Entries in host wind turbine (9)

3/20/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: What an Illinois farming family is saying to the wind developers AND Wisconsin Big Industry is saying about Wisconsin Big Wind.

SOURCE: Bureau County Republican,

www.bcrnews.com

Ann Burkey Brezinski

March 17, 2010

I am writing on behalf of Eileen Burkey’s and the late Willard Burkey’s farm located north of Walnut. My great-grandparents purchased and moved to this property in the 1890s.

Since that time, my family has been devoted and faithful caretakers of this acreage. Further, we intend to continue this stewardship for future generations of our family, not just for the benefit of our family but because it is the right thing to do. We are the beneficiaries of a limited, endangered resource that should not be sacrificed.

We will not sign the Wind Project Lease Agreement for four, irrefutable reasons.

First, we will not diminish our tillable acres — either by area or by productivity. To do otherwise is both short-sighted and irresponsible. A wind turbine and its access roadways would decrease our tillable acres. The productivity of the soil would be diminished by compaction and damage to the farm tile system.

Second, we will not sign a contract that provides unilateral “sole discretion” in a LaSalle Street, Chicago limited liability corporate tenant regarding numerous matters concerning our family farm. We are obviously in this for the long haul and will not let our property be irrevocably abused and controlled by outsiders for their financial gain.

Third, the proposed Wind Project Lease Agreement is extremely protective of the wind turbine company, and it does not afford the farm owner the same legal protections. My professional reservations include the potential 70-year duration of the lease and its ramifications upon future generations.

It is impossible to predict the financial viability of the developer or its successors for that time period, or even to gauge the reasonableness of the terms for such a time period. Also, the lease’s list of easement effects will affect the quality of life of anyone in the vicinity of the turbines; this list includes everything from sound pollution to visual blight to air turbulence to radio-frequency interference, to name a few.

I question whether the proposed payment structure is sufficient to compensate for this open-ended list. Further, the lease terms provide that a landowner cannot construct any structure anywhere on his property without first meeting with the developer in order to determine a site that will not impact the developer’s rights. The overriding theme in the proposed lease is clearly the developer’s rights, not the rights of landowners.

Fourth, we are very concerned about evidence showing farmland values are lowered by the existence of neighboring wind turbines. We will not sign a contract that will detrimentally impact the farmland values of our neighbors and friends, and would hope that our neighbors and friends would have the same consideration for us.

Ann Burkey Brezinski

 

Current 10% Renewables Mandate Costs Too Much, Creates Unneeded Generation

SOURCE: WIEG.ORG

Wisconsin currently has much more energy supply than it has energy demand – indeed, its excess energy supply is more than twice the amount required by law. 

Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has concluded that Wisconsin’s 10% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) trumps our energy needs, energy costs, and statutory conservation requirements, which effectively renders meaningless those “off ramps” that were intended to serve as a safety valve should the cost of renewable energy become too expensive. 

We currently get about 5% of our statewide needs from renewable generation – and we have a long, expensive way to go to meet even the current 10% RPS.  Yet we have no immediate, or even short term, need for more generation.  Wisconsin is building a lot of unnecessary generation at a premium cost. 

Crane Creek (2008) – Wisconsin Public Service Corporation – $251 million – 99 MW

The Commission concluded that Crane Creek was not needed until at least 2021 and that no new generation was needed until at least 2018.

The Commission models showed that a natural gas turbine was less expensive than a wind farm.

WPSC has a roughly 50% reserve margin - it already has way more energy supply than demand.

Bent Tree (2009) – Wisconsin Power and Light Company – $500 million – 200 MW

The Commission approved Bent Tree with a sales forecast that did not include WPL’s extraordinary loss of electric sales over the past year and more (General Motors, Domtar paper mill and other major energy-intensive companies).

WPL requested and received $30 million in its last rate case (Docket 6680-UR-117) for the up-front construction costs of the wind farm that has not yet put any iron in the ground.

Bent Tree was the biggest line item in a rate increase request of roughly $100 million or 10%.

Blue Sky Green Field (2007) – WE Energies – over $300 million – 145 MW

The Commission approved Blue Sky Green Field even though it expressly concluded that the energy would not be needed until around 2015 - eight years after it approved the project.

The Commission recognized that the Project was more expensive than fossil fuel generation. 

The Commission approved the Project because of WE Energies need to meet its RPS mandate.

Glacier Hills (2010) – WE Energies – up to $452 million – 200 MW

The Commission concluded that WE Energies needed Glacier Hills in order to meet its RPS mandate, not because it needed more generation.

