Glenmore Wind Energy Moratorium Challenged

Developer Appeals to Public Service Commission

By Matt Kapinos
(Denmark News: July 21 , 2011)

Michigan based CEnergy North America LLC has filed a request to open the docket with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) relating to a proposed 14.35 megawatt wind farm in the Town of Glenmore.

The request is, in effect, an appeal to the PSCW to overturn or override the moratorium on large wind development the Glenmore Town Board passed earlier this year.

Glenmore ordinance #046, passed by the newly elected Town Board at their May meeting reads, in part: "There is hereby established a temporary stay (moratorium) on the construction of large wind energy systems in the Town. During the temporary stay provided by this ordinance it shall be unlawful to install or construct any large wind energy systems or part thereof, and the Town shall not accept or process any application or issue any building permits relating to the proposed construction of any large wind energy system."

During the spring elections this year, Glenmore was notable in that it held a primary election to whittle down the pool of candidates for town supervisor positions.  Most towns struggle to fill the ballot, and town supervisor positions in other municipalities often rely on write-in candidates to fill vacancies.

After the completion of the Shirley Wind Project late last year, and subsequent complaints from residents regarding health concerns and property values among other issues, wind turbines became the predominant issue in the election, and the sheer number of interested parties led to the primary.

The one year moratorium passed unanimously by the new board after notable opposition from citizens and organizations opposed to wind development in the town.

The request to open the docket, filed on behalf of CEnergy by their attorney, Elias Muawad of Bloomfield Hills, MI, seeks the PSCW's judgment as to "Whether or not the Township of Glenmore is wrongfully withholding the building permit which was granted to [CEnergy] by the Town of Glenmore at a Town Council meting."

You may recall the Glenmore board meeting in March of this year where the board voted to grant CEnergy the building permit.  Soon after the vote was held, attendees began yelling and threatening some of the town's officials, necessitating the support of law enforcement. At that meeting, the board had voted to issue the permits, adjourned, then re-convened, potentially in deference of Wisconsin's open meetings law, and voted to rescind the permit and table the issue for sixty days pending the state's approval of the PSCW's Wind Siting Council recommendation for the siting of wind turbines.  Within that sixty day reconsideration period, the new board took office and voted to put the one year moratorium in place.

The document alleges CEnergy received the town board's approval, and that they have met the requirements the board put in place at that March meeting. Specifically, the board asked for the necessary letter of credit (to provide for damages and dismantling of the installation later) on behalf of and in the name of the permit holder, and a hold harmless agreement to protect  the town in case of a lawsuit against the developer. The document claims, "There was never any condition that in exchange for the Building Permit, that the name on the Letter of Credit should be in the name of [CEnergy]" although the minutes from the March board meeting clearly show that the board asked for that change. Either way, the document goes on to say CEnergy would willingly change the letter.

Additionally, the document goes on to state, "the moratorium is invalid because [CEnergy] was granted approval for the Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit prior to the moratorium being in effect" and that "there is no reasonable health, safety, or welfare issues granting the moratorium" --a claim that goes to the very heart of the issue in Glenmore.

Attorney Bob Gagan, legal counsel for the Town Board, made his limited comments regarding the situation to that effect, stating, "We disagree with the allegations stated in the Request to Open the Docket. The Town Board's goal is to protect the health and safety of the residents of the Town."

Gagan went on to say that the Board is awaiting new state standards for the siting of wind turbines, a process that has seemingly hit the skids since the state legislature's Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules declared the original recommendations of the Wind Siting Council "arbitrary and capricious."  WPSC has yet to determine when or how it will proceed with determining new standards, and many local governments and wind developers have been in limbo ever since.

Muawad said in a phone interview with The Denmark News, "The Town granted the permit, and has since refused to issue it on paper.  CEnergy has invested a lot of money in the project, well into the millions. We would rather find an amicable end to this situation, because CEnergy would like to maintain good relations with the neighbors of this facility. However, we are also pursuing legal action in the form of a civil suit. We are not going away."

From Vermont

WORK SUSPENDED ON LOWELL MOUNTAIN PROJECT

 SOURCE: Vermont Public Radio News, www.vpr.net

July 22, 2011

By John Dillon

(Host) Green Mountain Power says work started on its Lowell Mountain wind project without state permission.

