Better Plan, Wisconsin

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: This story could have been written about any Wisconsin community targeted by wind developers: Sneak into a community and offer the big landowners big money to agree to host turbines and most importantly keep their mouths shut about the plan. These moves are straight from the wind developers playbook.

PUTTING THE WIND UP THEM

SOURCE: Goulburn Post, www.goulburnpost.com.au

March 30, 2011

by Alby Schultz

There was a public meeting in the small town of Boorowa in my federal electorate of Hume a short while ago.

A good percentage of the population packed the ex-services club to hear first-hand about the rumours swirling through the community that this area was to be the site of a massive wind generation project.

There were audible gasps from the audience as it was revealed that the project was indeed real, that it would span some 35 kilometres and involve the construction of more than 100 turbines.

There were more gasps when it became apparent that the wind energy developer had actually been in negotiations with some of their neighbours for many months.

The meeting heard that the farmers who had been quietly persuaded to host the turbines would reap tens of thousands of dollars in rental a year.

They heard about pilots who wouldn’t fight fires or dust crops if they had to fly in the vicinity of the giant swirling blades.

They heard about possible health effects for those on neighbouring land ranging from heart palpitations to migraine headaches.

But this is not an argument against wind power. It is also not a criticism of farmers who have struggled through a decade of drought and see the way clear to make some alternative income.

There may indeed be areas where wind turbines can be built and where the impact is minimal. But there are many areas where they should not be constructed. As things stand though I truly fear our rural social capital – as fragile as our topsoils – is in places being chopped to pieces by turbine blades.

We need to start by calling a spade a spade. These turbines are not ‘farming’. That is Orwellian nonsense. This is industrial scale power production in green clothing. These are major commercial developments and should be considered in the same way as any major development.

A decade ago wind turbines were almost human in scale. But the turbines which some of the Boorowa farmers will have built near their homes (the closest will be just over a 1000 metres away) are truly gargantuan. If one of these turbines was standing on Sydney Harbour, its blades would be well clear of the top of the Harbour Bridge.

I warrant that should a neighbour decide to build a two storey extension overlooking the backyard of one of these Sydney bureaucrats there would be an immediate cry of “you can’t destroy my amenity and land value like that!”

And yet when a farming community raises concerns about mega turbines they are labelled ‘nimbys’ (not in my backyard).

Local decision making must be put back into prime place. At present it is hopelessly biased towards the developer. The state government boasts that large wind developments are considered ‘critical infrastructure’ and given the red carpet treatment with a guaranteed four month approval processes.

Communities are provided just 30 days to digest and provide comment before the Minister gives the project a tick. Better still the states should all revisit the National Wind Code which the Howard Government proposed in 2006 and which they rejected.

The code would have seen legislation eventually produced right around the country better protecting local community rights.

Wherever large wind generation projects arrive the plot is predictable. A wind company identifies an area with good wind resources and reasonably close to the national grid. They begin quiet negotiations with landowners.

In my view, these power companies preying on landholders who in most case have had no cash-flow as a result of nine years of heartbreaking drought. Well down the track others in the community find out.

Those who have done the deals face bitterness and anger. Those who missed out feel betrayed and angry. Sydney based bureaucrats need to understand the impact this has in small rural communities.

There is precious little interaction when you live on a property an hour or more from your rural centre – perhaps just at special events or football or cricket matches. Wind turbine money in my electorate has poisoned those relationships.

Families stop talking to each other. Animosity and bitterness run deep. Whole rural farming communities are fractured and it lasts for years. The NSW Industry Department’s website says that whilst planned or operating wind power installations in NSW will deliver 960 megawatts at present there is potential to grow that to 3000 megawatts (a 300 per cent increase)!

The implication of that for rural communities in Hume, and elsewhere, are truly frightening unless we give local communities far more say over whether or not they want wind turbines of this scale in their area.



Note from the BPWI research nerd: In wind-industry speak, a wind project that does not have a power purchase agreement with a utility is known as a "Naked Wind Farm"

 Use of term “Naked wind farm”:

"NextEra Energy Inc., the largest U.S. generator of wind power, said it hasn't been able to obtain multiyear contracts for about $1 billion in turbines capable of generating 612 megawatts of electricity. These so-called naked wind farms increased as cheaper natural gas and the lack of a federal clean-energy mandate reduced pressure on utilities to buy renewable power.

SOURCE: Stamford Advocate"

Without a utility committing to a long term power purchase agreement, financing for a large wind project becomes very difficult. Was this the real reason Invenergy pulled out of the Brown County wind project?

Although Invenergy claims it's Wisconsin's regulatory environment that caused them to cancel the project, in the same letter to the PSC they make it clear they will continue development of other wind projects in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Invenergy and wind lobbyists push a media spin on the story that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Examples of spin on Invenergy’s cancellation of wind project

Now Wisconsin Loses a Wind Farm – CleanTechnica: Cleantech ... <http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/26/now-wisconsin-loses-a-wind-farm/>

Large Wisconsin Wind Farm Killed By Politics | EarthTechling <http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/03/large-wisconsin-wind-farm-killed-by-politics/>

Wind Power Wilts in Wisconsin, Surges in North Dakota <http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/27/wind-power-wilts-in-wisconsin-surges-in-north-dakota/>

Developer Pulls Plug on Wisconsin Wind Farm Over Policy .. <http://solveclimate.com/news/20110323/wisconsin-wind-energy-renewable-portfolio-standard>

Teamster Nation: Developer cancels plan for WI wind farm because of Walker  <http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2011/03/developer-cancels-plan-for-wi-wind-farm.html>

Regulatory Flux Blamed for Canceled Wisconsin Wisconsin Farm ... <http://midwest.construction.com/yb/mw/article.aspx?story_id=157119321>

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ruins everything, including wind power ... <http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-25-wisconsin-gov.-scott-walker-ruins-everything-including-wind-powe>

Better Plan noted that reporter Thomas Content did not mention Invenergy's plans to continue development of wind projects in our state when he first reported the story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. We are glad to say he has included this critical piece of information in the following story:

RULES MAY CHANGE FOR WIND FARM SITES: LEGISLATURE LIKELY TO ASK PSC TO CREATE NEW SET OF GUIDELINES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

March 27, 2011

By Thomas Content  

State energy regulators would be asked to go back to the drawing board to develop statewide rules governing wind power projects, under a bill to be considered this week.

