Better Plan, Wisconsin

WIND TURBINE PLAN WHIPS UP CONTROVERSY IN FOREST

SOURCE: New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com

October 29 2010

By Jeff Holmquist,

A proposal to construct a wind turbine network in the Town of Forest, east of New Richmond, isn’t being met with universal support.

A number of local residents have been attending Town of Forest Board and Planning Commission meetings over the past few weeks to voice their displeasure with the plan.

The project is being promoted by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin LLC, a Hubertus company that is involved in several wind farm projects across the region.

Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years.

In an earlier interview with the New Richmond News, Bill Rakocy, co-founder and principal of Emerging Energies, said the Forest area is “very favorable” as a site for large wind turbines. The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.

Emerging Energies hopes to construct up to 40 turbines in the Forest area by 2013 and sell the power to a utility company such as WE Energies or Xcel. A number of local landowners have expressed an interest in having one of the 2.5-megawatt, 350- to 495-foot-tall turbines constructed on their land.

A developer’s agreement was signed in August between the Forest Town Board and Emerging Energies. Under the agreement, landowners within a half mile of each turbine, the Town of Forest and St. Croix County would receive annual direct payments during the life of the turbines.

In response to the town’s agreement action, residents opposed to the proposal formed an advocacy group called “Forest Voice.”

The group has since asked the town board to consider a moratorium on wind turbine installation until an ordinance could be developed regulating such structures in the community.

But after receiving advice from its attorney, the town board noted that any new ordinance wouldn’t apply to the Emerging Energies project because regulations cannot be retroactively changed once something is already approved and a developer’s agreement is signed.

Residents then asked the town board to reconsider its agreement, suggesting that the contract was void because it was “illegal.”

Forest resident Jaime Junker, spokesperson for “Forest Voice,” said there was a “rush” to get the agreement signed and that the appropriate steps were not followed when the wind project was first approved in 2008 and then later solidified on Aug. 12, 2010.

He said the town’s planning commission never voted on a recommendation on the matter, even though later documents suggest that that body voted to recommend the project.

Junker also said that a resolution related to the eventual developer’s agreement may not have been properly signed, leading “Forest Voice” members to conclude that the agreement isn’t yet a legally-binding document.

According to a Notice of Claim filed by “Forest Voice,” opponents of the proposal worry that the wind project will have a negative impact on the health and safety of residents, as well as have a detrimental impact on the quality of life for those living in the township.

Junker said the filed notice is the first step in the group’s potential legal action against local elected officials and Emerging Energies.

Two town board members met in closed session last Thursday to consider the suggestion that the agreement be nullified. Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel has recently abstained from being involved in the wind turbine issue because of a conflict of interest.

No action was taken to rescind the agreement when the town board members recovened in open session Thursday.

Board member Carlton Cress said the the agreement will apparently stand as originally approved.

Cress called the situation “unfortunate,” but noted that concerned residents should have gotten involved in the approval process sooner.

“We’ve had some good meetings on the subject, and a lot of people on both sides of the topic have been there,” Cress said. “But they weren’t at our meetings at the right time.”

He said earlier meetings related to the wind turbines were well publicized and the board was open to any feedback. But when few objections surfaced, the project went through.

Cress added that the wind turbine controversy has been the most contentious debate he’s been involved in during his 24 years on the town board.

A state panel, established by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, approved a new set of standards for wind turbine construction in August. The Forest project likely will not be covered by those new rules because the project was officially approved by the town board in 2008.

OREGON COUNTY TELLS WIND FARM TO QUIET DOWN

 SOURCE: NPR, www.npr.org

October 28 2010

By Tom Banse

HEPPNER, Ore. – An Oregon county is telling the owner of a big wind farm to quiet down so neighbors can sleep at night. The operator of the Willow Creek Energy Center southwest of Boardman objects to the unusual noise enforcement.

Another wind farm developer active in the area has reportedly paid neighbors “hush money” to head off similar trouble. Correspondent Tom Banse has been traveling through eastern Oregon this week for a two part series on how wind power is seen by those closest to it. Here’s his report from Morrow County.

General contractor Dan Williams lives in a hexagonal house designed to let in panoramic views from all directions. Two years ago, this northern Oregon big sky scenery changed dramatically.

Williams: “White sticks and propellers everywhere!”

A wind power developer put up dozens of towering wind turbines on the other side of the Willow Creek valley. The blades spin about three-quarters of a mile away. Retired firefighter Dennis Wade lives even closer to the windmills. Wade drops by the Williams’ place for a chat.

Dennis Wade: “It sounds like a train or a jet that never arrives, that just keeps going in one place.”