The work included filling in a wetland that was supposed to be protected to lessen the impact of the ridgeline development._

As VPR’s John Dillon reports, the Agency of Natural Resources is now investigating.

(Dillon) On a site visit to its proposed Lowell Mountain wind project, GMP said it had discovered that trees were cut down without permission. The company also saw that landowner Trip Wileman – who owns the ridge where the turbines will be built – had installed culverts and filled in part of a protected wetland.

Dorothy Schnure is a GMP spokeswoman.

(Schnure) “We have taken these errors very seriously. We have asked the contractors to leave the site. We have asked Mr. Wileman – and he’s agreed – not to access the portions of his land that are in the conservation easements. We want to make sure that nothing else happens that is not correct and appropriate and under permitted conditions.”

(Dillon) The wetland issue is a problem for GMP beyond the environmental impact.

GMP wants to build 21 turbines along the ridgeline. The construction will affect streams and upper elevation wetlands. The wetland that was damaged was supposed to be protected under a conservation easement to offset the impacts of the development

So the Agency of Natural Resources is now trying to determine the extent of the damage, and whether additional mitigation work will be needed. Deb Markowitz is ANR secretary.

(Markowitz) “So the first thing is we want to make sure the Public Service Board doesn’t approve any easements right now because our biologists are going up to walk on the land and our foresters are taking a look to see whether or not those changes affect those easements.”

(Dillon) Critics of the Lowell project say GMP violated the Clean Water Act by filling in the wetland. Annette Smith is executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, which has questioned the environmental impact of large scale ridgeline wind projects.

(Smith) “The activities should be sent to enforcement, and those should be dealt with. And until a determination, the existing water quality permits that haven’t been issued should be put on hold.”

(Dillon) There are also questions whether the unauthorized construction will push back GMP’s time line for the Lowell project.

Jared Margolis is a lawyer who represents the towns of Albany and Craftsbury. He says the question now is whether the Public Service Board can approve GMP’s wetland mitigation plan. That approval is required prior to construction. And GMP wants to start construction August 1st.

(Margolis “Right now they don’t have a viable mitigation plan because what they were using for mitigation has been impacted itself. So that needs to be figured out prior to construction.”

(Dillon) GMP also needs a water quality permit from the state before it can start work. Several groups – including the Vermont Natural Resources Council – have challenged the permit, saying the project will damage upper elevation streams and cause erosion. GMP says the streams will be continuously monitored to assess water quality.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.

WHAT'S BLACK AND WHITE AND YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?

Sorry. I signed a wind lease. I can't discuss it.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Better Plan has been collecting copies of wind leases for the last few years and has yet to find one that didn't contain a confidentiality agreement ---also known as a 'gag order'

Landowners who share wind leases are taking a clear risk, but more are coming forward anyway. One farmer who shared his contract said, "I don't care anymore. I just don't want this to happen to anyone else."

The section below is copied from a wind lease contract that came our way. The landowner who signed it agreed to allow noise, vibration, shadow flicker and any other disruption the turbines might cause to take place on his property. If he has problems with these things he can't talk about it because the gag order requires that he:

Not to talk about the contents of lease to anyone. 

Not to talk about the construction or operation of the turbines.

Not not speak to reporters or anyone in the media or issue statements or press releases unless the wind company gives the landowner their written permission.

The landowner also had to agree that the gag order would still apply long after the turbines are gone. This line says it all: "This section shall survive the termination of expiration of this lease"  It means this gag order is forever.

The landowner can talk to his lawyer or accountant and certain others about the contract but only after they agree to a gag order too. 

 STRAIGHT FROM THE CONTRACT:

Confidentiality

(Landowner) shall maintain in strictest confidence, for the sole benefit of (wind developer) all information pertaining to the terms and conditions of this lease, including, without limitation, the construction and power production of the wind farm.

Without first obtaining written permission from the (wind developer), (the landowner) shall not issue any statements or press releases or respond to any inquires from news media regarding such matters.

(Landowner) shall maintain the strictest confidence, for the sole benefit of the (wind developer) all information pertaining to the terms and conditions of this lease, including, without limitation, the financial terms hereof.