The Legislature’s joint committee for review of administrative rules voted earlier this month to temporarily block a wind farm site rule developed by the state Public Service Commission.

But that action was only good for 30 days. To keep the rule from taking effect Friday, the committee will meet again Tuesday to consider a bill that would send the issue back to the PSC and direct the agency to develop revised guidelines within six months.

After the rule was suspended, Chicago wind energy developer Invenergy LLC dropped its plan to build a large wind farm near Green Bay.

Invenergy’s proposal would have included setbacks of 1,000 feet, which is less than the 1,250-foot minimum sought by the PSC in its rule. The PSC rule that’s been blocked from taking effect also would have provided specific noise and shadow flicker requirements for wind farm turbines.

A property rights bill introduced in January by Gov. Scott Walker and supported by wind farm opponents and the Wisconsin Realtors Association would restrict development unless a turbine is placed 1,800 feet from a neighbor’s property line.

That bill threatens to stall wind power development in the state but was welcomed by a citizens group that has fought the Invenergy proposal.

The Brown County Citizens for Responsible Energy said it was pleased that the Invenergy proposal was dropped. Group spokesman Steve Deslauriers said the 1,000-foot setbacks were “irresponsible” and would have harmed nearby homeowners.

The local group mobilized against the Invenergy Ledge Wind energy project, and residents near the Invenergy project were well represented at public hearings earlier this year on wind farm siting.

The property rights group is seeking an even stricter statewide standard than that sought by Walker – 2,640 feet, Deslauriers said.

“Our hope is that real world experience of existing wind project residents be heard and addressed in the new statewide wind siting rules,” he said.

Invenergy’s decision “will benefit the taxpayers and ratepayers of Wisconsin, as well as preserve the health, safety, and property values of those who would have been forced to live within the industrial turbine project,” the Brown County group said.

The organization said it “will continue to work vigilantly to prevent the irresponsible development of industrial wind projects.”

Supporters of wind energy development say the state of flux on wind rules will stall development, leading to a loss of jobs tied to wind turbine construction as well as revenue for host property owners and local governments.

The PSC rule would not have applied to large wind farms like Invenergy’s, although Walker’s bill would have. Utility observers expect the PSC to adopt consistent standards for all wind projects.

In its most recent wind farm decision, the PSC ruled that 1,250-foot setbacks be required for We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, now under construction in Columbia County.

Alissa Krinsky, Invenergy spokeswoman, declined to say whether the 1,250-foot setback imposed in the We Energies case would have been acceptable for the Brown County project.

Invenergy said last week it would increase its development efforts outside Wisconsin, in light of regulatory uncertainty here. At the same time, Invenergy said it planned to develop other in-state projects that “do not require as significant an investment during an unstable climate.”

Jeff Anthony, vice president of business development at the American Wind Energy Association, said he realized there was significant opposition to the Invenergy project, but he said the state’s regulatory climate likely proved to be “the last straw” for the Chicago firm.

“This is not rhetoric. This is real, in terms of lost opportunity for jobs and economic development in the state of Wisconsin,” he said.

Asked about the possibility of compromise, Anthony said wind developers already compromised during the drafting of the PSC rule. Along with the setbacks, the noise and shadow requirements set by the PSC “were going to be very tough rules to meet” but provided the industry a framework to proceed with projects, he said.

Next Story

HAWAII WIND DEVELOPER TIED TO LARGEST EVER ASSET SEIZURE BY ANTI-MAFIA POLICE

SOURCE: Hawaii Free Press

Monday March 28, 2011

by Andrew Walden

Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind stood comfortably with Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, Rep Mazie Hirono, and HECO CEO Dick Rosenblum at the grand opening of the Kahuku Wind energy project on Oahu’s North Shore Thursday.   As he should. 

First Wind–formerly known as UPC Wind--got its start in wind energy by launching Italy’s IVPC--a company now subject to a record breaking asset seizure by Italian police.  The Financial Times September 14, 2010 explains:

Italian anti-mafia police have made their largest seizure of assets as part of an investigation into windfarm contracts in Sicily. Officers confiscated property and accounts valued at €1.5bn belonging to a businessman suspected of having links with the mafia.

Roberto Maroni, interior minister, on Tuesday accused the businessman – identified by police as Vito Nicastri and known as the island’s “lord of the winds” – of being close to a fugitive mafia boss, Matteo Messina Denaro.

General Antonio Mirone, of the anti-mafia police, said the seized assets included 43 companies – some with foreign participation and mostly in the solar and windpower sector – as well as about 100 plots of land, villas and warehouses, luxury cars and a catamaran. More than 60 bank accounts were frozen.

Until his arrest last November, Mr Nicastri, based in the inland hill town of Alcamo, was Sicily’s largest developer of windfarms, arranging purchases of land, financing and official permits. Some projects were sold through intermediaries to foreign renewable energy companies attracted to Italy by generous subsidy schemes….

The renewable energy sector is under scrutiny across much of southern Italy. Some windfarms, built with official subsidies, have never functioned….

Mr Nicastri sold most of his windfarm projects to IVPC, a company near Naples run by Oreste Vigorito, also president of Italy’s windpower association. Mr Vigorito was also arrested last November on suspicion of fraud and later released. He denied wrongdoing.

Of course the folks who started IVPC know nothing about any of this.  Reacting to an earlier round of arrests, First Wind founder Brian Caffyn told the November 15, 2009 Boston Herald: “I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised.”

Will Hawaii’s windfarms actually work?  The “Clipper Liberty” wind turbines installed at Kahuku and on Maui are made by a company founded by a former Director of Enron Wind.  Clipper Liberty Vice President of Engineering is also an Enron Wind veteran.