Dan Williams: “The sleeplessness…that’s the major thing for us.”

Dennis Wade: “I have woken up at night and it’s like somebody beating on your chest from the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh.”

Sound:

Dan Williams: “For me, it makes me feel uneasy.”

Dennis Wade: “I have migraines. This has kicked the migraines up.”

Tom Banse: Do you get used to it, like if you live on the ocean you get used to the sound of the waves?

Dan Williams: “I haven’t, no. This sound is different. I think it affects my body.”

Dennis Wade: “The feelings that Dan was talking about, once you leave and go away for a day or so, they recede and you feel back to your normal self.”

Sound: (wind turbines return)

Dan Williams acknowledges that the sounds and vibrations bother some people, while others in the area go unaffected. Last year, a small group complained to the county. Many meetings and noise surveys ensued. Finally this week, the Morrow County Planning Commission rendered a decision. It found the wind farm in violation of an obscure Oregon industrial noise limit.

Sound: planning commission votes 5-0 in favor

The county gave the wind farm operator six months to come into compliance.

Neither side of the noise debate is pleased. The wind farm neighbors don’t want to wait six months or more for peace and quiet. The energy company says it intends to keep generating wind power while it pursues its legal options. Alissa Krinsky is a spokesperson for Invenergy based in Chicago.

Alissa Krinsky: “Although we appreciate the time and deliberations of the Morrow County Planning Commission, we are disappointed in its decision and believe there has been a fundamental misreading of the standard under which Oregon law regulates noise emissions.”

At the county seat, Invenergy passed out a fact sheet. It cites a U.S. Department of Energy finding that a “modern wind farm at a distance of 750-1000 feet is no more noisy than a kitchen refrigerator.”

An attorney for the neighbors has suggested the operator idle some turbines at night under certain wind conditions. The company has been silent about what options exist to make a wind farm quieter. Early on, Dennis Wade says Invenergy offered to pay neighbors for a “noise easement” or waiver.

Dennis Wade: “Quiet money, I guess you’d call it.”

Tom: “And you said what?”

Dennis Wade: “No, thank you.”

A different wind energy developer with a project under construction nearby is trying to head off similar problems. That company reportedly is writing $5000 checks to neighbors who agree not to complain about turbine noise. Caithness Energy declined to say how many households took them up on the deal. Caithness’ Shepherd Flats project will be the nation’s biggest wind farm when it is completed in about two years.

Morrow County Planning Commission chair David Sykes says this whole episode provides a hard lesson for his panel and others.

David Sykes: “We’ve talked about how we’re going to approach the next one to avoid this. We don’t want to be in this position. We want it to run smoothly and have the noise issue not be an issue.”

Next time, Sykes says he’ll ask for noise modeling in advance of construction. Other Northwest counties are debating turbine buffers or setbacks.

One other sign of gusty weather ahead for the wind industry: The Oregon Public Health Division has scheduled three “listening sessions” in northeastern Oregon next week (Nov. 3-4). The agency says it wants to look into whether the health concerns about living next to a wind farm have any scientific validity.

Oregon Public Health Division – Health impacts of wind energy assessment:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hia/windenergy.shtml

A NEW SLANT ON WIND FARMS

SOURCE: Chronicle-express.com

October 26, 2010

Loujane Johns

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:How loud is too loud? In the state of Oregon, turbine noise limited to 35 decibels is causing trouble for those who reside in the Invernergy project.

Because of the pulsing characater of wind turbine noise, studies show it to be more disruptive at lower noise levels than noise from road traffic, aircraft, or trains. Chronic sleep disruption due to nighttime turbine noise is the most common complaint from wind project residents Wisconsin.

The new wind siting rules put forth by the Public Service Commission set turbine noise limits in our state at 45 decibels at night and 50 during the day.

The World Health Organization recommends a nighttime noise limit of 40 decibels for healthy sleep. Why the Public Service Commission has chosen noise limits above World Health Organization guidelines is unknown.

WILLOW CREEK TOLD IT MUST QUIET DOWN

SOURCE: East Oregonian,

September 29 2010

By Erin Mills,

A reluctant Morrow County Planning Commission finally spelled it out for Invenergy, the developer of the Willow Creek Wind Project: not only is the project too loud for nearby homes, but Invenergy will be paying for another noise study once its six-month grace period is up.

The 72-megawatt project and four of its neighbors in the Willow Creek Valley north of Ione have been locked in a struggle over noise since before the turbines began turning in late 2008.

After many hours of testimony, the planning commission ruled in May that the project did break the state noise standard, and gave the Chicago-based company six months to comply.

