Better Plan, Wisconsin

BILL ALLOWS COMMUNITIES MORE CONTROL OVER WIND TURBINE SETBACKS

By Trent Artus,

Via www.wqow.com

January 5 2012 

Rick Stadelman, Executive Director of Wisconsin Towns Association said: “Local governments are responsible for protecting the public health and welfare of their communities. Arbitrary state standards limiting setbacks and noise levels of wind turbines take away the authority of local officials to protect their community. One size does not fit all. This bill allows local officials to exercise local control to protect the interest of their community.”

Madison, WI – State Senator Frank Lasee (R) of De Pere, WI introduced a bill allowing local communities to create their own minimum setback requirements for wind turbines. Current law doesn’t allow local communities to establish distances from property or homes that 500 feet tall wind turbines can be located.

[download copy of the bill by clicking here]

“Local communities should be able to create their own rules for public safety,” Lasee said. “We shouldn’t leave it to bureaucrats in Madison to make these decisions that affect home values and people’s lives. Madisonites aren’t the ones living next to the turbines. Having a statewide standard for the setback of these 500 feet tall wind turbines doesn’t take into account the local landscape. Local elected officials are most familiar with their area to set the correct setback distances and best represent their local constituents.”

“Over the last several months, I have spoken with numerous Wisconsin residents who have complained about wind turbines,” Lasee added. “These complaints range from constant nausea, sleep loss, headaches, dizziness and vertigo. Some have said the value of their properties has dropped on account of the turbines.”

Representative Murtha (R) of Baldwin, WI adds: “There have been many concerns raised about wind farms all over the state of Wisconsin. This bill will finally give local communities the control they have been asking for when it comes to deciding what is right for their communities and families.”

Officials and spokespersons for local communities and organizations support Senator Lasee’s bill.

Rick Stadelman, Executive Director of Wisconsin Towns Association said: “Local governments are responsible for protecting the public health and welfare of their communities. Arbitrary state standards limiting setbacks and noise levels of wind turbines take away the authority of local officials to protect their community. One size does not fit all. This bill allows local officials to exercise local control to protect the interest of their community.”

Steve Deslauriers, spokesman for Wisconsin Citizens Coalition said: “In order for wind development to be good for Wisconsin, it must be done responsibly and not in a fashion that sacrifices the health of those families forced to live within these wind generation facilities. Good environmental policy starts with safeguarding Wisconsin residents and we thank Senator Lasee for submitting this bill.”

“Wind turbine siting must be done at the local level as the population varies greatly, county by county, township to township. It is our goal to protect families within our township. This bill gives us the authority to do that.” Tom Kruse, chairman of West Kewaunee Township said.

Dave Hartke, chairman of Carlton Township added: “Carlton Township supports LRB-2700 because it places the authority for wind turbine siting at the local level where it belongs. As town chairman, I am always concerned for the health and safety of our residents.”

“We applaud Senator Lasee for introducing this bill.” Erv Selk, representative of Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship said. “We have long thought that the Public Service Commission setbacks were not adequate to protect the people that live near the Industrial Wind Turbines.”

Senator Lasee said, “It’s about time we as legislators return local control over this important issue to the elected officials that know their area best instead of un-elected bureaucrats in Madison.”

Second Feature

BILL GIVES LOCAL CONTROL FOR DETERMINING WIND TURBINE RULES

Via Wisconsin Ag Connection, www.wisconsinagconnection.com

January 6, 2012

A Wisconsin lawmaker is introducing legislation that allows local communities to create their own minimum setback requirements for wind turbines. According to Sen. Frank Lasee, current law doesn’t allow local officials to establish distances from property or homes that 500 feet tall wind turbines can be located.

“Local communities should be able to create their own rules for public safety,” Lasee said. “We shouldn’t leave it to bureaucrats in Madison to make these decisions that affect home values and people’s lives. Madisonites aren’t the ones living next to the turbines.”

The De Pere Republican says having a statewide standard for wind turbine setbacks does not take into account the local landscape. He says local people are most familiar with their own area to set the correct distances and best represent their local constituents.

“Over the last several months, I have spoken with numerous Wisconsin residents who have complained about wind turbines,” Lasee points out. “These complaints range from constant nausea, sleep loss, headaches, dizziness and vertigo. Some have said the value of their properties has dropped on account of the turbines.”

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Towns Association Director Rick Stadelman support the effort. He says local governments are responsible for protecting the public health and welfare of their communities, and says arbitrary state standards limiting setbacks and noise levels of wind turbines take away the authority of local officials to protect their community.