In her concurring opinion, Commission Azar recognized that WE Energies - and the state as a whole - may soon be exporting energy that it does not itself need, given “the current excess of capacity in Wisconsin.”  And yet, the PSC still approved this project.

WE Energies still plans to spend over $1 billion in new projects to comply with the 10% RPS law.

A decade ago Wisconsin’s electric rates were among the lowest in the country; now, its rates are among the highest in the Midwest.  These four wind projects alone will cost ratepayers at minimum $1.5 billion and they are or will soon be producing energy that Wisconsin does not currently need.  The reason the Commission approved these projects was to meet the current 10% RPS mandate, and we are only at 5% statewide right now. 

The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming recommends boosting the RPS to 25 percent by 2025.  Imagine what a 150% increase in RPS requirement will do to customer bills, at a time when the generation simply is not needed.  We will be generation rich, yes.  But cash poor. 

 Follow BetterPlanWI on Twitter

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

3/3/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: Brown County Board takes wind turbine related health concerns seriously AND The wind industry says if you would only admit your turbine problems are all in your head you could do something about them. AND More turbines, more problems.

Home for sale, Fond du Lac County, WI February 2010

 

BROWN COUNTY TO STUDY WIND FARMS' IMPACT

SOURCE: Greenbay Press-Gazette

By Tony Walter

March 3, 2010

A Brown County Board committee voted Tuesday to form a special committee to gather information about the health, safety and economic impact of wind turbines on county residents. 

  The Public Safety Committee didn’t specify who will serve on the committee or develop a timetable but agreed that the findings should be presented at a future committee meeting.

A Chicago-based developer is seeking state approval to build the first major commercial wind farm in Brown County, a project that would put 100 wind turbines in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore.

The issue came to a head Tuesday because wind turbine opponents said there is evidence that they could interfere with emergency radio communications. But several of the approximately 50 wind farm opponents who attended the meeting said they are as concerned for health reasons.

“This whole thing is being jammed down our throats,” said Marilyn Nies of Greenleaf, whose 5-year-old daughter has a heart disease. Some wind turbine opponents say the turbines can cause a variety of health issues that could affect people like her daughter. “Is it going to hurt us to wait a year or two so real studies can be accomplished?”

Carl Johnson of Greenleaf said the turbines add the turbines will bring low frequency noise, which he called “a new type of pollution.”

Steve Deslauriers of Greenleaf urged the committee to consider a wind diversion ordinance.

“The county’s voice needs to be heard,” he said.

Carl Kuehne of Ledgeview cited university studies in Spain, Germany and Denmark that he said showed wind turbines to be “total, complete and utter failures” in those countries. He said other studies have shown property values decreased 25-40 percent on property adjacent to wind farms.

He asked the committee to recommend a moratorium on wind turbines until a thorough investigation can be completed.

Oil splatters on a Fond du Lac County wind turbine, February 2010 

SECOND FEATURE:

The following commentary comes to Better Plan from a resident living in a Fond du Lac County wind project who wishes to remain anonymous.

You have an attitude problem.

That’s the wind industry’s latest explanation for the growing number of complaints from people living in industrial wind projects.  They say, “You people just don’t like these things.”
 
The implication is that if you just changed your attitude, the problems you're having with turbine noise, sleep disruption, shadow flicker, and homes that will not sell--- all of these problems will go away.
 
As a Wisconsin resident who has been living in a wind project for nearly two years, I have to ask what it is that the industry wants you to like? What is there to like about having your home surrounded by 400 foot wind turbines?  I can’t think of a thing …
 
-Unless you like constant audible and low frequency noise, from whooshing and thumping to grinding mechanical noises and transformer hum.    
 
-Unless you enjoy chronic sleep disruption and associated health problems for you and your family.

-Unless you enjoy signal interference on your radio, TV, and cell phone.   

-Unless you want to live in an area where Flight for Life emergency transport helicopters can no longer land.

-Unless you enjoy the strobe flashing of turbine shadow flicker inside and outside of your home on sunny days and moonlit nights.
 
-Unless you are glad the birds and bats are gone along and other wildlife once so common before the turbines went  up.
 
-Unless you think it’s beautiful to be surrounded by scores of red lights flashing in unison from the turbines at night, or regard leaking oil on the towers and land below as decorative.

-Unless you want to live in a place where wind developers pitted neighbor against neighbor and tore the community apart in a way that will never be repaired.
 