Both parties appealed the decision to the Morrow County Court. The court agreed the planning commission’s decision lacked meat on its bones; it didn’t detail why, or say who was to determine that Willow Creek was in compliance.

At a meeting Tuesday night, commissioners found consensus on several important points. First, they said, the evidence presented by Invenergy’s — and the neighbors’ — noise experts indicated the project broke the state noise rule at nearby homes. The rule states that a wind facility must not increase the ambient background noise of 10 adjusted decibels, or 10 dBA. If a developer does not determine the ambient noise prior to building the facility, there is an assumed ambient of 26 dBA. That means a wind facility that chooses the assumed ambient can generate only 36 dBA at nearby homes.

The commission briefly discussed the percentage of time a facility should be allowed to break the rule, a major point of contention with the two acoustical experts who earlier testified. But Vice-Chair Jeff Wenholz put such quibbling to rest. The developer chose to take the assumed background level, he said, and the noise rule is the noise rule.

“It’s no different than if the speed limit is 65 (mph),” he said. “The cop can write you a ticket for 66.”

The commission next decided that granting Invenergy six months to fix the problem was reasonable, although Pam Docken initially disagreed, saying Willow Creek has already been operating — and breaking the rule — long enough.

“Do you think six months is just flat too long?” asked Chair David Sykes.

“Yes, but I think I’m a solo act here,” Docken replied.

She was right. Eventually she and the group decided Invenergy needs time to adjust. It can finish adjusting sooner than six months, they said, but it must be done when the time is up.

County Counsel Ryan Swinburnson questioned whether Willow Creek should be allowed to run during the six months. The commission agreed it could.

Unlike at previous meetings on the topic, only a handful of people attended, the six neighbors and two Invenergy representatives. Mike Collins, an Invenergy asset manager, said he could not immediately comment on the commission’s decision.

One of the neighbors, Mike Eaton, said he felt numb.

“It’s just a process that we’re in,” he said. “I think the planning commission had a really tough job on their hands.”

Dave Mingo, another neighbor, said Invenergy could fix the problem “in a day,” with an acceptable easement payment. Invenergy made offers to the neighbors shortly after they first complained. All four — two of the neighbors are couples — turned the company down, saying the amount was too small.

The planning commission’s decision vindicated the neighbors’ claims, doggedly expressed for almost two years. But the acknowledged fact — voiced even by commissioners — was that Invenergy would appeal their decision.

“We feel it’s going in the right direction,” Mingo said. “I don’t feel it’s over, by any means.” The planning commission will finalize its decision Oct. 26 at 7 p.m. at Heppner City Hall.

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

Panelists lambaste state about wind power studies

 SOURCE: Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

 September 30 2010

By Eileen M. Adams, Staff Writer,

RUMFORD — Panelists at a wind energy forum Wednesday night lambasted the state for not conducting more studies on the potential impact of wind farms and Dr. Dora Ann Mills, the state’s chief medical officer, for not pursuing possible health issues related to them.

The panelists warned that wind energy would be both more expensive and result in greater pollution.

About 50 people turned out for the decidedly one-sided presentation on potential wind farm development in Rumford and other locations in Western Maine.

The forum, sponsored by the River Valley Wind Education Committee, was held about a month before Rumford and Dixfield voters will decide whether to adopt wind energy ordinances.

Panelist J Dwight, an economist from Wilton and one of the four panelists, said using electricity generated from wind turbines would likely double utility bills by 2020.

“We have enough power already,” he said.

He said later during the forum that First Wind LLC of Boston, Mass., which proposes constructing about a dozen turbines on Black Mountain and an adjacent mountain, is financially bankrupt.

“This is a company that should be scrutinized,” he said.

Dr. Albert Aniel, a local doctor, said Mills has not had a study conducted on the effects of the Mars Hill wind farm on residents there.

“The Department of Health and Human Services is not interested,” he said.

Also speaking was Robert Rand, a sound engineer from Brunswick who displayed a series of graphs showing how sound levels from turbines could affect people living at various distances from a turbine. He also played a recording of two turbines he said was made one mile from the turbines. He was eventually asked to turn off the sound when Rumford wind ordinance committee member Len Greaney asked whether people in the Mountain Valley High School auditorium would have a problem with such noise.

Rand said he has conducted studies or found studies that show how people can become highly annoyed when sounds reach 45 decibels, which is the level sanctioned by the state for nighttime sounds. During the day, the permitted level rises to 55 decibels.

Rumford resident Dan Richard asked whether it was safe to say that the panel is against wind power in general.

“This panel is not in favor of wind,” Dwight said.

Richard said about 600,000 gallons of fuel oil are used each day at the Cousins Island electrical plant.

“And look how many trucks roll in there each day,” he said.

