Better Plan, Wisconsin

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- Residents speak about life with 500 foot turbines in the Shirley wind project, Brown County, Wisconsin.

AID FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS SOUGHT

Brown Co. panel: State should pay medical bills for those near wind farm

by Doug Schneider,

via Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

January 26, 2012 

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously. “This problem is very real,” he said.

Wisconsin should pay the medical bills of Brown County residents who were made ill by industrial wind turbines, some county supervisors say.

Saying the state allowed “irresponsible placement” of industrial wind turbines in the Glenmore area, the Brown County Human Services Committee has approved a measure to ask the state to pay emergency aid to families living near the Shirley Wind Farm.

The request, which seeks an unspecified amount until the “hardships are studied and resolved,” could come before the full County Board next month.

It is the latest attempt by county supervisors and other officials to manage an issue in which some residents began experiencing conditions such as anxiety, depression, weight loss and increased cancer risks since the wind farm was erected in 2010.

“There is a 70-year-old woman who lost 20 pounds from not being able to eat,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, a member of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, an advocacy group. “There are two adults who sleep an average of one and a half hours a night.”

Shirley’s operators insist their facility has been built and operated safely.

Wind farms have been a topic of debate in Wisconsin in the past several years. Advocates say wind pollutes less than coal and is less expensive and less potentially dangerous than nuclear energy.

Officials say the facilities’ record isn’t good enough. The County Board resolution says the state was irresponsible in allowing the Shirley Wind Farm to be built without consulting an expert on the medical consequences of living near wind turbines.

Supervisors said they had no indication Wednesday of how the state would respond to their request. They said the answer would be up to officials in Madison to resolve this spring.

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously.

“This problem is very real,” he said. Being upstairs in a house near the Shirley facility, he said, “felt after 10 or 12 minutes like you were getting carbon-monoxide poisoning.”

Lawmakers also are calling on the state to adopt turbine-siting guidelines approved by citizens groups.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, last week introduced a bill to allow cities, villages, towns and counties to establish the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a home — even if those rules are more restrictive than any the state enacts.

Statewide wind-siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended last March. Lawmakers sent those rules, which dealt with farms of less than 100 megawatts, back to the state Public Service Commission, where they have stayed as officials worked to reach a compromise.

Lack of regulatory agreement, particularly on the issue of how far a turbine must be from a property line, has tempered enthusiasm about wind farms. A corporation in 2011 scrapped plans for a 100-turbine development in the Morrison-Glenmore area.

On the net

» Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind-Siting Guidelines: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wisconsin-citizens-safe-wind-siting-guidelines

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The families having trouble living with the Brown County turbines are not alone: 

CLICK HERE to see photos and read the daily wind turbine noise log kept by a resident living in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County 

SECOND FEATURE

From Ontario

LOCAL HEALTH EXPERT: LOTS OF ROOM IN CANADA FOR WIND TURBINES

by David Meyer,

Via The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

January 27, 2012 

Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

C. WELLINGTON TWP. – Opponents of industrial wind turbines have been telling the provincial government for several years it needs to do some health studies before approving such machines close to homes.

Some of those opponents did not wait for the province. Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

Aramini said in an interview on Monday people opposed to wind farms in the Belwood area asked him to check health effects because of his expertise in that field.

His partners were Dr. Michael Nissenbaum of the Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, and Dr. Chris Hanning, of University Hospitals of Leicester, in the United Kingdom.

Aramini said in an interview the two communities studied are “not unlike anything here.”

He said it was “a little surprising the health effect that came across the strongest was depression.”

The study was peer reviewed, which means experts from around the world had an opportunity to comment on it. The study was published last year in the 10th International Congress on Noise as a public health problem in Great Britain.

The peer review is important for those opposing wind turbines.

Janet Vallery, a spokesman for Oppose Belwood Windfarm, highlighted a difference between the study Aramini was involved in and the studies being cited by the provincial government.

