Better Plan, Wisconsin

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Ted Weissman is a wind developer for NextEra (formerly Florida Power & Light) who has been inquiring about putting up a met tower in the Town of Spring Valley (Rock County).

Better Plan has been told he is the same developer that signed up a number of landowners for the Glacier Hills project currently under construction in Columbia County and now owned by WeEnergies.

For those in the Spring Valley community who are interested in what kinds of terms might be in a wind lease from Ted Weissman on behalf of NextEra, a preview may be had by looking over the leases Weissman reportedly used to sign up Columbia county landowners. Download a copy of the wind lease by clicking here, or visit the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and search docket #6630-CE-302

In upcoming days Better Plan will be taking a closer look at the wind lease that at least a few landowners in Columbia county now openly regret signing, why they regret signing it and where things stand with the project today.

Senate Bill 98, Changing Setback Limits and other Regulations Applicable to Wind Energy Systems. 

This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC's rules governing local regulation of wind turbines.

The bill requires the restrictions under the rules to provide reasonable protection from any health effects associated with wind energy systems, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker.

The bill eliminates the requirement for the PSC to promulgate rules regarding setback requirements, and requires instead that the owners of certain wind energy systems comply with distance requirements specified in the bill.

The bill's requirements apply to the owner of a "large wind energy system," which the bill defines as a wind energy system that has a total installed nameplate capacity of more than 300 kilowatts and that consists of individual wind turbines that have an installed nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts. 

Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the wind turbine tower is located is at least one-half mile. 

The bill allows a lesser distance if there is a written agreement between the owner of the large wind energy system and the owners of all property within one-half mile of the property on which the system is located.

The bill also requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the permanent foundation of any building must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower, unless the owners of the system and the building agree in writing to a lesser distance. 

In addition, the bill requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on any public road right-of-way or overhead communication or electric transmission or distribution line must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower.  By Sen. Lasee (R-De Pere) Comment on this bill. 

FROM WASHINGTON DC

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PRESS FOR FASTER ACTION ON RENEWABLE ENERGY

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com

June 1, 2011

By Jim Snyder,

Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”

U.S. House Republicans, who have sought to expedite offshore oil- and gas-drilling permits, pressed the Obama administration to act faster on renewable energy projects.

Federal hurdles are slowing growth of solar and wind companies, industry executives said today at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington. The witnesses also advocated tax incentives and production mandates criticized by Republicans, who control the House.

“Bureaucratic delays, unnecessary lawsuits and burdensome environmental regulations” are hampering expansion of renewable energy, as they have for oil and gas producers, said Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington state.

Hastings’s panel has already passed legislation designed to expand oil and gas production offshore, including an accelerated approval process for drilling permits. The bills passed the House before being blocked in the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority.

Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”

The Obama administration proposed guidelines in February to help wind-energy developers identify sites that pose the least risks to birds and wildlife.

Collisions with wind turbines are a “major source of mortality” for golden eagles in regions of the U.S. West, according to a department fact sheet.
Developing Public Lands

Hastings asked witnesses if the Interior Department had an efficient and effective process for reviewing permits for developing public lands.

While most responded no, executives also praised the Obama administration for improving the procedures and focusing more attention on renewable energy.

They commended policies like a Treasury Department grant program for renewable developers set to expire later this year and an Obama plan to generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity from low-polluting sources by 2035.

The Interior Department is “picking up the pace” on offshore wind, said Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition.

Reilly said clean-energy mandates and a predictable tax policy would promote investment.

From Ontario

HOME VALUES VS. WIND TURBINES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca

June 1, 2011

by Travis Pedwell

McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.

He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.

McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.

Wind Turbines are having a serious effect on house values in Grey County and would do the same in Huron County.

This from Grey County realtor Mike McMurray at the Community Forum on Wind Development in Goderich held on Monday.

McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.

He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.

McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.

McMurray notes he sympathizes with those who have built homes and have had turbines placed in their backyards.

He tells us most people he deals with wish they had never got involved with turbines.

McMurray tells us there have been several cases when someone from Toronto wants to relocate and must look elsewhere because of potential wind development.

He says his experience shows wind development pits neighbour against neighbour.

McMurray notes among other things – the biggest concern he hears from potential buyers are the health effects.

He says nobody wants to look out at the turbines all day and have flashing lights come through the windows at night.

McMurray adds many potential buyers will stay away from areas of wind development.

He says he has encountered residents who don’t mind turbines but adds only farmers on marginal properties see them as a way of survival.

From Ontario

LIKE LIVING IN A MICROWAVE OVEN

READ THE WHOLE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

June 2, 2011

By WES KELLER

If the independent findings and conclusions of an electrical engineer are correct, Theresa Kidd and her family were living “inside a microwave oven environment” near the TransAlta transformer substation in Amaranth until forced out by ill health.