Another man asked whether Rand had measured the level of noise coming from the NewPage mill in Rumford.

Rand said that although he has not measured it, any noise coming from mills tends to be steady, and not variable as he said wind turbines produce.

Karen Pease, a Realtor from Highland Plantation, where another wind farm is proposed, also spoke as part of the panel.

She said turbine construction would decrease the value of homes sited within two miles.

She said a study conducted in Illinois suggested that wind farm developers should guarantee property values, and turbines should be shut down if the noise level goes beyond 10 decibels above ambient sound.

Both Dixfield and Rumford residents will vote on their respective proposed wind turbine ordinances on Nov. 2.

EDITORIAL: "13% ELECTRICITY HIKE TOO MUCH"

Source: globegazette.com

Sept 26, 2010

Hearings began last week on Alliant Energy’s request for a 13 percent electricity rate hike.

We know from past experience the final rate granted by the Iowa Utilities Board will not be 13 percent, but just the same today are urging the board to allow as little a rate increase as possible to cover expenses, as there are many individuals and companies who cannot afford any more.

The increase sought by Interstate Power & Light, a subsidiary of Alliant, would yield $149.9 million to the utility. It said it needs the money to offset additional transmission costs, recover the cost of building the $478 million Whispering Willows East wind farm south of Hampton, recover $3.4 million for past improvements to a generating station in Cedar Rapids, and for environmental controls at its Lansing power plant.

The increase would be on top of a 7 percent rate increase in January, mainly to pay for costs of recovering from record floods in June 2008 and ice storms in recent winters.

The increase sought by Alliant before the 7 percent was granted was 18 percent. So if a similar percentage is granted, customers can expect the current 13 percent increase will result in a 5 percent increase. That’s still pretty hefty for such a short time between increases.

We are pleased, though, with the utility’s investment in wind power in our region. The company has invested $478 million investment in the Whispering Willow-East Wind Farm in Franklin County. According to Alliant, the farm is powering nearly 50,000 Iowa homes with clean, renewable energy.

Green energy is not expensive, Alliant officials have said, nor is installation of pollution control equipment, such as the $188 million investment to reduce emissions from the Lansing power plant.

The consumer advocate office has asked the utilities board to deny the increase and instead order Alliant to reduce electric rates by $1.8 million.

The Mason City Chamber of Commerce has not officially taken a stance on the current rate hike request, but did so last year when the 18 percent request was in play.

Members have expressed concern the current proposal could make Mason City less competitive, said Robin Anderson, executive director of the chamber. She said the chamber helped organize a meeting in June between local members and Alliant officials. From a customer service standpoint, members are satisfied with Alliant, but are concerned their rates will not be competitive in the foreseeable future, she said.

Anderson pointed to a survey of chamber members in 2009. More than 100 members responded. An alarming rate, more than 15 percent, said the rate increases sought at that time would threaten their ability to continue operating in Mason City.

Also, 88 businesses responded to a question about whether utility rates would be considered in a decision to expand in the near future. Sixty-four said they would.

Asked which utility cost impacted their business the most, 69 percent said electricity, 29.9 percent natural gas and one percent water.

Obviously our region’s economic fortunes are closely linked to having competitive, reliable energy. We appreciate Alliant’s reliability and its overall fine standing as a corporate citizen, but ask that it — and mainly the Iowa Utilities Board — go as lightly as possible with this rate increase.

Board Votes not to accept money

SOURCE: TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF, www.telegram.com

September 30, 2010

By Kim Ring

BRIMFIELD — After hearing three hours of mostly opposing comments from residents, selectmen last night voted unanimously not to accept $30,000 from First Wind, the company hoping to build several turbines in town.

The funds would have been used to study the financial impact of a wind energy facility on West Mountain, near Steerage Rock.

About 160 people attended the public hearing at Brimfield Elementary School, most speaking in opposition to the project that would site eight to 10, 400-foot wind turbines on the ridge just north of Route 20, and expressing concern that taking the money would allow First Wind to move closer to its goal.

Board members said if they had decided to accept the money, the town would not have been bound to any future agreements, nor would it have been forced to allow the turbines to be constructed; rather, the money would have helped fund research about the project.

Health Board Chairman Richard Costa and other local officials visited a facility at Mars Hill, Maine, and said he now believes the project would be wrong for Brimfield.

He said residents in Maine told him stories of health issues, decreased property values, and turbine noise difficult to tolerate.

“I don’t really think that this project would be a good fit,” he said, to rousing applause.

Police Chief Charles T. Kuss also went to Maine and said the turbines there, not as tall as the ones planned for Brimfield, were visible from 40 miles away.