The bill comes nearly a year after a joint legislative panel voted to suspend the wind siting rule promulgated by the Public Service Commission in December 2010. Those policies would have put into place standard rules that all areas of the state would need to follow when determining regulations for wind turbines.

IS SAFETY A RELATIVE TERM?

Some members of the Wind-Siting council seemed to think so.

With the fate of the Wisconsin wind-siting rules (PSC 128) is still up in the air, Better Plan takes a look back at some of the wind siting council meetings that lead to PSC 128. This was filmed on July 15, 2010

The video below was shot on the 8th of December, 2011, just a few weeks ago.

How much louder is the wind turbine noise limit proposed by the wind siting council?  How were the noise levels determined by Wind Siting Council? You'll have to see it to believe it: one of the discussions that lead to the decision about turbine noise limits.

Next Feature: A BETTER PLAN! Plant trees not wind turbines

From the UK

THE CONTRIBUTION OF TREES TO OUR LIVES: IT'S TIME TO TAKE STOCK

The Jardin des Plantes in Paris viewed from above. A tree planted in the entrance to the gardens by the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, in 1785 still stands today. Photograph: Yann Arthus-Bertrand/Corbis

Frédéric Joignot

VIA The Guardian

January 3, 2012

Humans, with a mere 2 square metres of skin, underestimate the surface area of a tree. To calculate that you need to measure both sides of each leaf, add the surface of the trunk, the branches and boughs, the perennial and feeder roots and the absorbent root hairs, not forgetting the bark pockets. A 15-metre tree in leaf would cover a total area of 200 hectares, which is the size of Monaco. A tree doubles its weight when wet, and its entire surface breathes and allows us to breathe.

Bill Rakocy, Emerging Energies. Photo by Gerry Meyer, provided by Better Plan

WIND FARM PLAN RETURNS

Via The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

By Thomas Content

A proposal to build a wind farm in western Wisconsin is back despite the opposition of local government officials, who rescinded permits for the project and adopted a moratorium on wind projects.

The proposal from Emerging Energies of Wisconsin was filed with the state Public Service Commission. It's the first proposal for a large wind farm filed with the state this year.

Hubertus-based Emerging Energies is seeking to build 41 turbines that would generate 102.5 megawatts of power in the Town of Forest in St. Croix County.

The state Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over large wind farms - any project with at least 100 megawatts - and will begin a review of the project.

A dispute over setbacks provided to wind energy projects has led to a stalemate for the wind industry on projects below 100 megawatts.

That stalemate resulted from protests over a statewide rule on wind siting developed last year by the PSC.

Wind opponents, including the Wisconsin Realtors Association, considered the proposal too restrictive on property rights. Last January, Gov. Scott Walker, who was backed by the Realtors in his election campaign against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, proposed a property rights bill that would require turbines to be located farther from nearby homes.

This fall, the governor's office and PSC expressed interest in a compromise between wind developers and property rights advocates.

"The PSC is still trying to facilitate a compromise," agency spokeswoman Kirsten Ruesch said.

No resolution is in sight, though.

Emerging Energies is trying to abide by standards set by the PSC when it approved We Energies' Glacier Hills Wind Park northeast of Madison, developer Bill Rakocy said. That wind farm began operation last week.

The setback standard requires that turbines be at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes. Unlike Glacier Hills, the Emerging Energies project would not require any waivers to exempt certain turbines from the setback requirement.

Rakocy said his wind project has been in development since 2007.

"We believe that, given the economy we find ourselves in, Wisconsin needs this project to move forward from an economic standpoint and a jobs standpoint," he said.

The developer is in talks with utilities that would buy the power, Rakocy said.

But local opposition to the project led to the formation of a citizens group, The Forest Voice, and subsequent recall of the entire three-member Forest Town Board earlier this year.

At that time, Emerging Energies was proposing to build four fewer turbines for a project that was under 100 megawatts.

The new town board voted at its first meeting in March to rescind building permits for the wind project and to impose a moratorium on wind power development.

Concerns about the project included the potential for having nearly 500-foot towers in the area.

As a result of the moratorium, the only way for Emerging Energies to build the project was to make it bigger. That triggers state agency review rather than local review.

The PSC has 360 days to rule on the project.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The video below features residents of the same developer's first wind turbine project and what has happened to them since the turbines went on line.

At least two families have abandoned their homes in the eight turbine project because of turbine noise and pressure in the ears.

Emerging Energies has since sold the project.

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."