Because they had lived on their horse farm across from the Hydro One grid near 15 Sideroad and the 10th Line of Amaranth for more than a half dozen years with no adverse health effects prior to the installation of transformers but have experienced severe ill health since then, the Kidds blame the substation – and the electrical study would appear to confirm that as the cause.

However, the Ministry of Recreational Environment (MoE) hasn’t indicated an interest in anything other than noise-level compliance at the site, and Theresa says TransAlta has never www. sent its own electrical engineers to investigate the source of her family’s complaints.

Her electrical engineer is David Copping of Ripley, who says some industry and MoE officials have agreed with his findings – but only “off the record.”

Mr. Copping, who lives in the area of the Suncor wind farm, said in a telephone interview that the proximity of the turbines to his home has nothing to do with his opposition to the transmission of wind power.

In fact, the Ryerson-trained electrician at first poohpoohed the idea that electric contamination from wind farms could affect human health. He did, however, have an interest in examining the effects on dairy herds.

Someone talked him into examining a home near Ripley where the occupants had become ill. Since then, he says, he has examined more

200 homes of which there are now five vacant at Ripley, the two at the local substation, and one more near Kincardine, where Enbridge has a wind farm.

Mr. Copping’s reports are technical, and appear to be at least partially based on analyses of power quality and frequency, using specialized equipment.

His “microwave” conclusion is from a measurement of a 10 kiloHertz (Kz) frequency of electricity on a wire connected between the kitchen sink and an EKG patch on the floor of the Kidd home when the main power line to the house had been shut off.

That frequency is otherwise expressed as 10,000 cycles per second, but the frequency of “clean” electrical transmission would be 60 cycles per second, he says.

Where is the energy coming from when the power line to the house has been shut off? Mr. Colling said it could be “coming through the walls.”

“You have 10 kHz micro surges being introduced into your home, therefore it compares to living inside microwave oven environment. I hope this helps in understanding what has happened to your health,” he says in concluding note to the Kidds.

Ms. Kidd said she met TransAlta representative Jason Edworthy at Amaranth Council in January 2010 when the council urged him to speak with the affected residents (Kidds and Whitworths).

Then, in March, she described symptoms of headaches, vomiting and sleep deprivation among other things to Mr. Edworthy, as happening since February 2009 – forcing the family to vacate in April of that year.

“For the record, this was the second time we spoke with TransAlta – and the last,” she said.

“TransAlta has done absolutely nothing to investigate our concerns; they are fully aware of the health issues we have incurred due to their substation.”

She notes that acoustical barriers and landscaping around the substation were completed before TransAlta purchased Canadian Hydro in a hostile takeover, and those were done “to bring the noise levels into compliance.”

“Neither the Kidd nor Whitworth family health has been made a priority by TransAlta. This company’s response in addressing our concerns due to their electrical transformer substation was to give us three options: sell and move; stay and adapt; or take action against the company.

“These options were given to us in March 2010,” she said.

In addition to their physical health problems, the Kidds generally have lost their horse-training business as they have been forced to dispose of their herd, evidently because they can’t live there but also because of the electromagnetic effects on the animals.

Wisconsin Wind Farm Sold to Duke Energy

Company Will Surpass 1,000 Megawatts of Wind Power

PRESS RELEASE: CHARLOTTE, N.C., May 26, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) will acquire a 20-megawatt wind farm in operation in Wisconsin.

Duke Energy Renewables, a commercial business unit of Duke Energy, agreed to purchase the Shirley Windpower Project from a subsidiary of Central Hudson Enterprises Corporation on May 24. The wind farm is located on approximately 500 acres of leased land in Glenmore, roughly 30 miles southeast of Green Bay.

The Shirley Windpower Project, which began commercial operation in December 2010, sells all of its output and associated renewable energy credits to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation under the terms of a 20-year power purchase agreement. The eight Nordex 2.5-megawatt (MW) wind turbines that comprise the Shirley Windpower Project are capable of generating enough electricity to power approximately 6,000 homes.

"Our strategic acquisition of the Shirley Windpower Project not only helps us reach the 1,000-megawatt milestone, it serves as a springboard for growth in a new region of the United States," said Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables.

The deal is expected to close this summer. The purchase price was not disclosed.

With the addition of the Shirley project, Duke Energy Renewables will own 1,006 MW of generating capacity at 10 U.S. wind farms – four in Wyoming, three in Texas, one in Colorado, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Wisconsin.

On May 24, Duke Energy Renewables announced plans to start construction of a 168-MW wind power project in Kansas in the fall of 2011.

Since 2007, Duke Energy has invested more than $1.5 billion to grow its commercial wind and solar power businesses.

About Duke Energy Renewables

Duke Energy Renewables, part of Duke Energy's Commercial Businesses, is a leader in developing innovative wind and solar energy solutions for customers throughout the United States. The company's growing portfolio of commercial renewable assets includes nine wind farms and four solar farms in operation in five states, totaling approximately 1,000 megawatts in electric-generating capacity.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy is a Fortune 500 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DUK. More information about the company is available on the Internet at: www.duke-energy.com.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The Enz family abandoned their home in this wind project because of turbine related problems. The project, which has been on line for less than a year, has already been sold twice. Read about the Enz family and why they left their home by clicking here.