He said the folks he spoke with, most of whom favored the project, “did have some economic tie to the industry.”

But some residents of Mars Hill are suing First Wind over the project.

Dr. Elizabeth Smola said she is concerned because recent studies show serious health risks associated with living near wind turbines and being exposed to very low-frequency noise, which is inaudible.

The risks can cause thickening of the heart wall, balance disorders and memory loss, and most often affects fetuses, children and younger people, she said.

In Brimfield, some residents said they favor the turbines and a move toward green energy. One man who lives on St. George Road said he finds the turbines “elegant looking.”

A few residents said that, while they favor green energy, they oppose the turbines in Brimfield, where they would be within 2,000 feet of 79 homes.

“I’m a tree-hugging liberal,” said Anton Prenneis of Brookfield Road, adding that he was initially excited about wind power until he researched what was proposed for Brimfield.

He said as a bluegrass fan who knows the best songs are written about towns devastated by coal mines, “I don’t want to see that happen to the town.”

Dale LaBonte said she drives a Prius, lives in a passive solar home and has no dishwasher, but opposes the wind facility because it will affect the stillness she enjoys while walking her dog at night.

Many were concerned about the “flicker effect” which causes a strobe-like light at certain times of the day. Some, including Doris Carlson, who runs a riding stable on Brookfield Road, were concerned about having to deal with that at their homes.

Eric J. Jaeger, who called himself a “retired reformed opera singer,” said he would, if needed, “sing ‘The Impossible Dream,’ over and over to stop this” project from moving forward.

Clad in a shirt that read “Mafia Go Home,” John Mortarelli vocally opposed the project, saying he’s done research and questioned whether the company is viable and the source of its funds.

He said the town’s bylaws prohibit the towers and that should be enough to quash the project.

But there is concern over Gov. Deval Patrick’s support for a law that would allow the state to have oversight when it comes to siting wind turbines.

Some fear the proposed law would take away local control and make local bylaws that prohibit the towers moot.

Wisconsin small business owner, Jim Bembinster, knows a lot about the complicated subject of wind turbine noise. 

He spent 14 months focusing on noise issues as a member of the Large Turbine Wind Study Committee for the Town of Union (Rock County). He also helped author the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance, considered by many to be the best in the state.

This ordinance has been adopted by local governments throughout Wisconsin, including five contiguous Towns in Rock County. Local governments from other states have used it for a model in creating their own ordinances.

The Town of Union Ordinance calls for a turbine noise limit of five decibels over the existing noise levels in the community.

The wind siting rules approved by the Public Service Commission, which preempt ordinances like the Town of Union’s, allow a nighttime noise level of 45dba—or an approximate increase of 20 decibels over normal rural noise limits.
 
Here, Mr. Bembinster explains how a 20 decibel increase will impact a rural community, and why masking turbine noise is so difficult.

The general rule for additional noise is this:
 
Adding 5dB is barely noticeable.
Adding 10dB is clearly heard— as it’s twice again as loud.
Adding 15 dB is very loud and this will become the dominant sound.
 
If ambient [existing] noise levels in a rural community are 25dB and turbine noise levels are at 45dB, there will be a problem.  
 
The reason is the turbine, at 20dB louder, will be the dominant sound.  
 
Although developers say noise from the turbine will be masked by other environmental sound, such as the wind blowing through the trees, a noise loud enough to cover the turbine must also be similar in character and at least 15 decibels louder, which puts it at least 60dB.  This would be something like a the noise from a large truck going by or a Harley.  
 
Also, in order to mask the sound, the character of the two types of sound must be the same.  
 
Take the example of a baby crying.  

If you were in a room with people who were all having a conversation at say 50dB and a baby started to cry at 40dB,  the baby’s cry would be clearly heard over the conversation because of the difference of character and the tone of the noise it makes.  

If the baby ramps up the crying to 50dB --the same sound level as the conversation in the room, the baby’s cry will become the dominant sound in the room even though both the crying and the conversation are at the same decibel level.
 
This is why people trapped in wind farms have trouble with the noise even though the turbine is within its noise limits of 45dB. Ambient sounds in a rural area can’t mask the sound of a turbine because the quality of the noise is so different,  much like difference between a baby crying and adult conversation.  
 
Another way to look at is how loud it would need to be inside your home so that a Harley could pass by unnoticed.  That would be really loud, and not the best circumstance for sleeping.  

 There is nothing in a rural community that makes a sound similar enough to a wind turbine to mask it, except perhaps a jet or helicopter passing overhead, which is exactly what wind turbine noise is often compared to by those now living in wind projects.