-The Forest Voice

The maddening sound people being asked to live with: Albany, NY --Wind turbine noise video via deepestdeepstblue

WHY THE WIND INDUSTRY IS FULL OF HOT AIR AND COSTING YOU BIG BUCKS

By Robert Bryce,

Via www.foxnews.com 

December 20, 2011

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

The American Wind Energy Association has begun a major lobbying effort in Congress to extend some soon-to-expire renewable-energy tax credits. And to bolster that effort, the lobby group’s CEO, Denise Bode, is calling the wind industry “a tremendous American success story.”

But the wind lobby’s success has largely been the result of its ability to garner subsidies. And those subsidies are coming with a big price tag for American taxpayers. Since 2009, AWEA’s largest and most influential member companies have garnered billions of dollars in direct cash payments and loan guarantees from the US government. And while the lobby group claims to be promoting “clean” energy, AWEA’s biggest member companies are also among the world’s biggest users and/or producers of fossil fuels.

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

An analysis of the 4,256 projects that have won grants from the Treasury Department under section 1603 over the past two years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine companies — all of them are members of AWEA’s board. To put that $3.37 billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration, the total of all “energy specific subsidies and support” provided to the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 billion in oil and gas subsidies is being divided among thousands of entities. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates the US now has over 14,000 oil and gas companies.

The renewable energy lobby likes to portray itself as an upstart industry, one that is grappling with big business and the entrenched interests of the hydrocarbon sector. But billions of dollars in 1603 grants – all of it exempt from federal corporate income taxes – is being used to fatten the profits of some of the world’s biggest companies. Indeed, the combined market capitalization of the 11 biggest corporations on AWEA’s board – a group that includes General Electric and Siemens — is about $450 billion.

Nevertheless, the clock is ticking on renewable-energy subsidies. The 1603 grants end on December 31 and the renewable-energy production tax credit expires on January 1, 2013. On Monday, AWEA issued a report which predicted that some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the US could be lost by 2013 if the production tax credit is not extended.

But the subsidies are running out at the very same time that a cash-strapped Congress is turning a hard eye on the renewable sector. The collapse of federally backed companies like solar-panel-maker Solyndra and biofuel producer Range Fuels, are providing critics of renewable subsidies with plenty of ammunition. And if critics need more bullets, they need only look at AWEA’s board to see how big business is grabbing every available dollar from US taxpayers all in the name of “clean” energy. Indeed, AWEA represents a host of fossil-fuel companies who are eagerly taking advantage of the renewable-energy subsidies.

Consider NRG Energy, which has a seat on AWEA’s board. Last month, the New York Times reported that New Jersey-based NRG and its partners have secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees to build solar-energy projects. NRG’s market capitalization: $4.3 billion.

But NRG is not a renewable energy company. The company currently has about 26,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. Of that, 450 MW is wind capacity, another 65 MW is solar, and 1,175 MW comes from nuclear. So why is NRG expanding into renewables? The answer is simple: profits. Last month, David Crane, the CEO of NRG, told the Times that “I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”

Or look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural gas company, which also has a seat on AWEA’s board of directors. In 2010, the company emitted 116 million metric tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that of the Czech Republic, a country of 10.5 million people. And last year, the company – which has about 2,000 MW of wind-generation capacity in the US — produced about 14 times as much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did from wind.

Despite its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has been awarded $542.5 million in section 1603 cash so that it can build wind projects. And the company is getting that money even though it is the world’s largest investor-owned utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion.

Another foreign company with a seat on AWEA’s board: Spanish utility Iberdrola, the second-largest domestic wind operator. But in 2010, Iberdrola produced about 3 times as much electricity from hydrocarbons as it did from wind. Nevertheless, the company has collected $1 billion in section 1603 money. To put that $1 billion in context, consider that in 2010, Iberdrola’s net profit was about 2.8 billion Euros, or around $3.9 billion. Thus, US taxpayers have recently provided cash grants to Iberdrola that amount to about one-fourth of the company’s 2010 profits. And again, none of that grant money is subject to US corporate income taxes. Iberdrola currently sports a market cap of $39 billion.

Another big winner on AWEA’s board of directors: NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) which has garnered some $610.6 million in 1603 grants for various wind projects. NextEra’s market capitalization is $23 billion. The subsidies being garnered by NextEra are helping the company drastically cut its taxes. A look at the company’s 2010 annual report shows that it cut its federal tax bill by more than $200 million last year thanks to various federal tax credits. And the company’s latest annual report shows that it has another $1.8 billion of “tax credit carryforwards” that will help it slash its taxes over the coming years.