Gaynor and Caffyn were once much more public about their corporate ties to Vigorito’s IVPC.  First Wind was originally known as UPC.  The UPC Solar website touts “Mr. Caffyn personally oversaw the establishment and construction of the largest wind energy company in Italy — Italian Vento Power Corporation.”

IVPC’s english-language website states:  “The Group came to light in 1993 from an idea of Oreste Vigorito who formed the company I.V.P.C. S.r.l. on behalf of UPC, an American company which operates in the wind sector in California.”  (Emphasis added.)

The UPC Solar website explains: “UPC’s earliest wind farm developments were built in 1995 in Italy. At the time UPC sold IVPC, its Italian wind business, in 2005, it had built approximately 650MW of capacity representing over 50% of the total installed Italian wind capacity.”

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute News Summer, 2005 reports on the activities of WPI alumnus Gaynor: 

"...As president and CEO of UPC Wind Management, located in Newton, Mass., Gaynor was tapped to bring the success of the parent company, UPC Group, to North America. In Europe and North Africa, UPC affiliates—including Italian Vento Power Corporation—have raised over $900 million in financing and installed some 900 utility-scale wind turbine generators (WTGs), with a total capacity of more than 635 megawatts. UPC subsidiary companies, positioned across the United States and in Toronto, are currently pursing some 2,000 megawatts in projects from Maine to Maui..."

In March, Gaynor secured financing for a $70 million project on the island of Maui. [The project is a joint venture with Makani Nui Associates, which owns 49 percent.] The 30-megawatt wind farm at Kaheawa Pastures will be Hawaii’s first utility-scale project to be put into service since the 1980s. Plans call for 20 towers, 180 feet tall, with 1.5-megawatt General Electric turbines. Construction is expected to begin this summer, and the project should be completed by the first quarter of 2006. When operational, the wind farm will supply up to 9 percent of demand to customers of Maui Electric Company.

The Kaheawa Pastures site is situated on state conservation land, between Ma’aleaea and Olowalu, at elevations ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 feet.

Makani Nui is also a partner in the Kahuku Wind project.

Business Week reports that Caffyn is a Director or Partner in dozens of Limited Liability Corporations tied to wind energy projects.  These include Hawaii’s Kaheawa Wind Power, LLC, Kaheawa Wind Power II, LLC, Hawaii Wind Construction, LLC, and UPC Hawaii Wind O&M. 

Caffyn is also listed as a Director or Partner of Italian Vento Power Corporation (IVPC), Srl, IVPC 4, Srl. (Italian Vento Power Corporation), IVPC 6, Srl, IVPC 2000, Srl., IVPC Energy B.V., IVPC Energy 3 B.V., IVPC Energy 4 B.V., IVPC Energy 5, B.V., IVPC Energy 6, B.V., IVPC Energy 7, B.V., IVPC Gestione, Srl, IVPC Management, Srl, IVPC Management 2, Srl and IVPC Marche, Srl. Mr. Caffyn served as Director or Partner of IVPC Marche 2, Srl., IVPC Puglia, Srl, IVPC Service, Srl, IVPC Service 2, Srl, IVPC Service 3, Srl, IVPC Service 4, Srl, IVPC Service 5, Srl, IVPC Service 6, Srl, IVPC Sicilia, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 2, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 3, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 4, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 5, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 6, Srl., IVPC Umbria, Srl., IVPC Wind, Srl.

The UK Independent September 16, 2010 reports:

After decades of drug-running, extortion and prostitution, the Mafia appears to have found a rather more ecological way of laundering their money: green power.

And if the assets of the Italian police's latest target are any indication, the Mafia is embracing the renewable energy business with an enthusiasm that would make Al Gore look like a dilettante. The surprising revelation of organised crime's new green streak came as Italian police said yesterday they had made the largest recorded seizure of mob assets – worth €1.5bn (£1.25bn) ($2.1bn US) – from the Mafia-linked Sicilian businessman Vito Nicastri, who had vast holdings in alternative energy concerns, including wind farms.

Organised crime in Italy has previously been notorious for trading in environmental destruction – principally earning billions of euros by illegally dumping toxic waste. But most of the newly seized assets are in the form of land, property and bank accounts in Sicily, the home of Cosa Nostra, and in the neighbouring region of Calabria, the base of the rival 'Ndrangheta crime syndicate.

So naturally, First Wind is very comfortable with Hawaii politicians and business leaders. 

THE FUTURE: Wind Energy's Ghosts

The list First Wind owned companies (some inactive) registered in Hawaii includes the following:

• FIRST WIND CONSTRUCTION, LLC 
• FIRST WIND ENERGY, LLC
• FIRST WIND ENERGY MARKETING, LLC
• FIRST WIND HAWAII
• FIRST WIND O&M BATTERY SERVICES, LLC
• FIRST WIND O&M FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC 
• FIRST WIND O&M FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLC
• FIRST WIND O & M, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER II, LLC 
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER II, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, L.L.C.
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC 
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER VENTURES, LLC
• KAHUKU WIND POWER II, LLC
• KAHUKU WIND POWER II, LLC
• KAHUKU WIND POWER, LLC
• HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC DBA FIRST WIND HAWAII
• HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC DBA HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC (NV)
• UPC HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC
• UPC HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND
• UPC HAWAII WIND CONSTRUCTION, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND O & M, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS II, L.L.C.
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS II, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS II, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS, L.L.C.
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS, LLC
• UPC KAHUKU WIND POWER, LLC
• UPC KAUAI WIND POWER, LLC
• UPC WIND MANAGEMENT, LLC

ND WIND TURBINE ACCIDENT PEGGED TO BOLT FAILURE

Source: CBS MONEY WATCH

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Bolt failures caused a wind turbine's rotor and blades to fall from a tower in north-central North Dakota, and six other turbines have been shut down while their bolts are replaced, a state regulator said Thursday.