“The Ontario provincial government used literature reviews as a basis for determining setbacks,” she said. “This new research deems setbacks less than 1.5km must be regarded as unsafe.”

Aramini said the questionnaire tool used for the research “has been used millions of times around the world.”

The researchers found, “It wasn’t simply close and far … It was, the closer you get, the [more] progressively your risk rises.”

He noted, too, that only adults were considered in the study, and wondered what effects sleep disruption would have on children.

“Losing sleep is a big deal. In kids, it affects their learning,” said Aramini.

There were about 80 adults involved in the Maine study, with about half living 2 to 3km away from a turbine, and others lived farther away than 3km.

The Ontario setbacks from human habitation is 550 metres and Aramini said that increases chances of people suffering from clinical depression by 369%.

“It’s doubling to tripling the chance of you being at risk if living that close,” he said, adding if just one person is affected badly, it is too many. “We’re talking about real people.”

Aramini said people ask him regularly about how close they can live to turbines, and if he would buy a home close to one.

“If you’re within 2km, I’d think twice,” he said about purchasing a home, adding he suggests people talk to their physician prior to turbines going in if they live near where the machines are proposed.

Aramini said it is vexing the provincial government is forcing people to endure turbines when there is plenty of land available that is not anywhere near human habitation.

“The thing that disappoints me is Canada is a big place. Surely we can put them in a place away … For God’s sake, put them out in the middle of nowhere, away from people.”

Unfortunately, he said of the issue, “Clearly there’s a lot of politics and money involved.”

Despite the study’s claims to the contrary, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) maintains there is no “conclusive” correlation between turbines and health issues.

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

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

Next Feature:

WIND FARM IDEA ZAPPED BACK TO LIFE

By Kevin Murphy,

Via New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 

December 22, 2011 

MADISON – The clock began ticking Friday on state regulators to review an application to construct a 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon.

By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension.

The HWF project has been a controversy in the Town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008. That agreement was modified in 2010 but proved to be unpopular with residents who removed the board in a recall election in February.

Rick Steinberger, elected in February, said that within a month the new board rescinded previously adopted wind development agreements and in August enacted a wind energy system licensing ordinance that Steinberger said better “protects the town than existing state regulations.”

“Realistically, we’re not protected by the state guidelines,” which is why the town adopted an ordinance with more restrictions than state regulations on turbine setbacks, noise levels and shadow flicker,” he said.

In response, HWF increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts, making it subject to state and not town regulation. How much involvement the town will have in the state’s approval process remains to be seen, said Steinberger.

“I’m just one vote on the board…and I haven’t read through the application yet and I don’t have a comment on it,” Steinberger said Monday.

Town Chairman Jamie Junker also said he would withhold any comment on the wind farm application and what response the town should take until he has reviewed it.

William Rakocy, a founding member of Emerging Energies, now EEW Services LCC, said the project was increased in size in response to an unresponsive town board.

“We would have been pleased to work with the town; we tried to in the past. The previous town board was reasonable to work with, but the new town board has not responded to any attempts to communicate with them so we’re going ahead,” Rakocy said.

Rakocy said the $250 million wind farm represents Wisconsin’s best option for renewable energy and should be approved.

“Every other energy source has a fuel requirement to bring it the state; there’s a fuel cost associated with bringing in coal, uranium for nuclear power and even natural gas. We don’t have any of those energy sources in Wisconsin but we do have wind,” he said.

Rakocy, of Hubertus, Wis., also said the project will need approval from several other state and federal agencies including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Unlike public utilities, EEW Services LCC won’t have to prove there is a demand for the electricity produced by the project. Rakocy could sell the project once it’s approved but he disputed he was taking a route through the regulatory process that avoids having to prove demand.

“This doesn’t avoid anything. There’s been a clearly defined process in the state of Wisconsin for several years. There are questions to be answered by utilities and questions to be answered by independent power producers. We’ve answered the questions the application has required,” he said.