The biggest fossil-fuel-focused company on AWEA’s board is General Electric, which had revenues last year of $150 billion. Of that sum, about 25 percent came from what the company calls “energy infrastructure.” While some of that revenue comes from GE’s wind business, the majority comes from building generators, jet engines, and other machinery that burn hydrocarbons. The company is also rapidly growing GE Oil & Gas, which had 2010 revenues of $7.2 billion. GE Oil & Gas has more than 20,000 employees and provides a myriad of products and services to the oil and gas industry.

GE has a starring role in one of the most egregious examples of renewable-energy corporate welfare: the Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt project is coming from federal taxpayers. Not only is the Energy Department providing GE and its partners – who include Caithness Energy, Google, and Sumitomo — a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

On December 9, the American Council on Renewable Energy issued a press release urging Congress to quickly extend the 1603 program and the renewable-energy production tax credit, because they will “bolster renewable energy’s success and American competitiveness.”

But time is running short. Backers of the renewable-energy credits say that to assure continuity on various projects, a bill must be passed into law by March 2012. If that doesn’t happen, they are predicting domestic investment in renewable energy could fall by 50 percent. A bill now pending in the House would extend the production tax credit for four additional years, through 2017. The bill has 40 sponsors, 9 are Republicans. The bill is awaiting a hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

From Massachusetts

MOVING TOWARD CONSENSUS ON TURBINES

By CHRISTOPHER KAZARIAN,

Source: Falmouth Enterprise,

December 20, 2011 

In the Weston & Sampson report the cost for decommissioning the turbines and taking them down is estimated to be $700,000, with on-site storage adding $30,000 to that figure. The monthly maintenance fee for the turbines would be $4,500 a month.

The town could, under the proposal, possibly realize as much as $600,000 for the two turbines, if it were to resell them. If a buyer cannot be found, salvage value of the machines would provide the town with much less revenue, an estimated $102,000.

Earlier this year Falmouth hired a consultant to determine if the town could reach consensus with residents on how to deal with the problems of the town-owned wind turbines at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. That consultant, Edith M. Netter of Waltham, concluded that, despite the acrimony over the turbines, a consensus was achievable.

Last night selectmen moved forward with that approach by accepting advice from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which is recommending four firms to facilitate that next step. Those firms, which the state agency selected after issuing a Request for Qualifications, are CLF Ventures of Boston; the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge; the Meister Consulting Group of Boston; and Raab Associates of Boston.

The Clean Energy Center has provided a review of the firms to selectmen, noting which were best suited for facilitating the process of building consensus on how to deal with the town’s two wind turbines. Selectmen will not make a decision on those firms until their next meeting on Monday, January 9.

Chairman of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen Mary (Pat) Flynn asked for public input on the four finalists to help in choosing the one that will be responsible for facilitating the process of how to select the mitigation option most suitable for the town. The options before selectmen are: to decommission the two turbines; to relocate the turbines elsewhere in town; to make specific changes to the operation of the turbines; or to mitigate the homes impacted by the machines. Weston & Sampson has concluded its analysis of these options, and that report will be posted on the town’s website, under the selectmen’s section, later today.

Residents can also find information related to the four firms the Clean Energy Center is recommending for facilitation here, as well. Nancy A. Hayward of Chase Road, West Falmouth, later asked that a copy of the report also be made available to residents in the Falmouth Public Library’s reference department. The board agreed to her request.

In the Weston & Sampson report the cost for decommissioning the turbines and taking them down is estimated to be $700,000, with on-site storage adding $30,000 to that figure. The monthly maintenance fee for the turbines would be $4,500 a month.

The town could, under the proposal, possibly realize as much as $600,000 for the two turbines, if it were to resell them. If a buyer cannot be found, salvage value of the machines would provide the town with much less revenue, an estimated $102,000.

In addition, Weston & Sampson predicted the town would be responsible for repaying the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust the roughly $1 million it received in Renewable Energy Credits for the energy produced by the turbines from 2015 to 2029.

Falmouth would have to cover its debt obligations for the pur- chase of the wind turbines. In the report the town would pay $6.88 million in debt for Wind 1. With relocation Weston & Sampson has estimated the town would require an additional $4.48 million investment. Of that amount roughly $1.5 million would go toward decommissioning of the turbines as well as permitting and site preparation. The remaining money would be needed to cover actual construction costs.

If the town elects to keep the turbines in their current location, it could elect to modify a handful of abutters’ homes. Weston & Sampson mentioned nine homes—four on Blacksmith Shop Road, four on Ambleside Drive and West Falmouth Highway—that were closest to Wind 1 and Wind 2 as ones that should be strongly considered, based upon inspection last month by Harris Miller Miller and Hanson. With proper sound insulation and, in six cases, installation of central air-conditioning, the town would pay roughly $360,000 to modify those nine homes. To extend that strategy to the 25 closest homes would cost Falmouth roughly $1 million.