·FROM AUSTRALIA

From:  George Papadopoulos, Pharmacist
To:  Jillian Skinner MP, NSW Minister for Health; Brad Hazzard MP, NSW Planning Minister
Regarding:  Wind Turbine Syndrome victims of the “Crookwell 1 Trial Wind Turbine” site, New South Wales (Australia)
Date:  May 24, 2011

Dear Ministers,

I am a trained and registered, practising health professional (pharmacist).

Yesterday, I met two elderly ladies from the Crookwell region who have been for years quietly suffering the effects of what has been described as Wind Turbine Syndrome.

These ladies have been quietly suffering for years. Their local medical practitioners are unable to do much beyond prescribe antidepressants, sleeping tablets and other medication, or recommend that they move.

There is a lack of “published peer reviewed evidence” that these health problems exist, as the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NH&MRC) “Rapid Review” report pointed out.  But that does NOT mean there is no health problem, which is what the wind developers and many individuals in government have been wrongly inferring or assuming from the NH&MRC’s report. They have ignored the NH&MRC’s advice to “adopt a precautionary approach.”

I asked one of these ladies why she hasn’t taken the matter further—why she isn’t discussing the matter with the locals. Well, surprisingly, the locals have ostracised her for making comments that might affect the tourist business in Crookwell. So she decided to shut up and suffer, or otherwise become a social outcast.

So who is listening to these quiet victims of this “innovative,” original New South Wales (NSW) wind turbine trial? Why is it that the suffering of these quiet victims has not affected the planning process of newer wind turbine developments?

Strange isn’t it? What was the point of this trial site?

I then decided with two companions to pay my own visit to the local trial industrial wind turbine site—situated amongst rural blocks. I have never been so close to a wind turbine site before. In fact, so close (within 250 metres) thanks to a third victim of this development, who allowed us to access their property. This third victim also needs sleeping pills to sleep and is unduly chronically ill due to Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Well, our experience was absolutely stunning! Almost immediately, pressure sensations in the head abruptly started—plus blocked ears that could not be relieved by swallowing or yawning. We couldn’t hear any loud deafening noises, but the constant whooshing noise was phenomenal—enough to drive you mad.

We were ultimately compelled to leave the site due to severe nausea in all three of us. Perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to get so close to the turbines. Eventually it was only at 5km away that we finally felt totally relieved and normal—we had finally escaped this whirlpool of disaster.

My dear politician, I am not having a joke. This is no good story. It is a very sad reality of what is happening here in Australia, in our meant-to-be progressive, clean democracy where the rights of the individual should be upheld against the little, if any, good that can be found in these developments.

Why are our planning departments ineffective in drafting policies to protect public health? Why aren’t our health departments effective in monitoring the health of individuals surrounding these industrial power sites? Why are the local medical practitioners and other local health professionals so slow in protecting these most sweet, kind-hearted elderly souls?

The reason is, despite these problems being reported globally, no government has listened to its citizens and ensured that appropriate independent acoustic and medical research is commissioned and funded, to help find out why these problems are occurring and how to prevent them. Or, in plain terms, research which will determine the safe distance between turbines and homes and workplaces.

If this were a drug, these experiences would be reported as “Adverse Events” and the drug would be withdrawn, pending further investigation until its safety from unanticipated side effects could be guaranteed. The equivalent in this situation is to immediately instigate a moratorium where turbines are close to homes, and fully investigate these occurrences.

It’s time to do something about it. The recent Federal Senate Inquiry has heard many stories such as the one above, in both written and oral testimony. I hope you feel compelled as a publicly elected official in a democratic country to do something about this great injustice—and stop it from happening again and again in different sites around NSW and the rest of Australia.

FROM WISCONSIN:

WE ENERGIES CANCELS RENEWABLE AID PROGRAM

READ ENTIRE STORY HERE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

May 13, 2011

By Thomas Content

We Energies is canceling a program that funded small-scale renewable energy development, including projects that resulted in solar power being generated at GE Healthcare and smaller projects at churches and nonprofits such as the Urban Ecology Center.

The utility announced on its website Friday that it has decided to terminate its Renewable Energy Development programs.

The utility had committed in 2002 to spending $6 million a year on renewable energy development initiatives but has decided to end that program, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said.

The company is no longer offering grants for nonprofits and will continue education and training programs “until committed funds are depleted,” the utility’s message said.

The announcement came weeks after the company reported record quarterly earnings and the same month that the utility plans to file a plan to increase rates for its electricity customers next year. The utility’s customers have seen bills rise by more than 5% this year, with a typical residential customer now paying $105 a month for electricity.