This section shall survive the termination of expiration of this lease.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit sharing or disclosing information with any party's (lawyer) accountants or current or prospective investors, purchases, lenders or as required by law, provided that the party sharing or disclosing such information requires the recipient to maintain the confidentiality of such disclosed information

FROM THE DEVELOPERS POINT OF VIEW

Wind Energy Update: Wind Farm O&M - Best Practice On Cost Containment Elusive

The constantly evolving wind turbine market means that new components must continually be demonstrated, with little assurance of their availability five years down the track in the event of component failure.

Posted on: Monday, 23 May 2011

SOURCE: "Wind Energy Update" VIA PR WEB

When it comes to turning a profit throughout the lifecycle of a wind farm, just a one percent improvement in operations and maintenance can make a huge difference to the bottom line, according to the latest Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011.

(PRWEB) May 23, 2011

When it comes to turning a profit throughout the lifecycle of a wind farm, just a one percent improvement in operations and maintenance can make a huge difference to the bottom line, according to the latest Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011. [Click here to download report]

The challenge, however, is how to achieve that one percent improvement in the face of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs that are double or even triple initial projections.

O&M costs under-estimated

On the basis of an exhaustive industry survey, the latest report finds that wind farm return on investment is around -21 percent. This underperformance is attributable to over-estimation of power production and underestimation of O&M costs say the report’s authors.

In the early days, the industry had costed out O&M at roughly 0.5c/kw over a turbine’s 20-year life. But as newer models and their respective components continued to flood the market, this has turned out to be far from the reality.

The report highlights that wind O&M costs can now be expected to increase on average 253 percent over the 20-year life of the various wind machines.

“Given that every wind turbine comprises an average of 8000 components, it is not surprising that higher-than-expected rates of component failure continue to plague the industry,” say the report's authors.

Understanding the root cause

The constantly evolving wind turbine market means that new components must continually be demonstrated, with little assurance of their availability five years down the track in the event of component failure.

Of even greater concern is that, if not properly addressed early on, component failures can persist through new product generations. It is therefore vital, despite pressure from competitors to continuously push the boundaries on nameplate capacities, that both the onshore and offshore industries adopt a backwards compatibility approach when evolving each model.

A thorough understanding of failure trends can also provide a basis for the best O&M practices for a given system, say the reports authors.

Sketching a component failure timeline, the authors characterise earliest wind turbine designs (1987-91) by their gearbox failures, while wind turbines built between 1994-99 are characterized by electronic power failures.

Turbines manufactured between 2000-2004, again exhibit problems with generators and gearboxes. More recent models are plagued with issues linked to retrofits.

Aftermarket potential

But there is a silver lining. Some component suppliers to the OEM wind turbine market view the aftermarket as a new, long-term opportunity.

“Advances in turbine design may make certain parts obsolete, but with a typical projected turbine life of 20 years or more, the aftermarket will provide ongoing spares demand for these suppliers for some time to come”, says the report.

The report also notes that in the long-run, as the wind industry matures and begins to validate the success of condition and performance monitoring systems, as direct drive turbines replace gear-box driven turbines, and as the industry begins to collaborate on O&M, reductions in long-term O&M costs are the most likely scenario.

DOWNLOAD Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011.

From Maine

WIND POWER NOISE DISPUTE ON TRANQUIL MAINE ISLAND INTENSIFIES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: HUFFINGTON POST

May 24, 2011

By Tom Zeller Jr.

While thousands of wind power enthusiasts and industry representatives gather in Anaheim Calif. for Windpower 2011, the American Wind Power Association's popular annual conference and exhibition, some 3,300 miles due east, wind power is tearing a tiny island community asunder.

In the latest turn, an attorney representing several homeowners living closest to a three-turbine wind installation on the tiny island of Vinalhaven in Maine's Penobscot Bay filed a formal complaint with the Maine Public Utilities Commission on Monday.

The complaint charges that the Fox Island Electric Cooperative, the local utility, and Fox Island Wind, the developer of the wind installation which is owned by the utility, have engaged in repeated harassment of the homeowners, who have argued since shortly after the turbines came online in late 2009 that the machines have been in violation of state noise ordinances. That assertion was subsequently supported by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The developer has repeatedly disputed those findings, and the majority of the island's residents support the wind farm, which is seen as a source of eco-pride and sensible thrift, ostensibly saving the island from the need to import pricier power from the mainland.