Another option could be noise barriers, although Weston & Sampson noted that these are not only rare, but also expensive and would require the removal of a number of trees in the area.

As an example of the significant cost of the noise barriers Weston & Sampson estimated that to construct a 41-foot high one to protect the four closest homes to Wind 1 would cost anywhere between $1 million and $2 million. Some of the modfications to the turbine include making operational changes to limit shadow flicker, which is estimated to cost $15,000 per turbine.

Once a facilitator is selected by the board, Ms. Flynn said the neutral consultant would meet with groups of 20 to 40 citizens in confidential interviews or focus groups during the month of January. The purpose of those meetings, Ms. Flynn said, will be to clarify community views on the proposed options in the Weston & Sampson report.

And it would help determine what process, if any, would work to bring people together to discuss mitigation strategies for the wind turbine. If such a process is feasible, selectmen would be apprised of that in the beginning of February by whatever firm is selected to facilitate the consensus-building approach. Over the next two months the board would then work with the public before making a recommendation to Town Meeting in April about how to proceed with the town-owned wind turbines.

FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 19, 2011

[Download a copy of this document by clicking here]

Highland Wind Farm, LLC Files CPCN Application with Public Service Commission

Madison, WI—The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission) has received an application from Highland Wind Farm, LLC to build a 102.5 megawatt wind project located in the townships of Forest and Cylon, St. Croix County, Wisconsin.

When the application is deemed complete, the Commission will have up to 360 days to make a decision on the application.

An electric generation project of 100 megawatts (MW) or greater requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Commission.

The Commission has siting jurisdiction over all wind energy systems 100 MW or larger and over utility-owned wind energy systems, regardless of size.

A political subdivision (city, town, village, or county) has siting jurisdiction over non-utility wind energy systems smaller than 100 megawatts.

2009 Wisconsin Act 40 made several changes to the state statutes regarding the siting of wind energy systems.

The law retained the jurisdictional split between the Commission and political subdivisions; directed the Commission to write wind siting rules; and stated that a political subdivision may not impose requirements that are more restrictive than those in the Commission’s wind siting rules.

In response, final Wind Siting Rules promulgated by the Commission (PSC 128) were published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register on February 28, 2011, to be effective March 1, 2011.

Currently the rules are not in effect due to legislative suspension.

The Commission and interested parties are currently working to resolve concerns regarding wind siting for non-utility projects under 100 MW.

Because Highland Wind Farm, LLC has planned a project surpassing the 100 MW threshold, the project application will be treated like any other CPCN application received by the Commission; however, the Commission is also statutorily required to “consider whether installation or use of the facility is consistent with the standards specified in the rules promulgated by the commission under Wis. Stats. §196.378 (4g) (b),” meaning the Commission will need to at least consider whether the application is consistent with
the standards in the promulgated, yet suspended, PSC 128 rules.

Once the Commission receives all pieces of an application, the Commission has 30 days to determine whether the application is complete. After a CPCN application is deemed complete, the Commission urges the public to take advantage of the many opportunities to weigh in.

The public is encouraged to read the Commission’s public notification letter, verify interested parties are included on the Commission mailing lists, review the application posted online, ask questions of the Commission staff, submit comments, and testify at hearings.

Information can be found at the Commission’s web site, http://psc.wi.gov, and at local libraries, government offices, clerks’ offices, and within the environmental review documents that will be prepared for the project.

Wis. Stats. § 196.491 describes the procedures related to the issuance of a CPCN. The general application requirements for the CPCN are described in Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 111.

An overview of a typical application review process can be found at: http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric03.pdf.

Documents associated with the Highland Wind Farm application can be viewed on the PSC’s Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov/. Type case numbers 2535-CE-100 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.

 ILLINOIS DATA SHOWS INDUSTRIAL WIND PROJECTS FAIL TO MEET JOB CREATION PROMISES

by Steve Deslauriers

VIA Brown County Citizens for Responsible Renewable Energy

Email:     info@bccrwe.com

(DENMARK, WI)  Industrial wind project developers claim they create jobs wherever the turbines are built, but recent studies show the jobs—mostly temporary—come at enormous cost to taxpayers.
 
In Illinois, each job created by construction of industrial wind turbines cost taxpayers an estimated $8 million, according to a comprehensive new analysis of enterprise zone reports from the Illinois Department of Economic Opportunity (Illinois DECO).  Based on the information reported to DECO, taxpayers are paying the mostly foreign-owned wind companies $7.8-$9.6 million for each temporary primary job created.
 