The power company said its decision is based on its increased investment in building renewable energy projects to meet the state’s 10% renewable energy target. Total spending in renewable energy, including two large wind farms and a portion of its investment in a $255 million biomass power plant in north-central Wisconsin, will exceed $800 million by the end of this year, Manthey said.

“There’s an awful lot going from customers to pay for renewable energy both for the projects as well as funds for the Focus on Energy program,” he said.

Focus on Energy is a statewide initiative funded by utility ratepayers that provides incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The utility’s $800 million estimate includes $120 million that would be spent this year on the biomass project the utility has proposed to build in north-central Wisconsin. As of Friday, however, the utility had not decided whether to build that project because it and Domtar Corp. were still reviewing whether they can accept conditions imposed by the state Public Service Commission that aim to bring down the overall cost of the project to customers.

A leading state renewable energy advocate said Friday that We Energies was backing away from a $60 million commitment with only about half of the money collected.

Renew Wisconsin, a group that worked with We Energies and other groups on a renewable energy collaborative, agreed not to object to the utility’s plan to build new coal and natural gas-fired power plants as part of that commitment, said Michael Vickerman, executive director.

“We looked at it as a commitment. They looked at it as a commitment, until a couple days ago,” Vickerman said of We Energies. “Now that the coal plant is up and running, it appears that the program has outlived its usefulness to We Energies.”

The 12.7% profit the utility earns on its investment in the $2.38 billion coal plant has been a key driver in record profits the utility reported in 2010. With the second unit of the coal plant completed in January, 2011 will be another record year for Wisconsin Energy Corp.

To Vickerman, the announcement is the latest in a string of setbacks for efforts to develop homegrown renewable energy and stem the flow of energy dollars out of the state. That includes Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to make it more difficult to build wind farms in the state and a GOP-sponsored bill to be considered in the Legislature next week that would allow utilities to import hydro power from large dams in Manitoba to meet the state’s renewable energy mandate.

Manthey, of We Energies, says circumstances have changed since its commitment, including the 2006 state law that requires 10% of Wisconsin’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2015.

The utility says its projects are a significant investment in the state’s economy. When completed later this year, the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County will be the state’s largest wind farm, and its Blue Sky Green Field project is the second biggest renewable project in the state, Manthey said.

A recipient of funding from We Energies was disappointed with the utility’s decision. We Energies provided $30,000 toward a $160,000 solar and energy efficiency project at the Unitarian Universalist church on Milwaukee’s east side, said Tom Brandstetter, who led the project.

Without the utility’s help, completing the project “would have made it much more difficult,” he said.

Plus, he said, the program helped the utility’s image that it was committed to green power at a time when it was building new coal plants. “We’re going in the exact opposite direction that we need to,” Brandstetter said.

Manthey said the utility’s shift on the renewable energy development program would have no impact on its Energy for Tomorrow initiative, a green-pricing program under which certain utility customers agree to pay more on their monthly electric bills to support renewable energy.

By the end of the month, the utility is expected to file a detailed plan with state regulators to raise bills in 2012 and again in 2013. The funding plan would pay for the wind farm now under construction northeast of Madison as well as environmental controls being installed at the original Oak Creek coal plant.

FROM AUSTRALIA:

WIND TURBINE SYNDROME

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: ABC1, hungrybeast.abc.net.au

May 11, 2011

Wind energy supplies approximately 2% of Australia’s overall electricity needs. The Waubra Wind Farm in rural Victoria is one of Australia’s largest wind farms and home to 128 wind turbines. As farmers Carl and Samantha Stepnell discovered, living near wind turbines can sometimes result in unexpected consequences.

To read more about Carl and Samantha’s story, a full transcript from the Ballarat Public Hearing of the Senate Inquiry into The Social and Economic of Rural Wind Farms can be read and downloaded here: “Health effects of living close to the Waubra wind turbines”.

FROM OKLAHOMA:

GOVERNOR SIGNS EMINENT DOMAIN LAW TO PROTECT LANDOWNERS FROM WIND FARM THREAT

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Oklahoman, www.newsok.com 14 May 2011

“The Southern Great Plains Property Rights Coalition supports any legislation which will help landowners protect their property now and for future generations,” the group said Friday. “We feel this is a step in the right direction since the use of eminent domain for profit is becoming a hot topic.”

Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law an eminent domain measure that protects rural landowners from the threat of companies looking for locations to build wind turbines.

The bill’s author, Sen. Ron Justice, of Chickasha, said wind power provides a tremendous boost to the state’s economy, but he said it is important to protect landowners’ rights.

The law was heralded by a northwest Oklahoma property owners group.

“The Southern Great Plains Property Rights Coalition supports any legislation which will help landowners protect their property now and for future generations,” the group said Friday. “We feel this is a step in the right direction since the use of eminent domain for profit is becoming a hot topic.”

The law prohibits use of the power of eminent domain for the siting or erection of wind turbines on private land. It says landowners have the right to decide whether they want turbines on their land.

Justice said Senate Bill 124 was requested by landowners who were approached by wind industry representatives who mentioned the possible use of eminent domain.