-Unless you appreciate your peace of mind and family relationships disintegrating because of the stress of no sleep and uncertainty about being able to sell your house, because you’ve seen how the houses in your project just sit with no buyers, because you know how few people want to buy a home so near turbines and you can’t blame them—because you wouldn’t want to live so close to wind turbines either.

Except, now, of course, you do.  

This new “blame the victim” PR move underscores the wind industry's own attitude problem, one of insensitivity and an inability to understand and be compassionate toward the people whose problems began only after the wind turbines went up.

 

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: 

There have been a number of reasons why residents of wind projects in our state have asked for anonymity when contacting Better Plan.  Some have family members who work for companies associated with construction of the turbines. Some have family members or neighbors who are hosting turbines. Some are hosting turbines themselves and regretting it, but are fearful of being sued by the wind company for violating the gag order in their contract.

Better Plan is glad to insure anonymity to any wind project resident who contacts us, but we always confirm the identity of anyone who submits material for us to post.

We'd like to thank the family who sent us this commentary.

THIRD FEATURE

Wind turbines stir up controversy in Brown County

SOURCE: WFRV-TV Channel 5 News

BROWN COUNTY (WFRV) – Some Brown County residents say they’re worried about plans to put a 100 turbine wind farm in southern Brown County.

Invenergy wants to build 400-foot wind turbines on 72-square miles of land.
Residents enumerated a host of issues they have with the build at a Brown County Committee meeting Tuesday evening.

Home owners say they're worried about well contamination, noise pollution and potential unseen health issues. A concerned parent speaking from the podium at Tuesday’s meeting said she’s worried the project could worsen her 5-year-old’s heart condition. She wants to delay the project a year or two for a comprehensive study. “I feel like this whole thing is being jammed down our throats.”

Steve Deslauriers, a Town of Morrison firefighter, says he’s worried 9-1-1 calls could be interrupted by the wind turbine’s blades. “If it impacts even one accident scene, it’s one too many” Deslauries tells Channel 5’s Jenna Sachs.

Deslauriers also says he’s worried history shows rescue choppers might not fly near the turbines. “We can look to Fond du Lac County as a guide for how flight rescue would be handled” Deslauriers says. “There they will not fly into a wind farm at night or into a cluster of wind turbines.”

Sachs spoke with representatives from Invenergy and Brown County Public Safety about the 9-1-1 issue. Both parties say they can work together to make sure 9-1-1 signals aren’t interrupted, since the new radio towers haven’t been built yet.

2/21/10 Turbines leaking oil near Towns of Johnsburg, AND Empire in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin

During a recent visit to the We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field wind project near the Town of Johnsburg in Fond du Lac County, at least seven turbines appeared to be leaking oil.

Residents pointed out the leaks and stated the problem seems to be increasing throughout the project.

Our camera wasn't capable of long range shots of turbines in the field, but oil leaking from a turbine sited nearer to the road is visible in this video.

The photos in the second video were sent to us by residents of the Cedar Ridge wind project near the Town of Empire in Fond du Lac County.

2/19/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: CORRECTION: We were wrong. It was MONROE county not Brown County AND When it comes to the ways of wind developers, the cat that lost its tongue found it on Thursday night in Brown County AND what does it take to come between a father and son? Would you guess a payment from a wind developer? AND Wisconsin wind farm residents are not alone in health complaints 

Concerns about proposed Invenergy project drew capacity crowd to Thursday's BCCRWE meeting

Correction: Better Plan was in error when reporting that residents who spoke out against the Invenergy project proposed for Brown County found dead skunks and deer heads on their mailboxes.

The dead skunks and deer heads were found on the mail boxes of those who spoke out against an Invenergy project in Monroe County

Better Plan regrets the error.

 Concerns about proposed Invenergy wind project draws capacity crowd to meeting in Brown County

Better Plan, Wisconsin

By Lynda Barry

February 20, 2010

KAUKANA-  It was standing room only in Van Able's restaurant after residents quickly filled the five hundred seats in the banquet hall and overflowed into a side room.

Community members came to hear concerns about Chicago-based Invenergy's 100 turbine Ledge Wind project which would occupy the Towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore, making it the largest wind development in the state.

The event was organized by a grassroots community organization called Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (bccrwe.com) and drew a capacity crowd. 

Along with speakers who addressed the now well-known issues of turbine noise, sleep loss, shadow flicker, loss of property value and impacts on farm animals, local residents had the chance to hear about something rarely spoken about in public.