But Monday's complaint states that the residents nearest the turbines have legitimate concerns that have long gone unheeded, despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue through negotiation, and that instead the local utility has recently upped the rhetorical ante by placing two separate "inserts" inside all islanders' utility bills. The inserts claim that legal expenses associated with the neighbors' noise complaints were costing the cooperative hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that as a result, a 5 percent increase in utility rates was needed.

The announcement caused the neighbors, perhaps not surprisingly, to suffer "retribution, harassment and hostility" from fellow Vinalhaven residents who are not within earshot of the turbines, according to the complaint. The utility's tactic also amounted to what the complaint called "intimidation and an abuse of the powers of a utility."

Vinalhaven became a flashpoint last year for a small but persistent backlash against industrial wind power, as residents living nearest the spinning behemoths became vocal about their experiences.

Like nearly all residents of the island, they supported the idea of a wind farm at first. Yet the Fox Island Wind Neighbors, as the loosely knit group of a dozen or so residents dubbed themselves, said they soon began to worry about the noise, being within a one-mile radius of the project site.

Representatives of Fox Island Wind assured them the noise would be minimal. But as Art Lindgren, one of the neighbors, told this reporter last year, their worst fears were confirmed once the turbines were switched on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” he said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Lindgren's lament has been echoed in jurisdictions across the land, as an increasing number of communities come to weigh the innumerable collective benefits of wind power -- clean, non-toxic, no emissions, climate-friendly, water-friendly, renewable, sustainable -- against some of the downsides experienced by those living nearby.

Indeed, proximate residents around the country have cited everything from the throbbing, low-frequency drone to mind-numbing strobe effects as the rising or setting sun slices through the spinning blades:

Others have gone so far as to describe something called "wind turbine syndrome," arising from turbine-generated low-frequency noise and "infrasound," and causing all manner of symptoms -- from headache and dizziness to ear pressure, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, and panic episodes -- though the science on these claims is still thin.

And there are still lingering and long-standing concerns over hazards presented by turbines to migrating birds and bats.

At Vinalhaven, for example, a 28-month study conducted by ornithologist Richard Podolsky, who was hired by Fox Island Wind, the project's developer, recently declared the turbines' impacts on local eagle and osprey populations to be negligible.

But in March, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to attorneys representing the Fox Island Wind project, lambasting those conclusions. The letter questioned the study's methodologies for studying eagle, bat and bird collision assessment and mortality, suggesting that they needed to be more rigorous and better-defined and described.

The wildlife regulators asked that new studies be conducted before a permit necessary to allow the project to proceed -- despite the potential for incidental harm to bald and golden eagle species in the area -- is issued. Both are protected by federal legislation.

Meanwhile, the complaint filed on Monday asks the Maine Public Utility Commission to sanction the Vinalhaven utility and Fox Island Wind for the utility bill inserts, and urges them to prevent any similar communications with ratepayers in the future.

It also asks that the state commission prevent the island utility from attempting to raise rates to cover expenses from its dispute with the affected homeowners going forward -- characterizing such expenses as "the product of mismanagement, and reckless conduct."

Queries sent to officials at Fox Island Wind and the Vinalhaven electric cooperative were not immediately returned Tuesday morning. This report will be updated if they respond.

From New York State

HEALTH CONCERNS RISE FOR PROPOSED WIND FARM 

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Daily News Online

May 20, 2011

By Sally Ross

Horizon, sponsor of the proposed Alabama Ledge Wind Farm, held an open meeting on March 17 at the Alabama Town Hall to respond to environmental concerns raised by the impact of industrial wind turbines. Surprisingly, their collective effect upon local residents’ health was unexplored. Therefore, this overview will attempt to summarize a recent inquiry into the impact of wind turbines upon persons and animals.

Preston G. Ribnick and Lilli-Ann Green, from Wellfleet (Cape Cod), Mass., own a medical consulting agency, advising hospitals and clinics throughout the United States. They have spent almost a year trying to understand the complexities of wind energy. Two foci of their attention have been the wind farms in Falmouth, Mass., and Vinalhaven, Maine. Early this year, Ribnick and Green were the guests of Sarah Laurie, M.D., of Waubra, Australia. Dr. Laurie and her medical colleagues have been compiling files on dozens of persons whose health has been seriously compromised by the Waubra Wind Farm. Ribnick and Green interviewed a sample of the patients.