Jaime McAlpine of Chermac Energy Corp. said wind developers and utility companies helped craft the bill’s language.

FROM ONTARIO:

ONTARIO GREEN ENERGY PROJECT COULD KILL, HARM AND HARASS ENDANGERED SPECIES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT SOURCE: National Post, nationalpost.com

May 13, 2011

By Sarah Boesveld

A Toronto-based wind energy company will have the legal right to “kill, harm and harass” two endangered species if Ontario approves their permit to build over the creatures’ habitat on the shores of Lake Ontario.

Gilead Power Corporation is proposing a green energy project in Prince Edward County, home of the Blanding’s turtle and the whippoorwill. The area where the endangered turtles rest is also considered an “important bird area.”

The project is a complicated one that carries a certain kind of irony for environmental activists who largely approve of green energy projects but have a mandate to protect wildlife in their natural habitats. Ontario Nature, an organization that “protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement,” said sometimes good projects are proposed in areas that compromise the well being of animals. This is a clear example, said director of conservation and education Anne Bell, who stresses Ontario “absolutely needs wind” to help battle climate change.

“We’re totally supportive of wind, but at the same time, you can’t be putting up projects in the middle of areas where you know there’s going to be a significant ecological impact. It doesn’t make sense,” she said. “It’s not green. It’s green that’s not green.”

The organization has been speaking with interested parties about the project “for a long time,” their attention first drawn to it by the local conservation group Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The company’s plans are so far at a standstill, as it must first earn the permit from the province that clears the way for construction — construction that would involve clearing away grasslands and marshes in order to build the towers.

“For the most part, we can find ways to mitigate around endangered species reasonably, so that the species continues, and continues to thrive,” said Ontario Natural Resources minister Linda Jeffrey.

The whippoorwill, widely referenced in North American folk songs and literature, was listed as a threatened species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 2009. Blanding’s turtle is protected under the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act and is also protected federally.

FROM OREGON:

BPA SAYS IT WILL TAMP DOWN WIND FARMS WHEN TOO MUCH POWER FLOODS THE SYSTEM

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

May 13, 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

The Bonneville Power Administration will rein in the wind, and is likely to reap the legal whirlwind.

In a decision that speaks to the region’s ability — or inability — to effectively manage all the simultaneous wind and water energy being generated in the Columbia Gorge, the Bonneville Power Administration said Friday it will pull the plug on wind farms at times when excess generation threatens to swamp the system’s ability to handle it.

That could come early next week, as spring runoff increases hydroelectric generation, the agency said.

BPA’s decision is almost certain to trigger litigation from wind farm operators, including independent producers and utilities — whose projects won’t generate expected financial returns. They depend on turbines running flat out when the wind blows to generate not only power, but the renewable energy and tax credits that make up a sizeable slice of their revenue stream.

Wind operators say BPA’s plan, which would unilaterally override their transmission contracts, is discriminatory and designed to protect the agency’s surplus power sales revenue. That revenue goes to lower the rates of the 140 public utilities who buy their power from the federal agency.

“This is a very loud and unmistakable signal to the wind industry that this might not be the place to do business,” said Robert Kahn, executive director of the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition. “This was predictable and preventable. We should never be in a position of having too much of a good thing.”

BPA sells power from 31 hydroelectric dams in the region and operates much of its transmission network. The agency’s administrator, Steve Wright, has been pressured by members of Congress to back away from the plan. He acknowledged Friday that BPA could quickly face litigation, but said he had little choice.

“We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t have a good chance of winning, so we’re ready if folks choose to sue, he said. “What I regret is that we haven’t found a better solution.”

BPA finalized the policy to prepare for what could be the highest runoff in the Columbia Basin since 1999. That could boost power production from its own dams beyond limited spring electricity demands. The agency is also responsible for integrating generation from wind farms connected to its grid, toggling its own production up and down to match power demand and supply and keep the grid humming along in balance.

Under the terms of the plan, the agency will respond to overgeneration by first curtailing as much coal and natural gas generation as possible, then pull the plug on windfarms. BPA will substitute free hydropower to make up the energy deliveries that the wind farms are otherwise scheduled to make.

The agency contends it can’t turn off its own hydroelectric turbines and spill more water to accommodate wind because the resulting turbulence would violate limits on dissolved nitrogen in the water, harming fish. That leaves wind curtailment as the only choice.

BPA is aware that wind farms don’t want free hydropower because power buyers are also after renewable energy credits. Utilities use the RECs to comply with state renewable energy mandates, and they’re generated only when the turbine blades are spinning. RECs and federal production tax credits can make up 50 percent of the revenue stream for a wind farm.

“We feel there are other options,” said Roby Roberts, vice president at Horizon Wind Energy, which operates three wind farms in Oregon and one in Washington. “We’re going to push for a different resolution.”