SECOND STORY

WIND TURBINE RULE CAN BE REVISED, PANEL SAYS;

CHANGE WOULD ADDRESS POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS

SOURCE: Green Bay Press Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

September 16 2010

By Tony Walter

One of the three members of the Public Service Commission who voted for the wind turbine siting rules last month noted in a letter to two top state lawmakers that the panel can revise the rules to address the potentially harmful health effects of the turbines.

“While I support the overall rule because it will promote the development of wind in Wisconsin, the rule fails to provide a much-needed safety net for people whose health declines because of a wind turbine located near their home,” Commissioner Lauren Azar wrote to legislative officials in an Aug. 31 letter.

“As new information becomes available, the Commission can revise this rule.”

Azar wasn’t available this week to comment on her proposal that would require wind turbine owners to purchase the home of anyone who can prove that the turbine has a significant adverse health outcome. An aide in her office said Azar’s letter speaks for itself.

Invenergy LLC wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland with turbines that produce more than 100-megawatts of energy. CH Shirley Wind LLC is erecting eight 20-megawatt turbines in Glenmore.

An Invenergy spokesman said last month that the company plans to resubmit its application for the Ledge Wind Farm project, noting that the health issue has been studied by numerous groups that concluded there is insufficient evidence to prove the turbines put people and animals at risk.

That proposal has prompted the creation of a Brown County citizens group speaking out against the wind turbine industry, arguing there hasn’t been sufficient study on health impacts.

Carl Kuehne, a member of the board of directors of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, said the absence of definitive evidence on the health impact of wind turbines is reason enough to conduct more studies.

“No. 1, there is no need to move ahead today with more wind turbines in Wisconsin,” Kuehne said.

“The utilities are currently meeting the energy mandates set by the state government. So let’s study the situation. There’s certainly enough ad hoc evidence that wind turbines do have an impact on people and animals. Let’s study it and find out before we create more destruction on people. We have the opportunity.”

Last month, the PSC adopted rules for projects less than 100 megawatts. The rules can be altered by the state Legislature and lawmakers can ask the PSC to make changes. The issue has been assigned to the Assembly’s Committee on Energy and Utilities, which is led by Jim Soletski, D-Ashwaubenon, but no meeting date has been set.

THIRD STORY:

BANKRUPTCY RAISES WIND TURBINE ISSUES

 SOURCE: www.eastbayri.com

September 16, 2010

By Bruce Burdett

PORTSMOUTH — With its wind turbine supplier bankrupt, Portsmouth is looking for a new company to provide the service it had believed was covered under the equipment’s original warranty.

Bankruptcy proceedings for Canadian firm AAER were completed in July. Pioneer Power Solutions bought some of AAER’s assets ”but appears unwilling to provide warranty coverage or operations and maintenance support,” Finance Director David Faucher wrote in a Sept. 8 memo to the town council.

Mr. Faucher and Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby, who has overseen much of the town’s wind turbine effort, said they have met with representatives of Templeton Power and Light which has commissioned an AAER wind turbine generator similar to Portsmouth’s in hopes of partnering with the Massachusetts utility for a long term maintenance services contract.

But Mr. Faucher said Templeton is not yet at a point that it can enter into such a partnership.

So for now, Mr. Faucher recommended that the town council enter into an emergency one-year maintenance and service agreement with Solaya, a division of Lumus Constrictoon Inc. of Woburn, Mass. The council was scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on the agreement at its meeting on Wednesday this week (after the Times went to press).

The agreement would include two 6-month scheduled maintenance sessions (the first being this month), around-the-clock monitoring and unscheduled maintenance. At the end of the year, Mr. Faucher said he would ask the council to award a competitively bid contract for a three-year period.

The agreement with Solaya is “very detailed and describes the monitoring , warranty protction and maintenance services we have been seeking.”

Cost of the year’s basic service is $33,000, and the town would be charged additional fees for extra work.

FOURTH STORY

SOURCE: The Independent, www.independent.co.uk

MAFIA'S DIRTY MONEY LINKED TO CLEAN ENERGY

September 16 2010

By Michael Day in Milan,

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) – 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.

Police said the operation was based on a 2,400-page investigative report and followed 54-year-old Mr Nicastri’s arrest last year. He has since been released without charge, and has denied wrongdoing. But General Antonio Girone, the head of the national anti-Mafia agency DIA, said that Mr Nicastri, known as “lord of the winds”, was linked to Matteo Messina Denaro, the fugitive believed to be the Sicilian Mafia’s “boss of bosses”.

Senator Costantino Garraffa, of the parliamentary anti-Mafia committee, said the Mafia was trying to break into the “new economy” of alternative energy as it sought to launder money earned from crime. The seizure of Mr Nicastri’s assets “confirms the interest that organised crime has in renewable energy, which several annual reports on environmental issues have already stressed,” added Beppe Ruggiero, an official with the anti-Mafia association Libera.