Waubra, 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Melbourne, is primarily an agricultural community of growers who raise livestock — cattle, poultry and sheep — as well as a variety of crops. It isn’t uncommon for farms to have been in families for two or more generations, and like much of Australia, drought conditions have prevailed for nearly a decade. Wind turbines seemed like a godsend; a stable source of rental income to accompany the precarious economy.

The Waubra Wind Farm is an installation of 128 turbines in as many miles; one turbine to one mile. After the industrial wind turbine complex was up and running in 2009, dozens of previously healthy persons reported serious health issues with themselves and their animals. Here are some common complaints. They are not age-specific. They occur in children as well as in mature adults.

People — dangerously high rates in blood pressure, racing heartbeats, stroke, heart attack, sleep disturbance, involuntary neurological “upper lip quiver,” ringing in ears, inability to concentrate, severe headache, eye pain, and dizziness.

Animals — chickens laying eggs without shells, nearly one-half of the lambs expiring shortly after birth, disoriented sheep, dogs as well as birds displaying extremely agitated and abnormal behavior, and the virtual disappearance of bats.

Conditions inside of homes were worse than those outside, because houses vibrated. As a result, some people have left hearth and home and now consider themselves to be “industrial refugees.” How far away were these physiological complaints reported? Up to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) distance from the wind turbine installations. By inference, these data should raise our local concern for those residents in Genesee, and nearby counties, who live well beyond the proposed sites for turbine installations in the town of Alabama.

The results of Ribnick, Green and Laurie’s work is widely available. A hard copy of the article upon which this summary [can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE]. Anyone opting for an electronic link, as well as additional scientific information, place contact me.

Sally Ross, Ph.D., lives in Oakfield. Write her via e-mail at srladygrail@gmail.com.

From Malone, Wisconsin

LIFE IN A WIND FARM

Thank you for the information about wind farms. We live in one and life has changed.  Quite frankly, it has been somewhat of a nightmare. We have to deal with bad tv reception, flicker and loud swoshing noises at times. We could have been part of this project as they approached us about using our land but we declined because we didn't feel educated enough. They went up anyway.

From Massachusetts

FALMOUTH DREAMS TURNED NIGHTMARE

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

May 24, 2011

By ELIZABETH ANDERSEN

"The 7½-ton, 135-foot-long blades of the turbine slice through the air every second, creating a sound pressure that feels like the pounding of a bass instrument coming through the walls day and night. Just try to imagine that sound always there in your yard and in every room in your house, with no opportunity to turn it off. You go insane!"

"What we have so painfully learned this year is that there has been no place to go for help. Not our town hall, nor state representatives; not the police, not the DEP, nor the Department of Public Health. What is happening wasn’t supposed to happen. So we wait and suffer while it is “figured out.”

My husband and I met in 1976 and bonded over a shared love of nature. We have long considered ourselves conservationists, not only because our wonderful Depression-era parents taught us to use things up and wear them out, but because we learned our lesson from the oil embargo of the ’70s.

This awareness of the Earth’s declining natural resources led my husband, some 30 years ago, to start one of the first alternative energy construction companies on the Cape. And when we built our home on Blacksmith Shop Road 20 years ago, we designed it to be an energy-efficient system in itself. We also recycle, compost, drive small cars, use fluorescent bulbs, turn off lights when not in use, unplug appliances using phantom electricity, keep our heat down to 60 degrees in the winter and repurpose many things that would otherwise be thrown away.

Yet we, and our neighbors, have been criticized and made to feel guilty for complaining about ill health effects directly related to the size and proximity of utility-size wind turbines to our homes.

My husband and I were aware that the town Falmouth had been exploring the use of turbines for years, and we thought this was a good idea. However, when two turbines, already turned down by two other towns, became available, Falmouth officials chose to ignore the Falmouth windmill bylaw already on the books and erected two 400-foot mechanical machines, one 1,320 feet directly north of our home.

We, and our neighbors, were intentionally shut out of a special permitting process so that we would not hold up financing or construction in any way. Consequently, we have been living a nightmare ever since the turbine went online last year.