BPA has worked on a variety if interim solutions to accommodate more wind, but crtitics say it’s been too little too late. Wright said Friday that most of those measures were stopgaps. What the region needs, he said, is more physical assets, either new transmission or storage of some form, both of which are expensive, longer-term solutions.

“We’ll have to explore all these things,” he said. “The other thing that’s clear is that there’s a lot of wind still coming on the system and the problem keeps getting bigger.”

WIND DEVELOPERS SNAP UP HURON TOWNSHIP HOMES

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Kincardine Independent, www.independent.on.ca

May 4 2011

By Barb McKay

“People call me and ask, ‘What should I do?’” he said. “I say sell and leave now before you lose the value of your home.”

Four homes affected by the Ripley Wind Project have been purchased by wind energy developers, and are slated to be put back on the market.

One property on Concession 2, another on Concession 4 and two on Concession 6 in Huron Township were purchased by Suncor/Acciona, which developed the 76 megawatt wind power project, March 16. Land transfer documents were obtained by HALT (Huron-Kinloss Against Lakeside Turbines) president Mac Serra. The documents state that Alejandro Salvador Armendariz, manager of Acciona Wind Energy and Christina Ellerbeck, manager of marketing and business development for Suncor, acted on behalf of the purchaser, a numbered company – 2270573 Ontario Inc.

“The idea was to buy them and remarket them,” said Paul Austin, community relations officer for Acciona Wind Energy.

Austin said the company went through a period of consultation and testing of the properties with the Grey Bruce Health Unit and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

“No link between the wind power project and the health concerns of the residents was discovered,” he said.

However, the residents of the properties continued to insist that their health was being impacted, said Austin.

“It was agreed that the only solution that could be reached was to purchase the properties,” he said. “It was in the best interest of the homeowners, the developers and the community to purchase the homes at fair market value. It was a mutual agreement.”

Austin said the purchase of the properties demonstrates Suncor and Acciona’s commitment to work with residents and the community.

Huron-Kinloss mayor Mitch Twolan said Suncor had informed him of the sales prior to the land transfers, and told him they would be back on the market, but he wasn’t given a reason as to why they were being purchased.

“It makes you very curious,” he said, adding that some residents feel they have no choice but to sell their homes.

David Colling, a Ripley-area resident and citizen member on the Inter-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group, said he will be interested to see at what price the homes are listed at when they go back on the market. He said he has received a number of phone calls from residents living in areas where wind projects are slated to be developed.

“People call me and ask, ‘What should I do?’” he said. “I say sell and leave now before you lose the value of your home.”

Austin said full disclosure will be provided for why the homes were purchased when they are go up for sale.

“We want to be as transparent as possible about the process,” he said.

Second Story:

COUNTY LOWERS TURBINE SETBACKS TO ONE MILE

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

4 May 2011

By SAMANTHA TIPLER,

Commissioners took another look at the rules for how to set up wind farms in Umatilla County. This latest round of changes lowered the wind turbine setback from two miles to one.

Commissioners held a four-and-a-half hour workshop Tuesday, including in the talks planning commission member Clinton Reeder, Helix-area wheat farmer Jeff Newtson and Ed Chesnut, a member of the Milton-Freewater City Council, the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council and Blue Mountain Alliance, the group working to keep wind turbines out of the Blue Mountains.

Setbacks, the distance between a turbine and a town, house or road, has always been a sore issue.

Previously the planning commission had approved and suggested to commissioners two-mile setbacks.

The latest draft of wind rules commissioners reviewed Tuesday listed one mile from an unincorporated community, one mile from a home outside a wind project boundary and a half mile from inside the boundary. For cities, it stated, “setbacks from tower to the city urban growth boundary considered if requested by a city governing body.”

Chesnut said if that went through, Milton-Freewater would try for its maximum: a six-mile setback for turbines people can’t see and 15 miles for those people can see.

Newtson bristled at that, noting 15 miles is almost to Athena, the next town south of Milton-Freewater.

“That seems to be a real slap in the face to the property owners,” he said.

Chesnut acknowledged they had opposite views on setbacks.

“He’s afraid of it because it might be so large,” Chesnut said. “The city’s afraid of it because it might be zero.”

Notes on the rules said any city setback would be a recommendation for the county, and not mandatory.

“We’re pretty uncomfortable with a situation where we can request a setback, but we may not get any of it,” Chesnut said.

Newtson wanted better reasoning for setbacks. He wanted scientific reasons and evidence to back it up why the county should pick two miles or one mile or less. He suggested using decibel levels to determine the distance.

“I’m trying to use science more than this arbitrary numbers going around,” he said.

Chesnut said there were more concerns than sound.

“Visibility, health, property values,” he said. “All those things roll together. … They are inextricable in that you only have one way to handle the effects of a 500-foot tall machine: How far away is it?”

Commissioners mostly listened to discussions, making notes of more potential changes to the current draft of the laws.

They plan to meet again on Thursday, May 12, for the next land use hearing. It will start at 9 a.m. at the Justice Center Media Room, 4700 N.W. Pioneer Place, Pendleton.