  Landowners detailed their first hand experiences with the questionable techniques used by Invenergy to convince them to sign onto the project.

They spoke about being lied to by developers who said their neighbors had signed onto the project when in fact they had not. They spoke about the varying amounts of money offered to different landowners even as Invenergy claimed publicly that all landowners were getting the same amount.

Some landowners talked about about what made them decide not to sign on to the project while others expressed deep regrets about having signed the contracts.

There were several discussions about what options landowners had for getting out of contracts and along with concerns about being sued by the wind company.

Speakers also talked about about the negative impact the proposal has had on the community and spoke about the new hostilities between neighbors and family members.

A speaker from Monroe county mentioned that in his community residents who spoke publicly against the project were soon greeted by dead skunks and deer heads on their mailboxes. Some felt the wounds made to this previously strong community would never heal.

Invenergy representatives were in attendance but did not openly identify themselves and remained quiet throughout the meeting.

More on this story to come.

SECOND FEATURE


Wind farm debate divides families

WBAY-TV, www.wbay.com

by Jeff Alexander

February 17  2010

Plans to build the state’s largest wind farm in southern Brown County is dividing several rural communities. It’s even causing turmoil within families.

For almost a year now, Roland Klug has lobbied his neighbors to join him in signing contracts with a Chicago company to build 400-foot wind turbines on their land in Morrison. As Roland sees it, it’s a sign of the times.

“Some people hate them. I love them. I think it’s progressive. It’s a country moving forward,” Roland said.

But just a mile away is another sign with a very different message put up by Roland’s son, Dave.

Like many families in this farming country, the Klugs are at odds with each other.

“It is very, very trying I will say right now,” Dave said.

As Dave sees it, the prospect of 100 turbines towering over the landscape is appalling. The fact that four could be as close as 1,000 feet from his home is scary, he says.

He points to research he says he’s done on other wind farm developments around the country and the impact on nearby residents.

“Every one we read about are having all kinds of health issues, property values drop, and to me I guess it just doesn’t seem like it’s a real good investment for our community,” Dave said.

But according to Roland, it’s an investment that will help him keep his farm. He’s signed on for two turbines that will pay him $20,000 a year.

Roland says he “had to sell off 48 acres to make a payment for a couple of years, and we’d have to just keep selling off.”

Roland knows he’s made some neighbors angry. “My son gets very mad.”

Dave said, “My son is 21 and was all set to buy some land right by me which would’ve been my dream, been great, but right now we had to put it all on hold. You cross your fingers, but he’s probably going to end up living somewhere else.”

Roland says, “I just know in time it’ll all straighten out, it always does.”

Dave Klug, though, isn’t so sure. Especially if the wind turbines go in.

There is a meeting scheduled for Thursday night called “Living in an Industrial Wind Turbine Project.”

It’s at Van Abel’s in the Town of Holland. Doors open at 6 P.M. and speakers begin at 7.

NEW!  CLICK HERE to watch a video about wind farm residents in Australia who describe sleep loss, health problems and other complaints identical to those reported by Wisconsin wind farm residents.

For those with slower internet connections CLICK HERE to read the transcript of the interview

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: People who live in Rock County may be interested in the wind company's response to resident's complaints. Spanish owned Acciona is the same company that now owns the leases to land in the Towns of Magnolia and Union. Better Plan, Wisconsin has contacted Acciona several times to ask about their plans for the community. Acciona has not replied.

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"


1/30/10 ANOTHER TRIPLE FEATURE: UK's National Health Service takes a closer look at Wind Industry funded health study AND South of the border, down DeKalb and Lee County Way: With 145 turbines running, "It doesn't feel like home anymore" AND What kind of changes will another 150 turbines bring to Livingston County? 

Home in an Illinois wind farm 

Wind turbine sound needs research

Source: NHS Choices Knowledge Service

NOTE: NHS Choices is the online front door to the UK National Health Service (NHS).
http://www.nhs.uk

Behind the Headlines is a service of NHS Choices. It provides an unbiased and evidence-based daily analysis of the science behind health stories that make the news. It aims to respond to stories the day they appear in the media.

Thursday January 28 2010

What were the NHS 'Behind the headlines' findings about the wind industry sponsored health study?