The 7½-ton, 135-foot-long blades of the turbine slice through the air every second, creating a sound pressure that feels like the pounding of a bass instrument coming through the walls day and night. Just try to imagine that sound always there in your yard and in every room in your house, with no opportunity to turn it off. You go insane!

At first we naively thought our Falmouth administrators would be concerned for us when informed of our health problems. Since April 2010, we and our neighbors have continually called, written, emailed or spoken in person to our town officials and begged them for some relief. The response we got for one year: no response. We contacted our building commissioner, zoning board of appeals, selectmen, and especially our board of health: no response.

Unfortunately for us, town administrators, in their haste to be “green,” did not research the negative impacts of utility-scale turbines near residential areas, and were taken by surprise by all of our complaints. Because the town of Falmouth owns the turbine, the administrators, again, chose to shut us out. We finally were forced to go to court just to get them to acknowledge us.

We wish we could list all the details of the cruel indifference we have been subjected to for a year, but the log we keep is pages too long. It was not until my husband and I were so exhausted from the ill treatment of turbine and town that we had to be civilly disobedient at a town meeting to plead for some relief. The Falmouth selectmen finally helped by way of a temporary shutoff when wind speeds reach 23 mph.

What we have so painfully learned this year is that there has been no place to go for help. Not our town hall, nor state representatives; not the police, not the DEP, nor the Department of Public Health. What is happening wasn’t supposed to happen. So we wait and suffer while it is “figured out.”

My husband and I still wholeheartedly embrace the movement toward alternative energy, but, once again, both the Massachusetts government and our town government put the cart before the horse and did not do all they could have done to protect the people. And from the looks of things going on in other towns, it is going to be up to the townspeople to fight for responsible turbine siting, to protect the health of their fellow man.

Elizabeth Andersen lives in Falmouth.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: NextEra, (formerly Florida Power and Light)currently has wind developers prospecting around Wisconsin, most recently showing up in Rock County in the Towns of Spring Valley and Magnolia. This diary, kept by a family with four children, details life in a NextEra wind project and paints a clear picture of what NextEra's response has been to their problems with wind turbine noise, shadow flicker and lack of sleep.

(CLICK HERE to see where wind developers are prospecting in our state)

DIARY: LIFE IN A WIND FARM

Checking in with a family living in a Next Era wind project in DEKALB, ILLINOIS

"[NextEra] is stating that any complaint will be addressed and they do an exhaustive analysis that helps in design. once again this looks good on paper, but we are living a different reality."

-diary entry on May 13, 2011

Thank you for visiting our blog.

Our home in rural DeKalb County, IL is where we wanted to stay for good.

We have put so much into our home to make it a place where we would love to live and raise our children, and unfortunately we are being forced to live differently.

We have been bullied by a large industrial wind company (NextEra Energy, a subsidiary of Florida Power and Light (FPL) and sold-out by the DeKalb County Board.

FPL told residents that these wind turbines only "sound like a refrigerator."

Well, we have found that this is not the case.

Often times our yard sounds like an airport. We hear and feel the low frequency sound on our property as well as in our home. We are bothered by the noise, whistling, contant swirling movement, and shadow flicker.

Complaining is not something that our family is known for doing and we teach our children to look for the positive aspects of life, but this has gone too far with the turbines.

Someone needs to speak up. These industrial wind turbines should not be built close to homes. They should be at least a mile away to avoid these issues. We have 13 within a mile. The closest 2 are 1,400 feet away.

READ ENTIRE DIARY AT SOURCE:http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

shadow flicker

this morning we had shadow flicker in our home and on our property for approximately 55 minutes. we will have videos posted later today.

Posted by Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines at 7:00 AM

Monday, May 16, 2011

Noisy Tonight!

we went for a family walk tonight and were in a tunnel of noise walking down our non-busy country road. the turbines were pitched into the wind and creating droning chopping sounds....over and over again. it is an unnatural mechanical noise. we remember taking walks (pre-turbine) and it being so peaceful. tonight, we can hear the turbines from inside our home.

Posted by Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines at 11:01 PM

Labels: noise

perspective

here is a photo from the back of our home taken in March of this year. it gives some perspective on the actual size of these industrial machines. the distances given are approximate from the foundation of our home.

Posted by Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines at 7:35 PM

Labels: picture

Shadow flicker again

We had shadow flicker again this morning. The noise has been up and down the last few days. Current the skies are sunny with a north breeze and the noise is at a 4.