Third Story

WINDFALL BY LAURA ISRAEL

Carl F Gauze, www.ink19.com

Grow up in the country, and you’re used to bad smells and dust and independent streaks a mile wide. Grow up in the city, and land that looks like Hobbiton should never change, at least not after you plunk down a stack of Franklins on a few acres with a view.

But when the Green Energy wagon pulls up and offers to rent your ungrazable ridgeline, you might change your stance. In tiny Meredith, New York, wind energy splits a town in two, and the glossy public relations handouts turn into 40-story behemoths that emit gut-wrenching noise, interrupt the sun, and kill bats.

Like the coal companies of a century ago, wind energy companies get unsophisticated farmers to sign long-term leases for a small stack of cash and huge future headaches. The contracts are protected by confidentiality agreements; the town’s people are effectively divided and unable to negotiate a fair deal for themselves. And when a windmill catches fire or throws huge chunks of ice a mile, there’s not much you can do except move away.

Israel takes her time telling the story of this blindsided small town. With verdant hills, cute cows and a tilt shift lens, the Catskills natural beauty slows down the story telling. We learn one bad thing about wind power every ten minutes or so as the locals give interviews that range from smug and self-righteous to cranky and pedantic.

Clearly, these are good people who have entered into lopsided agreements, and the companies building these towers are sucking up tax breaks without providing real benefits to anyone but their investors. Still, this is a depressed area, the hundreds of dairy farmers a generation ago are now replaced by a handful of plow their niche fields.

Becoming an industrial wind farm may not be any more attractive than having a coal mine move in, but it’s the only economic development available beyond refugees from New York City moving up to restore drafty farm houses.

What does Israel conclude? Beware, you small towns, this could happen to you! Just because someone stamps the new word “green” on something, it might not be any better than that old word “brown.”

This film was screened at the 2011 Florida Film Festival: www.floridafilmfestival.com

Next Story

ISLANDERS CLAIM TURBINES DEVALUE HOMES

READ FULL ARTICL AT THE SOURCE:The Whig-Standard, www.thewhig.com

May 4, 2011

By Paul Schliesmann

A potentially precedent-setting tax assessment hearing began on Wolfe Island on Wednesday for a couple claiming that noise and lights from nearby wind turbines have lowered their property value.

Lawyers from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Township of Frontenac Islands are opposing the claim made by islanders Ed and Gail Kenney.

The hearing, crammed into the tiny municipal township building, attracted opponents of wind farms that are being planned for Amherst Island and Cape Vincent, N.Y.

They believe the Kenneys’ case could change the course of future wind farm developments on both sides of the border.

“MPAC and the township have spent an awful lot of money on this for it not to be a precedent-setting case,” said Janet Grace a real estate agent who leads the Association for the Protection of Amherst Island.

“It’s not so much how much your house is de-valued. It’s that you can’t sell it.”

[rest of article available at source]

Next Story

IPC THREATENS TO SUE GREY HIGHLANDS

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: www.simcoe.com

MAY 3, 2011

By Chris Fell

“This is not community consultation. This is bullying of the municipality. It’s forcing this upon people that don’t want it,”

GREY HIGHLANDS – International Power Canada is threatening to sue the Municipality of Grey Highlands for delaying the building permits for its industrial wind turbine project.

IPC Vice-President David Timm spoke to Grey Highlands council at its regular meeting held on Friday morning (April 29).

Timm told council that IPC has done a lot of work on its turbine project and that the delays by the municipality are threatening to cost the company a lot of money. IPC wants to build 11 industrial wind turbines as part of its Plateau Wind Power project.

“We call upon the mayor and council to cease its attempts to frustrate the issuance of these permits and to allow its officials to process our applications in accordance with applicable law,” said Timm. “If the permits are not issued promptly we will be forced to seek relief through the courts,” he said, adding that IPC would seek damages from the municipality.

IPC is objecting to the Municipality of Grey Highlands’ recent move to put in place whopping increases for the costs of building permits for industrial wind turbines. Grey Highlands council recently passed a bylaw to increase the permit fee from $9,000 per turbine to $35,000 per turbine, plus $100,000 as a performance bond per turbine.

Grey Highlands will also hold a public meeting on May 9 to consider a major hike in the turbine entrance permit fee and related securities.

Timm said IPC applied for its permits in June 7, 2010 and the company believes its project is not subject to the new fee schedule recently adopted by the municipality.

“My comments today are intended to express our frustration and serious concern with respect to the actions that council has taken to prevent the issuance of building and entrance permits for the construction of the Plateau project,” he said. “We have consistently sought to work with the municipality by responding positively to council’s requests only to have further impediments placed in our way. When we acquired this project from Chinodin Wind there was no indication that the municipality did not want wind power development,” said Timm.

IPC, Timm said, has consistently sought to follow the Grey Highlands planning requirements for the project – even though the company is not required to do so under the Green Energy Act. He also pointed out that IPC negotiated a generous road use agreement only to see it rejected by council.