Rakocy said he hopes the economy recovers in the two to three years it takes to approve and construct the wind farm so there is more electrical demand. If the project is approved he will be look for an investor to fund and build it.

If the project goes according to plan, construction could start in early 2013 and be completed in about a year, Rakocy said.

The PSC retains siting jurisdiction over the HWF project. Although siting regulations approved by the PSC earlier this year have been suspended by the Legislature, the PSC will at least need to consider if the application is consistent with the suspended rules, according to statement the PSC issued Monday.

The PSC welcomes public comment on the project once it determines the application complete. The application has been posted to the PSC’s website: psc.wi.gov. The HWF docket number: 2535-CE-100.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: William Rackocy is the same developer who put together the Shirley Wind project, the subject of the video above. Read more about Mr. Rakocy HERE and HERE

Watch the trailer from the award-winning documentary "Windfall" which includes video from Wisconsin wind projects. "Windfall" will be released nationally in February of 2012

"Wind power... it's sustainable ... it burns no fossil fuels...it produces no air pollution. What's more, it cuts down dependency on foreign oil.

That's what the people of Meredith, NY first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement the rural farm town's failing economy with a farm of their own -- that of 40 industrial wind turbines. But when a group of townspeople discover the impacts that a 400-foot high windmill could bring to their community, Meredith's residents become deeply divided as they fight over the future of their community. With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, Windfall is an eye-opener for anyone concerned about the environment and the future of renewable energy."

Next Feature:

From Illinois

DISPUTE STILL STANDS AS WIND CAPITAL PAYS UP

by Andrew Gaug, St. Joseph News-Press,

via www.newspressnow.com

December 22, 2011 

What appeared to be an early Christmas present has turned into an unholy mess, as Wind Capital Group dropped off its property tax payment to DeKalb County on Thursday.

Receiving two checks totaling $1,967,572, delivered to the DeKalb County Courthouse by Stephen Bode, Wind Capital Group operations manager, county officials aren’t sure if they can distribute any of it.

Though the attitudes remain heated between the county and wind farm company, which runs the Lost Creek Wind Farm, over a property tax assessment, County Assessor Ruth Ross was originally pleased to see the company pay part of what she said it owes.

While awaiting judgment from the Missouri State Tax Commission concerning property tax assessment, more than $1 million of the paid taxes will be placed in an escrow account. Not disputing the remaining $951,021.62, the amount Wind Capital Group stated it feels is the correct total it should pay, it was expected to go immediately to DeKalb taxing entities such as schools and fire protection.

“I think this is a wonderful thing that Wind Capital is doing. They’re not disputing it all, and the taxing entities of Missouri will benefit greatly from that money … being dispersed before the first of the year,” she said.

That may not be the case, County Treasurer Jody Pearl stated, as she considered Ms. Ross’ information conflicting with what she was told — that all of the money, including the undisputed amount, would go into the escrow account.

“According to my attorney, (it will) not (be distributed) without an order from the State Tax Commission instructing me how to distribute it,” she said.

Citing Missouri State Statute 139.031, concerning disbursement of tax money during a dispute, Ms. Ross said the undisputed money should be ready to be sent out. In the meantime, she will be contacting her attorney to see what can be done.

Though Ms. Ross was smiling when talking about the schools, fire and police receiving money, she made it clear that issues with the company are anything but dashed.

In a release, Wind Capital stated its pride in paying what it felt was a fair share of the property tax and doing so in a timely manner. “Wind Capital Group believes very strongly in paying our fair share of property taxes in DeKalb County and has now done so,” Mr. Bode said. “For the Lost Creek Project, we have now paid more in property taxes than has ever been paid on a wind energy project in the state of Missouri.”

Considering the company’s statement a misnomer, Ms. Ross said the reason they’re paying more is because they have three times the wind turbines as any other wind farm in the state, and they’re still asking to pay less.