Members of North Dakota's Public Service Commission, which oversaw the development of the 71-turbine wind farm, said Thursday they would seek more detailed information about how widespread the problems may be.

"That's a fair bit of equipment concern that I would have, quite frankly," Commissioner Kevin Cramer said.

The wind project, which was dedicated last October, is located near Rugby in Pierce County. It is capable of generating up to 149 megawatts of electricity.

It is owned by Iberdrola Renewables Inc. of Portland, Ore., which is a unit of Iberdrola Renovables SA of Valencia, Spain. The turbines themselves were manufactured by Suzlon Wind Energy Corp., a unit of Suzlon Energy Ltd., based in India.

Spokeswomen for Iberdrola and Suzlon did not immediately reply to telephone and email requests for comment Thursday. Suzlon has previously described the accident as an isolated incident.

Jerry Lein, a commission utility analyst, said Iberdrola officials told him that bolts that attached the wind turbine's rotor and blades to a power shaft had failed. The shaft transfers the energy generated by the turning blades to an electric generator.

No one was injured when the rotor and blades toppled from the tower March 14 and crashed to the ground.

Lein said the wind farm was shut down and its turbines inspected. The turbines that did not need bolt replacement have been restarted, he said. The damaged material has been sent to a lab for analysis.

"They want to look further into the mechanism there that was failed before," he said. "They said that, specifically, they're replacing the bolts that hold it together."

The bolts are normally checked every six months, Lein said.

Commissioner Brian Kalk said the agency should seek to examine the wind farm's maintenance records. He wants to hear more information from the companies within two weeks, Kalk said.

"I'd like (the companies) to get back in front of us as quickly as possible ... and give us their best estimate of what is going on," Kalk said.

The commission's president, Tony Clark, said the agency should hold an informal hearing on the incident.

"Nobody has a greater incentive to find out what went wrong than the company does," Cramer said. "But, at the same time, the citizens of Pierce County, they're probably a little bit concerned too. ... You might not want to go hiking in the prairie for a while." 

Glenmore residents' outcry sways wind project: fox11online.com

VIDEO SOURCE: FOX 11 GREENBAY

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION

SOURCE GREENBAY PRESS GAZETTE

March 8 2011

By Tony Walter

Residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then, "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

GLENMORE — The Glenmore Town Board voted Monday to wait 60 days before voting on a permit request to have seven wind turbines built in the town.

In an emotion-filled meeting that at one point had Town Chairman Don Kittell call in police officers when residents began chanting and shouting, the board reversed an earlier vote to approve the permits.

Mark Dick of Cenergy, a subsidiary of Pennsylvania-based CG Power Solutions that is seeking to erect the turbines, said the board's delay on a decision was based on emotion and opinion, not law.

"You're asking the Town Board to violate law," Dick told the more than 100 residents who crowded into the Glenmore Community Center. "You might as well as ask them to outlaw smoking."

The board voted quickly at the meeting's outset to approve the permits, with Kittell and Supervisor Kriss Schmidt supporting it and Supervisor Ron Nowak opposing it. Kittell argued that the board was simply following the law that required it to honor a conditional use permit that went into effect before the town changed its wind turbine ordinance last year.

But residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

Residents continued to protest, and Kittell ended the meeting. But the residents continued to argue that the recent decision by a legislative committee to suspend the Public Service Commission's wind-siting rules made it possible for the board to delay its vote.

"I don't understand what your rush is," Cliff Hammond said.

Resident Steve Deslauriers said wind turbine officials wanted the permits approved before the state had a chance to impose new siting rules.

After 90 minutes of debate, the board decided to reconvene the meeting and Schmidt made a motion to delay a decision until more information came from the state. This was approved unanimously but brought Cenergy officials to their feet to protest that the board voted illegally.

"You can't let the minority dissuade you from the law," Dick told board members, ignoring shouts from the residents.

But the board voted unanimously for the delay, bringing applause from the audience.

Glenmore initially had two wind turbines erected in 1997 and last year had seven more built in the Shirley Wind project.

SECOND FEATURE: Wind lobbyists re-writing the news: Chapter 4,567

Note from the BPWI research nerd:

The Green Bay Press Gazette article above has a headline which reads "GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION"

RENEW Wisconsin, an organization that lobbys on behalf of the wind industry changes the headline to this on their website:

ANGRY ANTI-WIND CROWD INTIMIDATES TOWN BOARD TO CHANGE VOTE ON T[UR]BINE DECISION

A RESIDENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING..

LAST NIGHT IN THE TOWN OF GLENMORE.....

The meeting was attended by many residents and also State Representative Andre and John Vander Leest, a representative sent by State Senator Frank Lasee to read a statement from him.

The Glenmore Town Board was to decide on issuing building permits for seven proposed 500' wind turbines on an 80 acre parcel owned by Mike and Sandy  Zirbel, 6013 Morrison Road.

After a speech by Andre Jacques and John Vander Leest, as well as Rick Loppnow (Glenmore Town Supervisor candidate), requesting the Town Board to delay issuing the permits in light of the recent JCRAR suspension of the Wind Siting Rules, the Board made and passed a motion to  approve the building permits.

This action precipitated an immediate widespread expression of outrage by nearly all of the attendees, at which time Chairman Kittel called in the police.

Before the police arrived, the Town Board decided to adjourn the meeting, although most of the agenda items had not yet been covered. This was followed by about 45 minutes of passionate comments from many in attendance, as well as more statements from Representative Jacques and John Vander Leest. The police arrived in the midst of a peaceful open forum, and stayed until the meeting ended.

Following calls from the audience to reopen the meeting and reconsider the earlier motion to approve the building permits, the Board did just that.

The Town Board made a motion to amend their earlier motion and delay a decision on the building permits for 60 days while waiting to see what would happen at Madison.

This created great consternation with the wind developer representatives in attendance who then put tremendous pressure on the Town Board to not delay their decision.

Following consultation with the town attorney, the Board confirmed that they would proceed with the 60 day delay. This decision was met with a standing ovation and round of applause, much to the dismay and anger of the wind developer.
 