“The costs of these delays are now very significant and will begin to rise exponentially with the arrival of the wind turbines in June/July,” said Timm. “These exorbitant new fees and related actions seem to us to be very much targeted at frustrating the Plateau project,” he said.

Members of council did not respond to the Timm’s presentation. Later in the meeting council did go in-camera to receive information from its lawyer about the wind turbine issue.

“The municipality doesn’t have any response at this time to the accusations,” CAO Dan Best said during a brief interview during a break in the meeting.

Local resident Lorrie Gillis attended the meeting and watched the presentation from IPC.

“This is not community consultation. This is bullying of the municipality. It’s forcing this upon people that don’t want it,” said Gillis.

POWER RULE DAM SHAME FOR UTILITY

Dave Enz lived near the hamlet of Shirley, 12 miles from Green Bay, since 1978. Last year, wind turbines arrived, several within a half-mile, and he had no inkling they’d be trouble. Then, he and his wife endured months of earaches, nausea and unexplained anxiety until they realized, when their symptoms vanished on vacation, that it was probably the turbines.

“It’s not the noise that gets you, the audible noise,” said Enz. It’s vibration: “It makes you want to run away.” He and his wife did, to their kids’ house. “We never expected to be homeless while we owned a home,” he said. The couple, in their upper 60s, are now looking for a campground to live in.

And the house? Enz says that in good conscience they can’t sell it.

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

April 27 2011

Patrick McIlheran

A state senator wants to let utilities meet renewable energy rules by getting more electricity from Canadian dams. The local “green power” industry doesn’t much like this. People who live in some Wisconsin environments will find it a relief, though.

Frank Lasee, a Green Bay Republican, would lift the rule that says utilities, under orders to sell more renewable power, can’t count electricity from dams of more than 60 megawatts. There are pros and cons to this, of course.

The Green Bay utility that asked for the bill, Wisconsin Public Service, says it’ll make for a more reliable and reliably affordable supply of power in the future. The utility now gets about 10% of its power from wind turbines and dams, mostly nearby. But when the company must someday replace its big “baseload” plants, it likely won’t be able to use coal, and nuclear’s a question mark.

If its new supplies must be renewable, Manitoba’s a good bet. Public Service wants to make a long-term deal to buy power from a planned 700-megawatt dam 450 miles north of Winnipeg. That deal only works if such power counts as “green.”

Which it is: Exactly as with windmills, dams burn no fuel and emit no carbon. Unlike windmills, they’re never becalmed. Their costs are much easier to predict than wind, says the company.

Backers of wind power don’t like Lasee’s bill. The anti-dam rule makes utilities patronize their products, which they say was the point. They say this will foster jobs.

It may, the way banning TV news might foster jobs in the newspaper industry. Then again, it’s just possible that if utilities didn’t have to overcharge customers to prop up a windmill industry, Wisconsinites would spend the savings in ways that foster more socially productive jobs – like schools or DNA sequencing or custard stands. Who knows, but it’s a loss to the economy to treat utility policy as a make-work program.

Greens don’t like Manitoba power for another reason: They don’t like dams. For years, they’ve moved to restrict imported power, talking of displaced Indian tribes and, as one group memorably put it, waters “tainted” by injustice.

It sounds noble. It’s also untrue. The power that Public Service seeks would come from a dam that’s actually supported by the Cree tribes that live nearby. The government-owned Manitoba Hydro signed pacts with all four laying out how it will limit harm to the tribes’ environs, and the Cree will own up to 25% of the dam and its revenue.

Then consider the alternative. Suppose Public Service must buy 700 megawatts from Wisconsin wind farms. Those have an effect on their environment, too.

Windmills mean rent for landowners who actually host them, but for people nearby, there’s noise, flickering shadows and, perched in bus-sized generator boxes 400 feet up, a new industrial vibe.

And maybe homelessness: Dave Enz lived near the hamlet of Shirley, 12 miles from Green Bay, since 1978. Last year, wind turbines arrived, several within a half-mile, and he had no inkling they’d be trouble. Then, he and his wife endured months of earaches, nausea and unexplained anxiety until they realized, when their symptoms vanished on vacation, that it was probably the turbines.

“It’s not the noise that gets you, the audible noise,” said Enz. It’s vibration: “It makes you want to run away.” He and his wife did, to their kids’ house. “We never expected to be homeless while we owned a home,” he said. The couple, in their upper 60s, are now looking for a campground to live in.

And the house? Enz says that in good conscience they can’t sell it.

That, and similar troubles reported by others who lived where windmills arrived, sound like environmental problems. If we’re comparing zero-carbon power sources, this counts. Dams are disruptive – in remote places, and the few neighbors can be compensated. Wind turbines are disruptive, too, but in well-peopled parts of Wisconsin, and so far the industry is blowing off the neighbors’ complaints.

Surely, if the point of renewable power is to spare the environment, keeping rural Wisconsin inhabitable counts for something.