In addition, industrial wind projects created very few local jobs in Illinois, according to the analysis by Illinois attorney Carolyn K. Gerwin. Of the 15 industrial wind projects reported by the Illinois Wind Energy Association, only eight of them appear on the DECO data. Those eight projects totaled $1.95 billion in project costs—and, as a group, created a total of 61 to75 jobs.
 
The analysis was reported to Wisconsin legislators on December 9th by the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (BCCRWE). The BCCRWE, together with a coalition of citizen groups from across the State, has developed science-based guidelines for safe industrial wind turbine siting that will, if followed, assure that health, safety, and economic factors are fully vetted in the PSCW wind turbine siting rules process.

 These Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines, which should be used to determine the appropriate set-back distance from the property line, recommend 2,640 feet if the noise standards in the Guidelines are met.

  See the Guidelines the Wisconsin Public Service Commission website by CLICKING HERE 
 
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has the job of deciding how far wind turbines should be set back from a person’s property. If the suspension of the arbitrary and outdated PSC wind siting rules (PSC 128) is allowed to expire at the end of the legislative session, then the State of Wisconsin will knowingly impose the economic ‘undue hardships’ and ‘public health emergency’ on Wisconsin families that the JCRAR suspension sought to prevent.  

Steve Deslauriers
BCCRWE
PO Box 703
Denmark, WI 54208
Email:     info@bccrwe.com

 NEXT FEATURE
 

NO EXTENSION OF US PTC OR TREASURY GRANT IN SIGHT THIS YEAR

by Benjamin Romano,

www.rechargenews.com

December 20, 2011 

Neither the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which the US wind industry needs to avoid a collapse in 2013, nor the Treasury grant programme – key for the nation’s solar industry – would be extended under a tenuous year-end legislative package.

Despite an all-out lobbying push, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) could not convince lawmakers to include the PTC in year-end legislation to extend tax provisions, such as a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, that expire on 31 December without Congressional action.

The top priority of the US wind industry is an extension of the PTC, which is worth $0.022/kWh for a project’s first 10 years in operation.

It is only available to projects that begin operation by 31 December 2012. Uncertainty about its continuation is already having a deleterious impact on the industry as developers scale-back project development for 2013 and beyond, slowing the flow of orders into wind equipment manufacturers.

The US solar industry mounted a campaign for a second one-year extension of the Treasury grant, which expires 31 December, and pays up to 30% of eligible renewable energy project costs. Last year, Congress extended the grant, given in lieu of tax credits, just as it was about to expire.

“We are disappointed that an extension of wind energy’s key federal tax incentive was not included in this bill,” AWEA chief executive Denise Bode said in a statement over the weekend. “The clock is ticking, business decisions are being made and some damage is certain.”

The industry had identified the year-end legislation as one of at least three possible opportunities to advance a PTC extension before the end of 2012.

Bode and the US wind industry now look ahead to Congressional action on tax extenders after the holidays.

“When Congress addresses extenders next year, we are very confident that continuing the wind manufacturing success story will be a prominent objective,” Bode says. “Tens of thousands of wind energy manufacturing jobs can still be saved if Congress addresses extenders early in 2012.”

The industry hopes that it can continue to build momentum behind a PTC extension into the new year.

The circumstances under which tax extenders legislation would be addressed in 2012 will be shaped by whether the House and Senate can come to an agreement now.

That looked increasingly unlikely Monday as Republicans in the House refused to support a bill passed by the Senate on Saturday to extend the payroll tax cut for two months, and the Senate appeared unwilling to return to work to take on the full-year extension proposed in the House.

NEXT FEATURE:

From Massachussetts
 

The Bruce McPherson infrasound and low frequency noise study

December 14, 2011

by Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.) and Robert W. Rand, INCE Member

SOURCE: Windaction.org: documents

Summary:
This study investigated the possible presence of infrasonic and low frequency noise emissions (ILFN) from the “WIND 1”, a municipally-owned Vestas V82 industrial wind turbine in the town of Falmouth, Massachusetts.
CONCLUSIONS

Noise and Pressure Pulsations

The acoustic energy from the wind turbine was found to be:

1) Greater than or uniquely distinguishable from the ambient background levels, and
2) Capable of exceeding human detection thresholds.

This research revealed dynamically modulated low frequency and infrasonic energy from the nearby wind turbine occurring at the blade pass rate; energy which was found to be amplified indoors below 10 Hz. These dynamic infrasonic modulations were absent when the wind turbine was off. The wind turbine has tonal energy at 22.9 and 129 Hz. The wind turbine acoustic emissions were strongly coupled to the indoor environment at very low infrasonic pulsations and at the 22.9 and 129 Hz tones.