The balance of the agenda was dealt with and the  meeting was adjourned. Many congratulations, handshakes, and hugs were exchanged throughout the crowd.

 NEXT FEATURE:

Click on the image above to hear the Falmouth Turbine

Click here for SOURCE

The Falmouth Experience: Sick from the Noise

SOURCE Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

March 8, 2011

By Jess Bidgood, Reported by Sean Corcoran,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Last September, under the cover of darkness, Barry Funfar set out on an act of civil disobedience. His target was a wind turbine the town installed about 1,600 feet from his Falmouth home. Funfar used sticky-backed letters and a large poster-board to vandalize a welcome sign near the turbine’s base. When he was done, the new sign read, “The Noise from This Turbine is Killing Me.” And the word “killing” was in red, and he signed his name with a thick black marker.

“I had this huge foam board and covered the whole thing. I used gorilla tape to make it hard to take off. I figured the police would be up to my house the next morning or something. But I heard nothing,” Funfar said.

Dozens of people living near the 1.65-megawatt turbine have reported sleep interruptions, headaches and vertigo since it was turned on last April. Neighbors say it’s like sea sickness — some people feel it, others don’t. But the effects seem to be cumulative in that symptoms appear and increase the longer they’re near the turbine.

What’s not clear is why. A town-commissioned sound study concluded the turbine produces broad spectrum sound at levels within town and state guidelines. But residents say it’s not the volume as much as the type of sound that’s the problem.

“I’ve learned it’s just a different kind of noise. It’s like it gets inside of me and just causes so much stress and anxiety that even when it isn’t going I have this fear of when it is going to start up again,” Funfar said.

Residents primarily report three different types of turbine noise (all of which we were unable to record on our visits to the turbine). The first and most easily understood noise is a swooshing sound that’s made at regular intervals when the blades spin. Then, there’s another, more erratic sound, which some compare to a sneaker bouncing around in a drier.

Heather Goldstone says both of those noises are called impulse sounds, which scientists know are harder to get used to than constant sounds. But for reasons scientists don’t understand, wind turbine noise seems to be more disturbing than other noises such as airports and highways.

“Many scientists and wind-energy advocates say that while people may become annoyed by turbine noise, annoyance is not considered a health impact from a clinical perspective. That said, chronic annoyance can build into stress, and stress could cause many of the symptoms people are complaining about,” Goldstone.

Goldstone cited the work of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, a physician who has studied the impacts of two wind farms in Maine on nearby residents. “He told me he thinks there’s a more direct explanation: That sleep deprivation caused by turbine noise is taking a toll on people’s mental and physical health,” she said.

The residents who report being the most severely affected by Wind One blame low-frequency sound, often called infrasound, that is inaudible and controversial. They say it’s like a pulse that gets into their heads and makes their hearts race.

“People have different sensitivities to sound, particularly in the low-frequency range,” Goldstone says. “The question is whether sounds below a person’s hearing threshold can affect the ear in other ways and possibly lead to health impacts. Conventional wisdom says no, but a couple of recent studies say maybe. There’s just not enough science available to sort this out yet.”

Steven Clarke is the top wind expert in Governor Patrick’s administration. Clarke says he won’t downplay residents’ complaints. But it’s important to recognize that Falmouth is only one out of 26 turbines that have been installed in Massachusetts, including a half-dozen turbines similar in size and capacity to Wind One.

“Once you put that context around the Falmouth situation,” he says, “I think it becomes clear that we should look at this as a specific case and not generalize that wind energy in general is problematic.”

State leaders have heard complaints about the lack of science as town boards make decisions, and Clarke says the state is looking to partner with a scientific institution to further study turbine noise.

MORE ON THE FALMOUTH TURBINE:

THE FALMOUTH EXPERIENCE: LIFE UNDER THE BLADES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 7, 2011

Reported by Sean Corcoran, By Jess Bidgood,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Standing on his home’s porch, Neil Anderson points through the thicket of trees in his front yard and across Blacksmith Shop Road towards one of his closest neighbors: A wind turbine.

“Right now we are 1,320 feet, which is one-quarter mile south of Wind One, which is Falmouth’s first wind turbine. It’s been online since April. And we’ve been trying to get it stopped since April,” Anderson says.

Wind One, as the turbine is officially called, is owned by the town of Falmouth and is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant, where it stands 262 feet tall to the turbine’s hub. That’s about 10 feet taller than the Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown. The blades extend just shy of 400 feet, which is about half the height of the John Hancock Building in Boston.

When it was installed last spring, Anderson didn’t think Wind One would cause a problem. For 35 years, he’s owned and operated a passive solar company on Cape Cod.

The energy conservationist in Anderson considered wind power a good principle. He wasn’t alone — before the turbine switched on, Falmouth residents almost universally welcomed Wind One as a symbol of renewable energy and a way to keep taxes down.

“I was proud looking at it from this viewpoint — until it started turning,” Anderson said.

But now, as many as 50 people are complaining about the turbine and the noise it makes at different speeds. A dozen families are retaining a lawyer for that reason.

“It is dangerous. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me. It’s quite majestic — but it’s way too close,” Anderson said.

Neighbors say this isn’t a debate about a turbine ruining their view, and their goal is not compensation. Some just want it turned off at night.

But Anderson can’t compromise. “This house has been my hobby, my investment, and we love it out here. We will move if we have to. Because we cannot live with (the turbine). No, we cannot,” Anderson said.

Wind One is expected to save the town about $375,000 a year in electricity. Heather Harper, Falmouth’s acting town manager, says Falmouth owes about $5 million on the 1.65-megawatt turbine.

Harper said one of the challenges of running the turbine is that the type of sound some neighbors complain about — that low-level pulse — isn’t regulated by the state. “The times I have been there I do not experience the impact of the effect that the neighbors have expressed that they’ve experienced. But I do believe that they are experiencing something that is very real to them,” Harper said.