CONCLUSION: [The study is] a non-systematic review of literature. There are several points to be made about this research:

  • There is no clear description of the methods the researchers used to search for available research, nor how they rated the quality of the research they found. Therefore, it is not possible to say that all relevant research was identified, or comment on the reliability of the research that was included.
  • This review panel was commissioned by an industry group, and included a variety of academic perspectives, but not an epidemiologist. Someone with this specific skill set should be included when environmental health hazards are assessed.
  • The link between psychological distress and physical symptoms has not been explored by this report. The acknowledgment that some people exposed to wind turbine noise suffer annoyance suggests that monitoring and maximum permitted levels need to be considered carefully in areas where turbines are planned.

Overall, this review will probably not resolve this controversy as there was a lack of high-level evidence on which to base any solid conclusions. What is now needed are studies that compare people exposed to turbine noise with well-matched control subjects who have not had that exposure. These studies should also carefully evaluate the psychological harms of noise exposure.

More research is needed on wind turbines and health

Source: NHS Choices Knowledge Service

“The noise caused by wind farms can make some people ill”, reported The Daily Telegraph. It said experts have dismissed the idea of a "wind turbine syndrome" as a special cause of headaches, nausea and panic attacks, but have acknowledged that the irritation caused by the noise can affect certain individuals.

The story is based on an industry commissioned review of the current research on the possible health effects of wind turbine noise. It found that the sound (including subaudible sound) is not unique, and does not pose a risk to human health. Although the sound may cause ‘annoyance’ for some people, this in itself is not an adverse health effect.

This research is unlikely to resolve the controversy over the potential health effects from wind turbines. This is mainly because the research on which the review was based is not sufficient to prove or disprove that there are health effects. The review itself also had some methodological shortcomings, and the reviewing group did not include an epidemiologist, usually a given for assessing  potential environmental health hazards.

Further research on this issue is needed. Ideally this would involve comparing people exposed to wind turbine noise with well-matched control subjects who have not had that exposure. These studies should also carefully evaluate the psychological harms of noise exposure.

 

Where did the story come from?

The news report is centred around a review by a panel of independent experts looking into the issue of Wind Turbine Syndrome. Their review, called “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects”, was presented at a meeting of the Institute of Acoustics Wind Turbine Noise in Cardiff on Wednesday January 27. The presentation was made by one of the experts on the panel, Dr Geoff Leventhall, a UK-based noise and vibration consultant.

Dr Leventhall carried out the review with Dr David Colby, an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario, and other independent experts in medicine, public health, audiology and acoustics. The panel aimed to “provide an authoritative reference document for legislators, regulators, and anyone who wants to make sense of the conflicting information about wind turbine sound”. The review was commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

What kind of research was this?

This was a non-systematic literature review of the available literature on the perceived health effects of wind turbines.

What did the research involve?

The panel of experts began their literature review by searching the scientific database PubMed for studies under the heading “Wind Turbines and Health Effects” and “vibroacoustic disease”. They provide an extensive reference list of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

The researchers reviewed the studies that looked at infrasound (a low frequency sound wave that cannot usually be heard) sounds that can be heard, and the vibration produced by wind turbines. The researchers were looking for answers to the following questions:

  • How do wind turbine operations affect human hearing?
  • How do wind turbines produce sound, and how is it measured and tested?
  • What type of exposure to wind turbines is more likely to be perceived by humans (low-frequency sound, infrasound or vibration)?
  • What are the potential adverse effects and health implications of sound exposure?

The researchers say that infrasound is defined as acoustic oscillations with frequencies below audible sound levels (about 16 Hz). Low-frequency sound, they say, is typically considered as sound that can be heard in the 10 Hz to 200 Hz range, but it is not closely defined.

They also considered how to define ‘annoyance’, which is a subjective response to many types of sounds, which varies among people. They acknowledge that constant low frequency sounds can be a frustrating experience for people, but say it is not considered an adverse health effect or disease. They say that annoyance from airports, road traffic, etc. cannot be predicted easily with a sound level meter.

The researchers give an overview of the evidence on the effects of noise exposure in general. They also give detailed descriptions of the research they found on the effects of wind turbine noise. They say these case series, though important for raising suspicion of harm, cannot show causation. For this, repeated case-control studies or cohort studies are needed.

What were the basic results?

The researchers describe the effect of various sounds on ‘annoyance’. They say that as sound gets louder, more people who hear it will become distressed until nearly everybody is affected. But this will occur to varying degrees. They say it is not clear why some people continue to be adversely affected by sound when it reverts to a low level. This occurs at all frequencies, although there seems to be more subjective variability at the lower frequencies.