The dBA levels were inversely correlated to adverse health effects experienced; effects were more severe indoors where dBA levels were much lower (around 20 dBA). However the dBL (un-weighted) and dBG (infrasonic-weighting) levels were more strongly modulated indoors.

This increase in modulation indoors was consistent with the stronger adverse health effects indoors. The increase in total sound pressure indoors appears related to a "whole-house" cavity response; the outside pressure pulsations exciting the interior acoustic pressure much like a stick hitting a drum. Especially, the degree of negative pressure increased significantly indoors compared to outdoors.

Adverse Health Effects

This research revealed that persons without a pre-existing sleep deprivation condition, not tied to the location nor invested in the property, can experience within a few minutes the same debilitating health effects described and testified to by neighbors living near the wind turbines.

The debilitating health effects were judged to be visceral (proceeding from instinct, not intellect) and related to as yet unidentified discordant physical inputs or stimulation to the vestibular system. The dBG levels indoors were dynamically modulated at the blade pass rate and tonal frequencies and exceeded the vestibular physiological threshold guideline of 60 dBG provided by Dr. Salt.

Health effects moderated when dBG levels fell well below the 60 dBG guideline when the wind turbine was OFF. Wind turbine tonal energy at 22.9 Hz lies in the brain's "Beta" range which is associated with alert mental activity and anxiety; antithetical to sleep. The dynamic 0.7 Hz modulations of inflow turbulence and tonal energy lie in the deep Delta range associated with deep sleep. Clinical evidence of frequency following response (FFR) in the brain suggests that entrainment with wind turbine modulations, pulsations and tones may pose conflict for the brain's natural rhythms,
leading to stress when the conflicting signals (the wind turbine) cannot be turned off.

Other physiological mechanisms may be in play. Medical epidemiological field and laboratory investigation is needed. The study confirms that large industrial wind turbines can produce real and adverse health impacts and suggests that this is due to acoustic pressure pulsations, not related to the audible frequency spectrum, by affecting the vestibular system especially at low ambient sound levels.

The study results emphasize the need for epidemiological and laboratory research by medical health professionals and acousticians concerned with public health and well-being. This study underscores the need for more effective and precautionary setback distances for industrial wind turbines. It is especially important to include a margin of safety sufficient to prevent inaudible low-frequency wind turbine noise from being detected by the human vestibular system.

Next Feature

From Ontario:

ONTARIO WIND POWER BRINGING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES 

by John Nicol and Dave Seglins 

Via CBC NEWS

October 1 2011 

Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.

In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.

The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer's "living environment" and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer's "complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee's wind turbine facilities."

The energy company admits the impacts may include "heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation."

Ontario's rapid expansion in wind power projects has provoked a backlash from rural residents living near industrial wind turbines who say their property values are plummeting and they are unable to sell their homes, a CBC News investigation has found.

The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.

The CBC has documented scores of families who've discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

"I have to tell you not a soul has come to look at it," says Stephana Johnston, 81, of Clear Creek, a hamlet in Haldimand County on the north shore of Lake Erie, about 60 kilometres southeast of London.

Johnston, a retired Toronto teacher, moved here six years ago to build what she thought would be her dream home. But in 2008, 18 industrial wind turbines sprung up near her property and she put the one-floor, wheelchair-accessible home up for sale.

"My hunch is that people look at them and say: 'As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don't want to be surrounded by those turbines.' Can't say that I blame them."

P.O.V.:

Johnston says she has suffered so many ill health effects, including an inability to sleep — which she believes stem from the noise and vibration of the turbines— that she now sleeps on a couch in her son's trailer, 12 kilometres away, and only returns to her house to eat breakfast and dinner and use the internet.

Industry rejects claims of lower land values

Meanwhile, the industry rejects claims of lower land values.

"Multiple studies, and particularly some very comprehensive ones from the United States have consistently shown the presence of wind turbines does not have any statistically significant impact on property values," says Robert Hornung of the Ottawa-based Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA).

While acknowledging a lack of peer-reviewed studies in Ontario, Hornung says CANWEA commissioned a study of the Chatham-Kent area, where new wind turbines are appearing, and found no evidence of any impact on property values.

"In fact," says Hornung, "we've recently seen evidence coming from Re/Max indicating that we're seeing farm values throughout Ontario, including the Chatham-Kent area, increasing significantly this year as wind energy is being developed in the area at the same time."

However, Ron VandenBussche, a Re/Max agent along the Lake Erie shore, said the reality is that the wind turbines reduce the pool of interested buyers, and ultimately the price of properties.