David McGlinchey is with the non-partisan Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Plymouth, which provides science-based information to policy makers. McGlinchey says that while Wind One has generated complaints, other turbines of similar size, including a 1.8-megawatt turbine in Hull, have been mostly well-received.

“The existing peer-reviewed studies suggest that there are no health effects associated with the sound and noise from wind turbines,” McGlinchey said. “That being said, people clearly experience symptoms. People have headaches, people have their sleep disturbed, people are not living well next to them in some situations. In some situations they are. So, both sides are right.”

Wind advocates say Falmouth’s experience has made it nearly impossible to get other turbines approved on Cape Cod, and potentially across the state. Last week, Falmouth’s selectmen acknowledged the issue and agreed to turn off the turbine when wind speeds exceed 23 miles per hour.

It’s unclear how much relief this will bring or how long it will last, since selectmen said more permanent mitigation efforts still must be negotiated.

One looming concern of neighbors is a second turbine, one of the same size and make that has gone up not far from the first. Falmouth’s Wind Two is scheduled to be turned on sometime this spring.

MORE NEWS:

WYOMING LEGISLATURE FAILS TO SETTLE EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE

SOURCE Associated Press, trib.com 8 March 2011

CHEYENNE — The state Legislature failed to settle the sensitive issue of whether wind farm developers can forcibly take land so they can stretch power lines to their turbines.

Instead, lawmakers who ended their 2011 session last week extended a moratorium banning private wind developers from using eminent domain for another two years, meaning the issue will be back again.

“I hope, in some form, somebody will come up with some idea that can satisfy all sides to the problem,” said Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

[rest of article available at source]

INCREASE THE SETBACK FOR WIND TURBINES

"I served as vice chairman of the [Public Service Commission's] Wind Siting Council. The majority of that council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protected those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents.

I helped author a minority report to the commission, detailing how the majority’s guidelines failed to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on people living nearby."

SOURCE: The Telegraph Herald, www.thonline.com

March 6, 2011

by Doug Zweizig

Why would Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker propose to increase the setbacks between wind turbines and property lines to 1,800 feet? Because the newest industrial wind turbines in our state are 50 stories tall.

It’s hard enough to imagine living next to a structure that big. Now include spinning blades that weigh 18 tons with a span wider than a 747 and a tip speed of about 170 miles per hour, operating 24/7 just 1,250 feet from your door.

Imagine living with turbine noise that is twice as loud as the World Health Organization’s limit for healthful sleep. Imagine 700 feet of your land used by a wind company without your permission and without compensation. Imagine a loss of your property’s value as high as 40 percent.

The new Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Rules, which would have made this situation a reality, were to go into effect March 1. However, the state Legislature’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules set aside the commission’s rules, allowing a reconsideration of the governor’s proposal.

I served as vice chairman of the commission’s Wind Siting Council. The majority of that
council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protected those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents. I helped author a minority report to the commission, detailing how the majority’s guidelines failed to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on people living nearby.

Wisconsin residents have been living with turbines of the 400- to 500-foot variety for only a few years, but the problems with Public Service Commission setbacks once thought to be adequate have become very clear.

Wind project residents from all over the state gave sworn testimony to the Public Service Commission and to our legislators, telling of turbine noise much louder than expected, of sleep deprivation and resulting deterioration of health, of headaches from shadow-flicker, of loss of TV and radio reception, of complaints to wind companies that are ignored, of communities torn apart, and of homes that simply will not sell.

The Public Service Commission rules would have allowed wind companies to put a turbine 440 feet from your property line and claim about 700 feet of your land for use as their safety zone. It’s still your property, but you couldn’t build a structure or plant trees there without the wind company’s permission.

All of these problems can be avoided with greater setbacks.

I agree with increasing the setback between a turbine and your property line to 1,800 feet. If a wind company wants to put a turbine closer, it absolutely can. The difference is it will need your permission to do it, and it may have to compensate you.

A greater setback from the property line ensures that a wind company can’t take your property for their use unless you want them to.

Although this setback does not completely mitigate the very real health concerns associated with living too close to wind turbines, it gives us increased protection from turbine noise and shadow flicker and it protects our property. Most importantly, it gives us some choice.

If we can find a way to site turbines where they do no harm, everyone will be happy.

Zweizig retired as professor emeritus from the University of Wisconsin, where he taught in the School of Library and Information Studies. He is a member of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Council. Zweizig lives outside Evansville, Wis., and has served for five years on the Plan Commission of Union (Rock County) Township when it developed an ordinance for the siting of large wind turbines. His e-mail address is dougzweizig@hotmail.com.

EXCERPTS FROM DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING SOCIAL AN ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RURAL WIND FARMS

SOURCES :The social and economic impact of rural wind farms

AND windturbinesyndrome.com

The first day the turbines started operating closest to our home, my wife started feeling ear and head pressure. Similar to flying in an aeroplane, she said. About six months after, I started feeling similar effects.

As the weeks went on it has gotten worse and worse.

We now suffer headaches, chest pains, a feeling of heart palpitations, and continuous lack of sleep. Every night we can’t sleep.  We go to sleep, then wake and just never settle into a good night sleep.

Stephen Stepnell

I am a third generation farmer on our Waubra farm.  We farm 4200 acres of high quality farming land, and are currently running 16,000 to 20,000 sheep, 500 acres of crop and 100 acres or irrigated land included.

From the first day we were asked to have wind turbines on our farm, we were very concerned about the impacts of a wind farm in our community. We declined to have 4 wind turbines on our land.

The closest wind turbine is 900 metres from our house, and we have 5 wind turbines within 1500 metres from our family home, where I live with my wife Samantha and three children, Jacob, Courtney and Joshua. There are about another 6 wind turbines within 2000 metres of our land, at another location on our farm. We can see nearly all the wind turbines from most areas of our farm.

The first day the turbines started operating closest to our home, my wife started feeling ear and head pressure. Similar to flying in an aeroplane, she said. About six months after, I started feeling similar effects.

As the weeks went on it has gotten worse and worse.