The ‘nocebo’ effect is discussed, which is the opposite of the ‘placebo’ effect. This is where an adverse outcome, a worsening of mental or physical health is based on fear or belief in adverse effects.

The researchers also describe the studies they identified that looked at ‘wind turbine syndrome’, where symptoms are said to include sleep disturbance, headache, ringing in the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, nausea, visual blurring, fast heart beats, irritability, poor concentration, memory, panic attacks, internal pulsation, and quivering. They say that the syndrome has no physiological or pathological mechanism behind it, but is an example of the well-known stress effects of exposure to noise, as displayed by a small proportion of the population.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The panel reached agreement on three key points:

  • There is no evidence that the sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
  • The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
  • The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that the sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.

They conclude that the collective symptoms in some people exposed to wind turbines are more likely to be associated with annoyance at the low sound levels from wind turbines, rather than directly caused by them.

Conclusion

This is a non-systematic review of literature. There are several points to be made about this research:

  • There is no clear description of the methods the researchers used to search for available research, nor how they rated the quality of the research they found. Therefore, it is not possible to say that all relevant research was identified, or comment on the reliability of the research that was included.
  • This review panel was commissioned by an industry group, and included a variety of academic perspectives, but not an epidemiologist. Someone with this specific skill set should be included when environmental health hazards are assessed.
  • The link between psychological distress and physical symptoms has not been explored by this report. The acknowledgment that some people exposed to wind turbine noise suffer annoyance suggests that monitoring and maximum permitted levels need to be considered carefully in areas where turbines are planned.

Overall, this review will probably not resolve this controversy as there was a lack of high-level evidence on which to base any solid conclusions. What is now needed are studies that compare people exposed to turbine noise with well-matched control subjects who have not had that exposure. These studies should also carefully evaluate the psychological harms of noise exposure.

Links to the headlines

Wind farms can cause noise problems finds study. The Daily Telegraph, January 28 2010

Conference over claims wind farms are health risk. BBC News, January 28 2010

Links to the science

Colby WD, Dobie R, Leventhall G, et al. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects. An Expert Panel Review. December 2009

 SECOND STORY:

WIND TURBINES DISRUPT LOCAL RESIDENTS

Northern Star, www.northernstar.info

By Demarcus Robinson

January 29, 2010

DeKalb County resident Tammy Duriavich has noticed changes since the wind turbines have been turned on near her home. Recently, Duriavich’s horses have been acting differently to the point that one day, her horse bit her.Duriavich said her horses had never behaved in such a way before the turbines were erected. Duriavich also said that her dogs, who are normally quiet, are now constantly barking.

Between DeKalb County and Lee County, 145 wind turbines are officially in use.

“They are turning and generating electricity as of the last week of December,” said Ruth Anne Tobias, DeKalb County Board chairwoman. Tobias said the project went very smooth, taking about six months from start to finish.

Many county residents, though, are unhappy with the placement of the wind farms and find themselves faced with adversity. Though many residents complained about the project before completion and are continuing to do so, the DeKalb County Board did not find enough evidence to abandon the wind farms.

“The county board had to decide if this was an appropriate special use,” Tobias said. “We thought the issues of residents were not enough to cause hardships.” Residents’ concerns ranged from lowered property value to noise complaints.

Resident Roger Craigmile described the noise of the turbines as sometimes being comparable to a circular saw for four hours.

“I was concerned about noise and shadow flicker,” said Mel Hass, spokesman for Citizens for Open Government.

Hass said he talked to other people who live near wind farms in different areas who have had to move the bedrooms to the inside portion of their houses, like the living room, to avoid the sound of the turbines.

After the wind turbines were up and running, some residents found that noise and shadow flicker were not the only aspects that would be affecting them. A change in lifestyle was the consequence for some citizens.

Some of the problems that county residents have encountered are health-related. DeKalb County resident Ron Flex said that his wife’s vertigo has worsened because of the shadow flicker.“My wife almost drove off the road because of the shadow flicker,” he said.

The possibility of relocating has crossed the minds of some of the residents affected.“I might have to move,” Flex said. “It doesn’t feel like home anymore.”

The state of agriculture has also drawn some concern because of the turbines.“Local crop dusters say they won’t fly in the area,” Hass said.

Simply picking up and moving is not an option that every resident has if they aren’t pleased. Duriavich, like many others, have children who are in school in the area. Hass said he has elderly parents who are in a nursing home and his job does not allow him to simply relocate as easily as others can.