“I always take exception to the fact that they’re paying a lot more taxes to DeKalb County than they are to other counties,” she said. “That’s like you buying a new car and me buying three new cars and I’m expecting my taxes to be the same as yours.”

The company is disputing Ms. Ross’ assessed property tax value of about $297,000 per wind turbine, an amount she came to when using a formula created by former Wind Capital Group CEO Tom Carnahan. Assessors in several other counties in Northwest Missouri with wind farms have told the News-Press they used the same formula as Holt County, without conflict.

Protesting the proposed tax assessment, Wind Capital stated Ms. Ross’ formula is overblown and should be about $142,000. The case awaits a decision from the tax commission.

“We’re still a long ways from being settled, but I want to commend Wind Capital for letting us at least distribute that amount,” Ms. Ross said.

“It will be a huge benefit. Not as much as we would like, but it’s a step.”

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.

Emerging Energies, the wind developers responsible for the controversial Shirley Wind Project in Brown County, are now prospecting in New Haven Township in Dunn County and have expressed interest in siting turbines on the Town Chairman's land, according to sources in the area.

Emerging Energies was named in a federal lawsuit filed by St. Croix County residents.

 The suit alledged that former town board members had conflicts of interest and illegal and secretive dealings with Emerging Energies, LLC, in order to reach the agreements for the approval of the project.

According to the attorney representing Town of Forest residents, they were not notified that the former town board members- who lost a special recall election on February 15, 2011,- had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on August 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.

Landowners who signed contractual leases with Emerging Energies to allow wind turbines on their properties are said to be prohibited contractually from talking about the leases and the proposed project.

The first public notice of the controversial wind energy project arrived in the form of a postcard which was mailed to each Town of Forest property owner with postage paid out of Town funds, announcing the project and a planned bus trip to Glenmore, Wisconsin, to view the “Shirley Project”–which was represented as having “the same wind turbines that are coming to Forest, WI.”

According to the lawsuit, no public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period marked by secretive deliberations between the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC.

Emerging Energies has filed an application with the Public Service Commission for its "Highland Wind Farm" project in St. Croix County. [CLICK HERE TO VISIT PSC WEBSITE: Type in docket number 2535-CE-100 to see Emerging Energy's application. The docket does not appear to be open for public comment at this time]  

Residents believe Emerging Energies wants to bypass the local wind ordinance enacted by the Town Board of Forest. The Town of Cylon is reportedly part of the project.

Bill Rakocy, who is one of the founders of Emerging Energies is well known to Better Plan. He served as one of the Wind Siting Council members charged by the PSC to come up with rules to regulate the siting of large wind turbines in our state.

The Shirley wind project developed by Emerging Energies has already Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energiesresulted in one family abandoning their home because of noise and other problems that began once the Shirley turbines went on line. The turbines in the Shirley wind project are fifty stories tall, making them the largest in the state.

The project has since been 'flipped', and purchased by utility giant, Duke Energy of North Carolina. The amount of money Mr. Rakocy made from this transaction is unknown.

However, the price paid by the Enz family who were forced to abandoned their home due to noise and vibration caused by Rakocy's project is very clear.

       Dave Enz lived near the hamlet of Shirley, 12 miles from Green Bay, since 1978. Last year, wind turbines arrived, several within a half-mile, and he had no inkling they’d be trouble.

Then, he and his wife endured months of earaches, nausea and unexplained anxiety until they realized, when their symptoms vanished on vacation, that it was probably the turbines.

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

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

SOURCE: SOURCE: www.jsonline.comMilwaukee Journal Sentinal 4/27/11

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Here in the U.S. we often hear about how wind development has been fully accepted in Europe, particularly in Denmark where it is often said there have been few complaints.

So why are these Danes risking their lives and risking arrest by laying down in front of the construction equipment for a new Danish wind project?

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

From Minnesota:

Investigators | Wind Power Struggle in Minn.: MyFoxTWINCITIES.com