We now suffer headaches, chest pains, a feeling of heart palpitations, and continuous lack of sleep. Every night we can’t sleep.  We go to sleep, then wake and just never settle into a good night sleep.

I have never seen my wife of 18 years look so tired, stressed and unhealthy. This is a huge concern. My children are also more tired and emotional. We have no other illness or medical conditions that could cause us to feel like this.  We have not changed anything in our lifestyle since we started feeling like this.

We have had talks with the operator of the Waubra wind farm, Acciona Energy, telling them of our concerns of our health effects of living too close to the wind turbines and the effects of the asset values of our land.

Acciona Energy replied that we don’t have any evidence the wind turbines affect our health.  We have large concerns about the lack of any evidence wind turbines don’t affect our health. We have lived near wind turbines for about 14 months and are feeling the worse in regards to our health and the depressed feelings we get from the visual effects of wind turbines day and night, as they have aviation lights at night.

The noise they create and the inaudible noise that I know affects our lives. And the effects in changes to bird life, such as our decreased number of brolgas breeding in our area. The total loss of bats we used to hear nearly every night, and so on.

We have now gone to the desperate measure of moving out of our family home on our farm and into Ballarat, which is 45 kilometres drive away. We will travel daily to our farm. This is a large financial outlay. Our house on the farm is only 10 years old and will remain empty, as we could not rent our house farm employees due to wind turbines being too close and therefore having health effects on them.

In conclusion, we have massive concerns about the health effects of living and working too close to the wind turbines. We are members of the Lexton Land Care group, we have planted thousands and thousands of trees, fenced off creeks and are all for the environment and green energy such as wind power or solar or whatever it takes to help our environment, but to watch myself and family suffer from health effects from living too close to wind turbines is a very big concern.

There has to be a compromise.

Carl Stepnell

Letter from wife Samantha Stepnell:

The day the furniture removals came (4/11/10) was an extremely sad day for my family and me.  To pack up our belongings and leave our family home we built. We brought our three kids home from hospital and we were going to live there forever. But we have been forced to move away because of the Acciona wind farm.

Our family home is about 800 m to 900 m from five turbines that are closely clustered together. Our farm is surrounded by turbines. My bedroom is the closest room to the four turbines.

The health impact from living so close to the wind turbines began the day they began operation near our home are:

• Chronic sleep deprivation from repeated disturbance during the night from the noise the turbines make.
  • When the noise of the turbines wakes me up, I find it very difficult to go back to sleep. This can happen a number of times a night. When I wake in the morning, I feel as if I have had no sleep at all. I also feel very tired all the time and have no energy and very lethargic.
  • Prior to the turbines being built, I was able to sleep peacefully with our window open (in the summer) and wake up feeling like I have had a great sleep, and ready for the day ahead.

• Feeling of uneasiness
• Suffer from pressure in my ears and head. Some days the noise is that bad, the pressure is unbearable.

The only way I can explain how I feel, it is like being in a plane with that pressure in the cabin from flying. Except it does not go away.

Our farm is 4200 acres and it is our business.  My husband and I work on the farm, so we are frequently outside. The noise from the turbines in certain conditions is unbearable and makes our workplace very hard to put up with.  I find it very upsetting and stressful.

I feel very depressed and some days I could just curl up and cry.

All these symptoms—headaches, ear pressure and sleep disruption—have occurred only since the turbines began operation, and they occur only when the turbines are operating.

I feel the longer I am around the wind turbines, it is affecting my health even more. I feel it is taking me longer to get over the health problems I am suffering from.

For example, my family and I just returned from a week’s holiday. I slept all night and when I woke up, I felt like I had a good night sleep. I woke up from my night’s sleep with lots of energy. This is the way I should feel all the time. There was no pressure in my ears and head. I felt like I was back to my old self.

The day I returned from holidays, I began to feel all the symptoms that I have explained, above.  They had returned.

We had no choice but to leave our family home we built nine years ago on our farm. We have moved into Ballarat, and we travel out to the farm to work each day. (Ballarat is 45 kilometres away from Waubra.)

The day the furniture removals came (4/11/10) was an extremely sad day for my family and me.  To pack up our belongings and leave our family home we built. We brought our three kids home from hospital and we were going to live there forever. But we have been forced to move away because of the Acciona wind farm. We thought that we would grow old together in our home on the farm and watch our children grow up and move on with their lives.

No, that is not the case, we have been forced out of our home.

We have nothing against wind farms. I am all for the environment.  We plant thousands of trees for our farm each year. The planning of a wind farm has to be in a better location and not so close to residential areas. Buying a home in Ballarat put huge financial pressure on us, but we had no choice but to leave. Our health is number one and it was really suffering.

The first night we slept in our new home was the first time we have had a full night sleep in 18 months.

I am fine when I am away from the turbines, although, as soon as I return to the farm, the symptoms return. I find it very difficult to enjoy a day’s work on the farm because of the health effects caused by wind turbines.

If you care for the health and well-being of my family and me, could you please take the matter of the health effects from living so close to the Waubra wind turbines very seriously?

You are more than welcome to come and experience what it is like to be so close to the wind turbines, as no letter will ever express exactly what we are feeling. There are no words to describe these feelings and how the turbines are effecting our health.

Thank you for your time, and please take this letter seriously.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha Stepnell

From the Stepnell family doctor:

These turbines have been in operation for the last fourteen months, as I understand, and Carl and Samantha acknowledge they have been aware of a constant sound while the turbines are in operation since this period of time.

However, in the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems, including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night. This has led to increased lethargy and inevitably a lowered mood.

Acciona Energy

30 September 2010

Dear Sir,

re: Carl and Samantha Stepnell

I saw this couple on 29 September 2010 regarding health problems related to wind turbines which are located nearby in Waubra. They have a 4500 acre farm on which they run sheep and grow grain.

The farm is surrounded by wind turbines, but the ones that they feel are contributing to their current symptoms relate to five turbines, located within 900 metres of their home.

