditlev Engel
Chief Executive Officer
Alsvej 21, DK-8940
Dir. +45 9730 0000, www.vestas. com

A copy of this letter was sent to Lykke Friis, Minister for Climate and Energy

*Karen Ellemann, Minister of Environment
Department of Environment
Højbro Plads 4
1200 Copenhagen K

Randers, 29 June 2011/erlgs

Translated from Danish by Bente H. Sorensen, Translationz.com.au

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Folks in Rock County are quite familiar with the wind developers mentioned in the article below. They had big plans for a major wind project in the Towns of Magnolia, Spring Valley and Union. They began by signing up landowners to long term contracts and working the community to pit neighbor against neighbor.

The project that was the subject of this audit is located just a few miles south of the Wisconsin-Illinois border.

CLEAN-ENERGY DEVELOPERS REAPED EXCESS U.S. AID, AUDITORS SAY

SOURCE: Bloomberg.com

By Jim Efstathiou Jr. - Oct 26, 2011

The Obama administration overpaid renewable power developers in a federal grant program, including $2.08 million distributed to a unit of Acciona SA (ANA), a Spanish maker of wind turbines, according to government investigators.

The excess payment to EcoGrove Wind LLC, a unit of Acciona, was uncovered in an audit by the U.S. Treasury Department’s inspector general. EcoGrove received a $67.9 million grant in October 2009 for a wind farm in Illinois through a program to promote clean power created in the economic stimulus bill that year.

President Barack Obama’s administration already faces congressional inquiries over the Energy Department’s $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra LLC, a maker of solar panels that filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 6. The audits raise questions about the Treasury’s management of a separate grant program that has awarded $9.2 billion to wind, solar and geothermal projects as of Sept. 11.

“A significant number of them no doubt have inflated costs,” William Short, an industry consultant and former investment banker with Kidder Peabody & Co., said in an interview. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This one’s a superhighway.”

The grants, covering 30 percent of a project’s cost, are based on what companies claim as the expense of developing a power source. Inspectors found overpayments in four of the five grants they have audited so far. Aside from Acciona, the discrepancies totaled $43,137. The excessive payments may climb as the inspector general investigates more of the 19,875 grants awarded.

‘Abusive Action’

The Treasury grants offer a benefit that leads some project developers to “engage in abusive action,” according to George Schutzer, a partner specializing in tax law with Patton Boggs LLP in Washington. Schutzer said he has advised clients seeking grants against being overly aggressive in their claims.

“It’s on the list of the things the Treasury Department is clearly looking at,” Schutzer said in an interview.

The audits by Eric Thorson, the Treasury’s inspector general, have focused on whether projects were eligible for the grants they received and whether the amounts awarded were appropriate, Richard Delmar, counsel to Thorson, said in an e- mail. The office plans to issue reports on nine additional grants next year, Delmar said.

The audits, which began in February 2010, involve visits to the headquarters of companies that received the so-called 1603 grants, and to project sites, Delmar said.

Planned Report

“We do plan to assess common and/or pervasive issues identified through these individual audits in the aggregate as part of a planned report on Treasury’s administration of the 1603 Program and make recommendations as necessary,” Delmar said.

There isn’t a deadline for completion of the “overall program assessment,” he said.

In Acciona’s EcoGrove project, investigators questioned five items including $5.3 million for interest on a late payment related to a turbine supply agreement with another unit of the company. Ineligible costs totaling $6.93 million led to the government overpayment of $2.08 million, Marla Freedman, assistant inspector general, said in a Sept. 19 report.

“People want to make sure they don’t leave money on the table, but you’ve got to strike that balance between what is permissible and what goes too far,” Jeffrey Davis, a tax partner with Mayer Brown LLP in Washington, said in an interview.

Furniture, Spare Parts

The Treasury Department agreed with the inspector general that Madrid-based Acciona should return $35,479 for costs associated with transmission lines, office furniture and expendable spare parts, according to the report. The Treasury hasn’t determined whether the interest penalty is eligible for the grant.

The company said including the interest payment in the cost of the project is “common industry practice” in construction of wind farms, according to the report.

“I don’t think there’s any padding” of costs, Amy Berry, a spokeswoman for Acciona, said in an interview. “You’re talking about companies that have a lot more on the line than a couple million back from U.S. Treasury. Obviously the consequences are huge if we don’t do it right.”