Posted by Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines at 6:46 AM

Labels: noise, shadow flicker

Friday, May 13, 2011

what we were told - part two

here is a slide (from exhibit K) taken straight from the dekalb county public hearing. this slide was in Nextera Energy's powerpoint presentation at one of the hearings. this slide is stating that any complaint will be addressed and they do an exhaustive analysis that helps in design. once again this looks good on paper, but we are living a different reality.

Posted by Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines at 5:23 PM

Labels: shadow flicker

Double Shadow Flicker

This video was taken this last Sunday am. Both turbine #30 and #31 are creating shadow flicker on our property. This lasted about 40 minutes start to finish.

FROM ONTARIO

MPP CALLS FOR ACTION ON AMARANTH TRANSFORMER STATION

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE:, www.orangeville.com

May 16, 2011

By Richard Vivian

During the TransAlta meeting, Whitworth said the company presented them with three options: live with it and adapt, sell your homes and move, or file a lawsuit.

The problem is too bad to stay, he said, and no one would want to buy their house given the situation. Nor do they have the money to file a lawsuit against a multi-national corporation.

For years now, two Amaranth families have endured a long list of ailments they claim are caused by “electrical pollution” from the neighbouring transformer station.

With no solution in sight, MPP Sylvia Jones is calling on Minster of the Environment John Wilkinson to step in and help them out.

“It’s gone on too long,” Jones, who made her request to the minister on May 6, said. “The minister must take responsibility and ensure this matter is resolved.”

It appears, however, like a resolution isn’t coming anytime soon — at least not one that satisfies the Kidd and Whitworth families.

Wilkinson insists his ministry has already taken steps to address their concerns and, in a statement provided to The Banner, made no commitment to do more.

“They changed the transformer to a quieter model, implemented acoustic barriers, landscaped the area for additional screening and provided three years of acoustic measurements,” the minister said.

“The transformer is now in compliance with our stringent noise requirements. We have not heard from either family about noise issues in over a year.”

The 10th Line families point the finger for their nausea, headaches, loss of balance, diarrhea and more at the nearby TransAlta transformer station, which connects 137 industrial wind turbines to the electrical grid.

“Finally, somebody is willing to try to do something to help us,” Terry Kidd said of Jones, not giving up hope an end is near. “I hope she’s able to do something.”

So far, attempts by Terry and Theresa Kidd, as well as Ted and Cheryl Whitworth, to find a solution to their situation — they now want to be bought out and compensated — have failed.

Representatives of TransAlta, which purchased the substation from Canadian Hydro Developers, deny any responsibility for the families’ illnesses.

According to Ted Whitworth, they’ve only met with TransAlta once, and all the changes referred to be Wilkinson were implemented by Canadian Hydro.

During the TransAlta meeting, Whitworth said the company presented them with three options: live with it and adapt, sell your homes and move, or file a lawsuit.

The problem is too bad to stay, he said, and no one would want to buy their house given the situation. Nor do they have the money to file a lawsuit against a multi-national corporation.

A consultant hired by the Kidds suggests there is a problem at their home.

“It appears that there is cross contamination of electrical pollution from the wind farm generation onto the electrical distribution system that supplies power to neighbouring homes,” David Colling, who brought in equipment to measure the electricity in the air, states in a reported dated Feb. 8, 2010, but based on measurements taken the previous April.

“What your family has been suffering from is likely electrical hypersensitivity,” it adds.

“You have 10kHz micro surges being introduced into your home, therefore it compares to living inside a microwave oven environment.”

After receiving the report, Terry and Theresa left their home, moving in with family near Dundalk. As a result, they said their symptoms have abated.

The Whitworths, however, have not left their home and continue to experience health issues.

Provincial legislation approved since the station was installed require they have a minimum setback of 500 metres from the nearest residence. The Kidds’ home is 390 metres from the station and the Whitworths’ is 490.

“Their family physician has said there is a problem,” Jones said, noting the doctor has the “added credibility” of being a former medical officer of health for the Region of Peel.

“(Wilkinson) kept bouncing it back to the regional office of the Ministry of the Environment,” Jones added of the concerns raised.

“He can’t continue to put it back onto the civil service.”