Generous subsidies have led to rapid growth in wind power in Italy in recent years. Mr Ruggiero said: “It is very important for this sector to stay far from Mafia activities.” However, he stressed the need for renewable energy to develop in Italy’s poorer South. “Investment in renewable energy should not be discouraged,” he said, adding that the nuclear alternative would be “a losing choice”.

Recent estimates suggest the total annual turnover of Italy’s main organised crime groups is around €100bn (£83bn), or 7 per cent of GDP. Officials, including the Bank of Italy governor, Mario Draghi, have argued that organised crime has perpetuated poverty in the south of the country.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

CLICK HERE to watch a video showing what it's like to live in a wind project during the construction phase

Click on the image below to hear the noise from a wind turbine 1100 feet from a home in the Invenergy Forward wind project in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Because of the noise, this home is now for sale.

These photos show one of the two turbines at the 100.5 MW Grand Ridge Energy wind facility in La Salle County, Illinois, about 80 miles southwest of Chicago, which experienced blade failures on July 23-24, 2010.

Each blade is about 130 feet long-- the equivalent height of a thirteen story building.

A spokeswoman for Invenergy Wind said in the event of high winds the turbines are designed to come to rest with one blade pointing down and parallel to the base of the tower.

According to Invenergy, the winds came so quickly that the safety mechanism did not have time to engage. 

In the video below, Wisconsin wind siting Council members Ryan Schryver and Jennifer Heinzen make it clear they do not believe safety setbacks from wind turbine are warranted, saying "Safety is a relative term"

SECOND FEATURE:

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: 

Like other local groups who are asking hard questions about wind siting in our state, Better Plan, Wisconsin is an all volunteer independent citizens group that accepts no funding from outside sources. Yet Wisconsin groups such as ours are frequently characterized as "well-funded anti-wind organizations."

In an recent Wisconsin State Journal article, reference was made to "well-funded anti-wind organizations" in our state, a statement which is frequently made in Wisconsin media without attribution or support.

Better Plan has been trying to source the statement. A google search of "well-funded anti-wind organization" pointed us to a number of PR and consulting firms often hired by wind developers to build community acceptance of a project.

Barnaby Dinges, who was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal article but not identified as a public relations consultant, runs an Illinois PR Firm called "The Dinges Gang." Invenergy has hired Dinges to help bring in the Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.

(Scroll down to the end of the post to read more about the Dinges Gang)

PR firms such as the Dinges Gang work hard to discredit local residents who have concerns by categorizing them as "a small but vocal minority" and 'well-funded NIMBYS'. They also employ techniques to turn neighbor against neighbor. The article below, by an employee of a Public Relations firm called "The Saint Group" details how this is done.

Turning anti-wind sentiment into permits requires organization, strategy and plain ol’ grassroots politics.

By Ben Kelahan, North American Windpower, July 2009

Community relations may be the road to reputation, but understanding practical local politics paves the way to permits. Opposition groups are sophisticated, organized and well funded. They have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully use the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms.

Understanding how the opposition plans to stop your wind farm may be the first step toward planning for its approval. The truth is that planned wind developments run into local trouble every day. Let’s begin by examining some customary tactics used by the opposition.

Opportunistic opposition

Energy developers, particularly wind developers, expect to face opposition from individual landowners and other residents based on the typical siting concerns, such as shadow flicker, noise impacts and property value arguments, that pop up across the country. However, in some cases the opposition takes on some special interest from known characters. Thus, it also takes special care in managing their impact.

Local politicians are accustomed to the usual suspects showing up at public hearings and in letters to the editor of weekly papers on controversial development projects.

Now, wind companies are beginning to notice a pattern to the cast of opponents appearing before zoning hearing boards, road commissioners and alderman, who oppose wind farms using the locality’s zoning codes and planning restrictions as tools to defeat developments town to town.

In Illinois alone, developers such as Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Iberdrola Renewables have been the targets of vociferous anti-wind sentiment.

Turning to the Web

Need talking points for the public hearing tonight? Look no further than the growing number of Web sites that circulate their own “myth versus fact” sheets about wind farms and their impact on local communities. Many of these sites have organized talking points by issue, including public safety concerns, such as wind turbine syndrome, or counter-arguments to wind energy’s effectiveness, such as like intermittency.

There are plenty of anti-wind Web sites online. These sites provide a quick primer should you be motivated to oppose the local wind farm proposed down the road. Further they provide best practices borrowed from wind energy site fights from around the globe, complete with per sonal testimonials of those that have opposed wind turbines and won.