Small Staff

Six months after Obama signed the stimulus measure, the inspector general said managers at the Treasury Department had failed to explain what staffing would be needed to evaluate “the potentially thousands of applications of varying complexity for awards under this program,” according to an Aug. 5, 2009, report.

The Treasury Department responded that “the current team of four is adequate.”

“Just for just practical matters, we have a program to administer,” Ellen Neubauer, grants program manager for the Treasury, said in a Sept. 21 interview. “We have a large number of applications, a relatively small staff. We sort of have to set some parameters on what we’re going to examine more closely and what we’re not.”

The program has led to $31.1 billion in public and private investment in clean-energy projects that have the capacity to generate 13.6 gigawatts of electricity, about the same amount as 13 nuclear reactors, according to the Treasury.

Treasury Comment

“Treasury’s team works closely with a larger team of reviewers to carefully evaluate each application to ensure that the amount of money awarded is correct,” Sandra Salstrom, a department spokeswoman, said today in an e-mail. “In all instances where funds are found to be paid improperly, Treasury will work aggressively to recoup them.”

In the first five audits, investigators questioned $2.12 million of $306.4 million awarded in grants, or 0.69 percent. In the case of two wind farms developed by EON AG, inspectors reversed initial decisions questioning $1 million in grant awards related to spare parts after Treasury Department officials said the costs were eligible under tax law.

“The auditors that come out aren’t always the subject- matter experts when it comes to tax policy,” Matt Tulis, a spokesman for EON, said in an interview.

Credits Turned Grants

The incentives began under President George W. Bush as a tax credit companies could use to offset profit by investing in renewable energy projects. The 2008 financial crisis dried up company profits and opportunities to use the tax credit, resulting in the move to convert the benefit to grants.

“Our experience shows that it’s difficult getting financing for the projects,” Schutzer, the tax lawyer, said. “That makes the grant or the credit upfront so valuable. I would bet that the rate of mis-claimed charitable deductions is a good bit higher than the rate of abuse you’d find with the grants.”

The grant program, which was set to expire last year, received a one-year extension in December. A second continuation is unlikely, Bill Wicker, a spokesman for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a Sept. 12 e-mail.

“Given the considerable fiscal challenges confronting Congress, renewing this program seems to be a steep hill to climb,” he said.

NEXT STORY:

BAT FATALITIES AT WIND FARMS: CURTAILMENT A MORE COMMON PRACTICE

by Bill Opalka,

Source www.renewablesbiz.com

October 26, 2011

The recent discovery of a dead endangered bat at a Pennsylvania wind site led to the immediate shutdown of night-time operations of a wind facility. The practice has become more widespread I recent years.

Unlike a few years ago, the wind industry has been armed with studies and procedures that lead to immediate actions to prevent further fatalities, which have been deployed in sensitive areas populate by migrating birds and bats.

On September 27, Duke Energy Corporation notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that a dead Indiana bat, a state and federally protected species, had been found at its 35-turbine, North Allegheny Wind facility.

The facility, located in Cambria and Blair Counties in Pennsylvania, has been in operation since September 2009, and the bat carcass was located during voluntary post-construction mortality monitoring, FWS said.

Duke Energy stopped operating the wind farm at night “to prevent additional mortalities of Indiana bats,” spokesman Greg Efthimiou said.

Efthimiou said the company will continue to switch off the farm a half hour before sunset and a half hour after sunrise until mid-November, when the migration season of the endangered Indiana bat generally ends.

The ridge is in the section of the Appalachian Mountains that extends into West Virginia, where the issue of bat mortality first gained prominence a few years ago.

The bat carcass was discovered by a contracted technician and brought to the office at the end of the day per Duke standard procedures.

Duke immediately curtailed night-time operations of the turbines at the North Allegheny facility, and reported the incident to the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Service. The FWS said it is currently reviewing the incident.

A project in West Virginia was itself endangered when the Beech Ridge project avoided denial of its permit when wind developer Invenergy and the Animal Welfare Institute reached a proposed settlement in federal court. The developers sought an “incidental take permit” from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recognition that some fatalities will occur from an otherwise lawful activity.

The actual settlement that was agreed upon allows the turbines to be in 24 hour operation between mid-November and April 1 when the bats are hibernating. For the remaining months the turbines may only operate in the daylight hours.

In other locations, bat and bird monitoring has led to wind curtailment. Not the most lucrative solution, as curtailment cuts into wind plant revenue, but it helps avoid a PR disaster-in-the making.