"It's going to make my life more difficult," says VandenBussche, who has been a realtor for 38 years. "There's going to be people that would love to buy this particular place, but because the turbines are there, it's going to make it more difficult, no doubt."

 

Kay Armstrong says she felt fortunate to sell her two-acre property listed at $270,000 for $175,000.  

Kay Armstrong is one example. She put her two-acre, waterfront property up for sale before the turbines appeared in Clear Creek, for what three agents said was a reasonable price of $270,000.

Two years after the turbines appeared, she took $175,000, and she felt lucky to do that — the property went to someone who only wanted to grow marijuana there for legal uses.

"I had to get out," said Armstrong. "It was getting so, so bad. And I had to disclose the health issues I had. I was told by two prominent lawyers that I would be sued if the ensuing purchasers were to develop health problems."

Realtor association finds 20 to 40 per cent drops in value

Armstrong's experience is backed up in a study by Brampton-based realtor Chris Luxemburger. The president of the Brampton Real Estate Board examined real estate listings and sales figures for the Melancthon-Amaranth area, home to 133 turbines in what is Ontario's first and largest industrial wind farm.

"Homes inside the windmill zones were selling for less and taking longer to sell than the homes outside the windmill zones," said Luxemburger.

On average, from 2007 to 2010, he says properties adjacent to turbines sold for between 20 and 40 per cent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from the windmills.

Power company sells at a loss

Land registry documents obtained by CBC News show that some property owners who complained about noise and health issues and threatened legal action did well if they convinced the turbine companies to buy them out.

Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.

In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.

The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer's "living environment" and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer's "complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee's wind turbine facilities."

The energy company admits the impacts may include "heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation."

TransAlta, the company that took over for Canadian Hydro, refused to discuss the specific properties it bought and then resold at a loss in Melancthon. But in an email to CBC, spokesman Glen Whelan cited the recession and other "business considerations" that "influence the cost at which we buy or sell properties, and to attribute purchase or sale prices to any one factor would be impossible."

Province says no change to tax base

Ontario's ministers of Energy, Municipal Affairs and Finance, all in the midst of an election campaign, declined requests for an interview.

'That's what makes them sick is that, you know, they'll get less money for their properties, and that's what's causing all this annoyance and frustration.'—Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs says his ministry has no studies or information about the potential impact wind turbines are having on rural property values.

However, last February, before an environmental review tribunal in Chatham, Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter said: "We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values.

"That's what makes them sick is that, you know, they'll get less money for their properties, and that's what's causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that."

When Energy Minister Brad Duguid declined comment, his staff referred CBC News to the Ministry of Finance, which oversees MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation), which sets values on land for taxation purposes. They indicated that MPAC has no evidence wind turbines are driving down assessed values.

However, CBC found one household in Melancthon was awarded a 50-per-cent reduction in property tax because the house sat next to a transformer station for the turbines.

Losing the rural life

Almost all the people interviewed by the CBC rue the division between neighbours for and against the turbines, and said what they have lost is a sense of home and the idyllic life of living in the countryside.

Tracy Whitworth refuses to sell her historic home in Clear Creek. CBC

Tracy Whitworth, who has a historic home in Clear Creek, refuses to sell it and instead has become a nomad, renting from place to place with her son, to avoid the ill effects of the turbines.

"My house sits empty — it's been vandalized," says Whitworth, a Clear Creek resident who teaches high school in Delhi. "I've had a couple of 'Stop the wind turbine' signs knocked down, mailbox broken off.

"I lived out there for a reason. It was out in the country. School's very busy. When I come home, I like peace and quiet. Now, we have the turbines and the noise. Absolutely no wildlife. I used to go out in the morning, tend to my dogs, let my dogs run, and I'd hear the geese go over.

"And ugh! Now there's no deer, no geese, no wild turkeys. Nothing."

For the octogenarian Johnston, the fight is all more than she bargained for. She sank all her life savings, about $500,000, into the house, and she says she does not have the money to be able to hire a lawyer to fight for a buyout. But she is coming to the conclusion she must get a mortgage to try the legal route.

"I love being near the water and I thought, what a way to spend the rest of my days — every view is precious," she said, as tears filled her eyes. "And I would not have that any more.

"And that is hard to reconcile and accept."

Getting a mortgage on her house might not be that easy. CBC News has learned that already one bank in the Melancthon area is not allowing lines of credit to be secured by houses situated near wind turbines. In a letter to one family situated close to the turbines, the bank wrote, "we find your property a high risk and its future marketability may be jeopardized."