The effectiveness of these online anti-wind sites is not necessarily their basis, because impactful opposition doesn’t necessarily need sound science or experience to be effective with local politicians. All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition to motivate a vocal minority.

If the anti-wind sentiment goes unchecked by a majority of people in the project area who make known their support based on equally passionate arguments that activate locals to take political action on you behalf, you could be in trouble come the day of the permit vote.

Democracy in action

Wind developers are keen on establishing strong relationships within their communities. Community meetings are a popular method of introducing your project to the most people at one time.

An efficient and productive use of time and resources, community meetings provide an educational one-stop shop for answering questions and informing the public about your plans. Although these meetings can allay the concerns of locals, perceptions can change if you let the opposition speak at the gatherings.

So, that raises the question: Why have these meetings if they are not required? Some developers, mindful of being new to the community, do so as a courtesy. But is it helpful?

“It’s one thing if an agency requires a public session – you have to do those,” says Robert Kahn, a 25-year veteran public relations consultant working in wind power, “But it’s rarely a good idea to volunteer to host your own,” he says. “Too often, a public meeting simply provides opponents a chance to identify one another and get better organized. There are much better ways to get the word out.”

When the format for a community forum plays to the positions of opponents, beware.

Here’s how it typically occurs: In an effort to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to consider resident concerns about a wind development plan, the developer begins with a 10-minute presentation of the proposed plan, with specific sound bites reviewing the merits of constructing the wind farm in town. Some of the positives include green jobs, tax revenue, road improvements and donations to local schools. All of those benefits accruing to the community sound wonderful.

After your presentation, undecided residents are satisfied, even though they know it’s in your financial best interest to say so. So even after hearing the pitch, they may not trust you. Then, the outspoken opposition speaks about public safety and health issues. For those attending the hearing, it is a question of taking sides.

If you are fortunate, the undecided members will leave undecided. However, those who have decided may be recruited to speak against you at the next hearing on your special-use permit.

At some point in the approval process, holding an open house allows local residents to see visual simulations, maps and descriptions of construction plans and schedules, along with displays of planned environmental mitigations. An open house is far more relaxed than a community meeting.

Thinking like your opponents may mean acting like them. Several wind power developers have encouraged local citizens to organize support groups around which to rally environmental and property rights activists, business interests and other pro-wind constituencies. Think of these groups as an anti-not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) antidote.

“There’s no substitute for supporters standing up and speaking out on behalf of proposed projects,” Kahn says. “They can say things which a developer, who has one hand tied behind his back, can’t.’

What you can do

However, until such counter-NIMBY organizations expand, developers must n-lake a concerted effort to outnumber the vocal minority and special interest groups that desire a political victory for their own constituencies and members. It can be done, starting with the following basic steps:

Research. Understand the political climate surrounding your project before you go public with your proposal. First, make a list of likely supporters and opponents. Then, do some research. Has this site been the subject of previous controversies? Some sites are considered too troublesome and will never succeed in obtaining change-of-use permits. Knowing the history of the site could impact your decision making.

Time and target your outreach. Never let the news media be the first to describe the impact of your wind project nor be considered the best source of facts about your plans for the site. Inform the politicians and neighbors before they read it in the press.

Persuade. Go door to door informing landowners and residents. Explain the proposal, and attempt to determine who will support it, who will stay neutral and who will oppose. Shortcuts, such as hosting public meetings, will not do the trick in inoculating public opinion over a wind power project.

Get started by scheduling small meetings with key constituencies and community leaders. “These are the people who shape local opinion,” says Kahn. “Their support will be indispensable in countering the opposition.”

Political process. You need to attack this as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing. Organize supporters, and then get them to attend meetings, sign petitions and write letters to the editor. Above all, you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents.

Negotiate when possible. In some cases, you can offer mitigation, or negotiate in some other way to get opponents to drop their positions. In other cases, the opponents or their backers have an economic interest in defeating your project that will never be overcome by an attempt at compromise.

In those cases, you must marshal sufficient political support to overcome the opposition and be prepared to educate your supporters in the community about what you know about your opposition – where they come from and why you feel they’re involved. Let them be the judge.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president, energy, at Vienna, Va.-based Saint Consulting Group, a community outreach consultancy.

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker"  lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website:

"If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI NERD:

The "'NIMBY' advocacy group Dinges mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact.

Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north America at 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average of 4 bat kills per turbine per year.

In a little more than two years, the Invenergy Forward project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 7,000 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average

 The current setback from the Horicon Marsh is two miles. Invenergy is pushing to site turbines in Phase Two of this project a mile from the marsh.