“A lot of us are in a situation where we can’t leave yet,” Duriavich said.

Some citizens voiced concerns about how they will deal with not wanting to be burdened with the wind turbines when warmer weather comes. “I can’t imagine the summer. Many of us don’t have air conditioning on purpose.” said DeKalb County resident Paula Kyler. “I don’t know how we’re going to manage.”

The county has made some policy provisions for residents though. “DeKalb County negotiated a property value guarantee within 1.5 to .75 of a mile to a turbine,” Tobias said. “The company [Florida Power & Light] agreed to buy property after fair market value assessment.”

Residents have been advised that this offer may not be totally beneficial. “The property value agreement, according to attorneys, is grossly flawed,” Hass said. Not all residents see this as a fair offer, and they would like to see the agreement benefit them more.

“What if Florida Power & Light and the county guaranteed to buy our property at fair market value as if the turbines weren’t there?” Duriavich said.

The citizens are not entirely sure what they would like to see happen in an effort to patch relationships, but they had some ideas.

“Take care of the noise,” Kyler said.

“Quit, walk out, resign and admit they were wrong,” Duriavich said.

Many residents would prefer to move because the discomfort they feel from the turbines may be too much.

“I don’t know if I can stay,” Hass said. “Maybe if the county board had some compassion, they and Florida Power & Light could work something out.”

THIRD STORY:

Wind farms: Financial Windfall or destruction of rural land?

Source: mywebtimes.com

January 29, 2010

 By Derek Barichello

The topic: Construction of wind turbines in Newtown, Sunbury and Nevada townships

What happened?

Iberdrola Renewables plans to construct a minimum of 150 approximately 400-foot tall turbines within a rural area of Livingston County called Cayuga Ridge. This area includes Newtown, Sunbury and Nevada townships just southeast of Streator. Horizon Wind Energy also plans to build turbines within this area. These projects would connect a line of wind farms that extend to the south of Marseilles.

As Judy Campbell looked out to the north horizon from her rural Manville home and saw a number of wind turbines rotating in the distance, she felt an invasion was imminent.

Campbell fears the expansion will destroy the rural character of those townships.

“So many people came here with dreams,” said Campbell, who is a Livingston County board member. “It’s my belief the area will be impacted in such a way that it will negatively impact the quality of life. We’ll be living inside a power plant.”

That is why Campbell, with the help of attorney Carolyn Gerwin, decided to put the issue on the ballot.

On Feb. 2, residents of Newtown, Sunbury and Nevada townships will get to voice their opinion on this expansion.

Stated in a sample nonpartisan ballot issued by the Livingston County clerk, one question asks if trustees should pass a resolution to stop the construction of new wind turbines before Jan. 1, 2015, and another is a proposition requiring property value guarantee plans for properties within two miles of new wind farm construction.

“It is the first time anybody has asked the people who will have to live around the windmills what they think,” Campbell said. “Something that impacts us locally deserves public input up front.”

In order to get a resolution put on the ballot, a group called People Protecting Cayuga Ridge collected signatures from voters in Newtown, Sunbury, Nevada, Broughton and Sullivan townships. Not enough signatures were collected for Sullivan, and Broughton trustees decided not to take action at their township meeting.

According to Streator City Manager Paul Nicholson, none of the wind turbines affected by the moratorium are designated for Streator’s enterprise zone.

Meanwhile, Iberdrola and Horizon have conducted open houses to answer questions and support their position on the resolution.

At Dwight Township High School Wednesday, Iberdrola hosted an event attended by about 25 residents. Like others, this open house featured displays with studies the company commissioned through independent experts and allowed residents to ask questions to company spokespeople directly. Horizon held its open house at Odell Grade School on Tuesday.

There was concern among all citizens attending the events on how the resolution is written. A “no” vote on each ballot shows support for wind turbine construction, while a “yes” vote is in opposition of their expansion.

“We want people to understand what’s at stake,” said Jeff Reinkenmeyer, director of Midwest development for Iberdrola. “We wanted to make it clear what each vote meant. We also wanted to take an opportunity to field any questions for those residents who have them.”

Why does it matter?

While Campbell looks toward the horizon at her rural residence and sees an invasion, many others, including Nevada Township resident Doug Abry, see opportunity.

With the more than 150 wind turbines constructed in the Cayuga Ridge project, revenue is estimated near $1.5 million in annual payments to those who host wind turbines or live near one, as well as $3.3 million in tax revenue with about $1.8 million going to school districts.