These turbines have been in operation for the last fourteen months, as I understand, and Carl and Samantha acknowledge they have been aware of a constant sound while the turbines are in operation since this period of time.

However, in the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems, including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night. This has led to increased lethargy and inevitably a lowered mood.

Last May, Carl and Samantha noticed when the turbines were not in operation for two weeks that their symptoms significantly improved, but worsened again when the turbines came back online.

Carl and Samantha have also noticed that they have significantly less problems when away on holidays.

Samantha Stepnell notices that her symptoms are more persistent and severe as she spends more time in the house closest to these five turbines. Her husband, Carl, is also constantly affected but is able to move around the farm doing his usual work and therefore, at times, is further away from the turbines.

Their three children spend most of the day away from the farm, and, as such, have minimal symptoms.

The couple has not had a past history of these symptoms, nor has there been a past history of depression, stress or anxiety. They feel that they can accept the visual impact of the turbines and the red flashing lights at night, but it is the noise from the turbines that is causing their symptoms.

I also confirm that I have one other patient who lives at Waubra on a 10-acre farm, who is distraught with exactly the same symptoms as the Stepnells.

I believe from the circumstantial evidence that there is a strong correlation between their symptoms and the operation of the wind turbines nearby.

I hope therefore that you can take this into consideration in your discussions with Carl and Samantha Stepnell to try and come to an outcome that will resolve these symptoms.

Yours sincerely

Scott Taylor, M.B., B.S.

FROM MONTANA

SENATE COMMITTEE HEARS TESTIMONY ON EMINENT DOMAIN BILL

SOURCE Great Falls Tribune, www.greatfallstribune.com

March 4 2011

KARL PUCKETT,

“They’re cheapskates and a foreign company trying to beat these farmers and ranchers,” said Quick, who said he was representing 10 angry cattle ranchers — eight Republicans and two Democrats — who oppose HB198.

Energy development and private property rights sharply clashed Thursday in a hearing before the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee over a bill that would allow developers of “merchant” transmission lines to take private land for the public good.

Testimony over House Bill 198, which had its first hearing in the Senate after previously being approved in the House, lasted more than three hours, with dozens of residents and informational witnesses speaking.

If the bill is passed, “a person” issued a certificate under the Major Facilities Citing Act to build transmission lines or other large infrastructure would have the right to initiate condemnation proceedings.

A decision last year by a Glacier County District Court judge who ruled Toronto-based Tonbridge Power Inc. did not have the authority to use eminent domain prompted the legislation. Tonbridge is building the 215-mile Montana Alberta Tie Line merchant transmission line between Great Falls and Lethbridge, and the ruling stalled the project.

With a merchant line, the developer accepts the risk of the project rather than ratepayers of a public utility, such as NorthWestern Energy. Merchant line developers finance construction by selling shipping rights to the line. In Tonbridge’s case, it sold capacity to wind farm developers who want to ship electricity generated in Montana to bigger markets.

Landowners see the bill as a change in state law for a single company, as well as a general expansion of eminent domain powers.

“This is just a sweetheart deal for a Canadian company, and allows them to condemn Montana farmland for their own use — and that’s just absolutely wrong,” said Larry Martin, a farmer from Conrad who owns land in path of MATL.

John Alke, an attorney representing Tonbridge and Montana Dakota Utilities, said the Glacier County judge’s ruling was only the second time a Montana court applied an “entity specific” standard to prevent an out-of-state developer from using eminent domain.

The first time, in 1907, the Legislature quickly passed a law ensuring a company’s eminent domain powers in building Hauser Dam, he said.

What matters in determining whether an entity has eminent domain power, Alke said, is whether the project benefits the public, not the type of entity doing the work.

If HB198 does not pass, “my client, MATL, is in serious trouble,” Alke said.

“It is in the middle of construction,” he said. “It has crews in the field.”

Derek Moretz, with wind farm developer NaturEner, said his company’s proposed $700 million Rim Rock Wind Farm in Glacier and Toole counties will not be built if MATL is not completed. Any holdup in building the line also could delay the wind farm because federal production tax credits are set to expire in 2012, he said.

“Without this eminent domain tool, we’re just not going to be able to develop these linear infrastructure projects,” said Brett Doney, president of Great Falls Development Authority.

Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill doesn’t overhaul the current eminent domain law, but rather clarifies who can use it, including NorthWestern Energy.

Opponents of the bill disagreed with Peterson’s characterization, saying the Legislature never previously granted eminent domain power to a merchant line developer.

“This bill has a narrow motivation with broad affects,” said Beth Kaeding of Bozeman, past chair of the Northern Plains Resource Council.

Lyle Quick traveled to the hearing from Circle in Eastern Montana, where the Keystone XL pipeline is proposed, in order to testify. The line, being developed by TransCanada, would ship oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, and Quick said HB198 could carry ramifications for that project as well.

“They’re cheapskates and a foreign company trying to beat these farmers and ranchers,” said Quick, who said he was representing 10 angry cattle ranchers — eight Republicans and two Democrats — who oppose HB198.

The Republicans are mad because “we are a party of property rights,” he said. The Democrats are mad because Gov. Brian Schweitzer, also a Democrat, supports the pipeline.

Some residents with land along MATL testified Thursday that they have been treated poorly by Tonbridge in negotiations. They urged lawmakers to vote against HB198.

Residents identifying themselves as tea party representatives, noting the state’s strong property rights protections, also spoke against the legislation. Union representatives spoke in favor of HB198, citing the jobs the projects would create.

Sen. Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, said supporters of both natural resource development and private property rights are “caught in a vice” as a result of the controversy.

Jim Peterson spoke in favor of the bill, saying shipping electricity out of state is in the public interest, and comparing it to farmers exporting wheat.

“It might not be in Montana, but it is public use just like food is public use,” he said.

Katrina Martin, who lives east of Dutton near the MATL line route, took exception to Jim Peterson’s export comparison during her testimony.

“Yes, I export my wheat,” Martin said. “But I do not get to condemn my neighbor’s property to do it.”