Not only that, but Iberdrola plans to hire about 400 construction workers and 40 permanent positions.

The amount of revenue divided between townships and school districts depends on which wind turbines are designated to which community’s enterprise zones. Abry estimated his township would gain $198,000 and Odell Grade School more than $200,000.

“I see a lot more good coming out of these than bad,” Abry said. “The townships and schools need the revenue. This will mean better roads and better schools.”

Though the annual payments to those hosting wind turbines exist for the life of the turbines, construction in Livingston County is given 100 percent property tax abatement for the first five years through enterprise zone status. Since this will increase equalized assessed value in the county and affect state aid awarded to school districts, in return, those companies are expected to give in-kind payments half of what property taxes would be, according to Adams. This expires after five years. Adams also confirmed the school district can opt out of this plan if state aid payments change and make this plan detrimental to the district.

With the uncertainty of state payments, Dwight School District Superintendent Dale Adams says the school district cannot turn down the revenue, especially with income estimated at $900,000 over five years.

After that expiration date, the property taxes collected from the turbines are expected to offset the loss in financial aid.

“This is still a good deal because it saves the school from taking a hit in financial aid,” Adams said. “It’s a benefit to the school.”

According to Reinkenmeyer, wind turbines have a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years.

While that may be the case from a mechanical perspective, opponents such as Campbell question wind energy’s sustainability without the aid of the federal government. These opponents also question where the liability exists if wind turbines are abandoned or broken.

That is why Campbell said the referendum asks the township to wait until 2015 before opening up debate again on wind energy.

“They have not shown they can sustain themselves without federal subsidies,” Campbell said. “It’s my belief consumers will be asked to maintain them in the future. At what point will we be balking at them for that? Is it possible they could go bankrupt if we do? We have to think that could happen.”

To that debate, Reinkenmeyer defends Iberdrola’s product. He said the company calculated positive rates of return for the long term.

“Wind will be competitive,” Reinkenmeyer said. “The cost of wind versus the cost of other sources of power are competitive. The operating costs are much less for wind. Wind will remain at a constant price because it is renewable, and we don’t have to pay for raw material. And we anticipate federal compensation because every utility is subsidized.”

Other concerns from residents include the towers ruining views, noise generated, blinking lights and liabilities for host farms.

“My wife and I have not decided how we will vote,” said rural Cornell resident John Marec. “We had concerns about the transmission lights and whether they would allow you to have your own alternative sources of power on your property. I got my questions answered, but I still don’t know.”

Campbell believes those factors could ultimately decrease the value of properties within the wind farms, which is why the second part of the referendum asks wind companies to provide a property value guarantee.

At Iberdrola’s open house in Dwight, the company provided data from Michael Crowley, an independent real estate consultant who did studies in Illinois and did not find any negative impact to property value.

“If they tell us that it will not affect our property values, why are they hesitant to give us a guarantee?” Campbell asked.

What’s next?

On Feb. 2, voters will file into schools and township halls to finally voice their opinion on wind energy.

The referendum appears to be a matter of trust and risk/reward. While the rewards are great to the community, will they continue? And is it worth it to deal with certain nuisances for the greater good of the township and school district?

Though it is possible for voters to oppose expansion of wind farms into their townships, that does not mean the wind farms will necessarily cease their plans.

The moratorium is only an advisory referendum and a “Yes” vote would put pressure on the Livingston County Zoning Board to decide whether it wishes to honor the referendum.

If a “Yes” vote does occur, Reinkenmeyer said Ibedrola would continue with its plans, while Horizon did not offer comment.

“We obviously want to understand the enthusiasm level a community has for our projects,” Reinkenmeyer said. “But we would still go ahead with our proposal this spring and move forward.”

Reinkenmeyer said several of the contracts have been signed and confirmed those terms are confidential. He said negotiations still continue with several other landowners.

Campbell, on the other hand, believes it would be a symbolic victory against legislation in favor of wind farms.

“It would tell them, we don’t want to give up our rural character,” Campbell said. “It would be a huge victory for the people who have to live within these wind farms.”

Want to do more?

Registered residents of these townships can vote between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 2. For Newtown Township, voting will take place at Township Hall in Manville, for Sunbury at the rural township hall and Nevada at the Dwight Country Club.

For more questions, Iberdrola’s Jeff Reinkenmeyer can be reached at 262-593-2764. Campbell suggested the Web site at www.windaction.org for more information.

Page | 1 | 2 | Next 5 Entries