Entries in wind developer (65)
12/7/09 Clean Wisconsin lives up to its name by taking on the dirty elephant in the room.
Industrial scale wind farms, such as the one being proposed in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott, are supposed to help to solve that problem by replacing our coal plants.
On the surface it seems pretty simple: just replace dirty coal with clean wind.
The problem is not a single coal fired plant has ever been taken off line in exchange for wind power. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, including Denmark and Germany, two countries that use the most wind power in their energy mix, and yet continue to burn fossil fuels at an unchanged rate. In fact, during Germany’s expanded use of more renewable energy, they've also built more coal plants.
The elephant in the room is this: If coal fired plants are not taken off line in exchange for renewable energy, the current level of air pollution remains the same.
Which brings us to the state of Wisconsin, home to about 300 industrial scale wind turbines with hundreds more being proposed.
The question about what actual impact Wisconsin wind farms are having in terms of reducing current levels of air pollution in our state has never been fully addressed by state environmental organizations except in theory. Theoretically they should reduce GHG, but what are the facts?
Clean Wisconsin decided to step up and ask the hard questions. Their conclusions are presented in the post-hearing brief filed with the Public Service Commission in response to the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm.
QUOTE:"This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities."
Though Clean Wisconsin supports the project for the economic benefits it may bring, they clearly point out that unless WEPCO retires a coal burning plant, the construction of the Glacier hills wind farm [and Invenergy's alternate proposed wind farm] will have no effect on reduction of green house gasses in our state. And they clearly lay out the reasons why.
QUOTE: "One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities."
QUOTE: "If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct [sic] Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."
QUOTE: “For these reasons approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity."
By their willingness to acknowledge and address the difficult questions head on, Clean Wisconsin proves themselves to be an organization truly committed to protecting Wisconsin's environment and finding real ways to reduce current levels of pollution in our state.
NOTE: There is no indication that WEPCO intends to shut down any of its coal fired plants in exchange for wind energy.
The complete text of the brief is provided below. It can also be downloaded at the Public Service Commission’s website by clicking here and entering docket number 6630-CE-302
[Better Plan has put the more interesting parts of the brief below in bold type]
BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
Application for a Certificate of Public )
Convenience and Necessity to Construct )
and Place in Service a Wind Turbine Electric ) Docket No. 6630-CE-302
Generation Facility Known as the Glacier Hills )
Wind Park in Columbia County, Wisconsin )
______________________________________________________________________________
CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC.’S INITIAL POST-HEARING BRIEF
_____________________________________________________________________________ _
INTRODUCTION
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. (“Clean Wisconsin”) strongly supports the development of renewable energy resources in Wisconsin, including wind power.
Renewable energy resources are important components for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), which are a significant contributor to global warming. In order to meet this principal objective of reducing GHG emissions, however, the added renewable energy facilities must actually displace the primary source of GHG emissions: coal-fired electric generating facilities.
Clean Wisconsin appreciates the efforts by the applicant, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (“WEPCO”), to develop the Glacier Hills proposal. Clean Wisconsin urges the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) to approve the Glacier Hills project or the Ledge Wind purchased power alternative proposed by Invenergy in this docket as economically beneficial alternatives to meeting statutory renewable fuel requirements.
However, the mere approval of a wind facility will not serve the legislative and societal goal of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) unless the Commission also requires a corresponding reduction of coal generating capacity.
The undisputed evidence in the record, neither challenged nor questioned by WEPCO or Commission staff, demonstrates the following:
1. The application is designed to satisfy the RPS standard, but it is not needed to meet demand in WEPCO’s service area. In fact, WEPCO will have excess capacity for several years without any new generating capacity. Even without the new generating capacity necessary to meet the statutory RPS requirement, WEPCO will have excess capacity until at least 2024.
2. The development of an RPS facility does not ensure that it will be operated, or that it will displace high-GHG facilities. Under the regional MISO system, MISO may require the dispatch of any available facility to satisfy demand within the MISO region. MISO dispatches facilities based on cost: it will dispatch the available facility that is lowest cost based on the locational marginal price (“LMP”). If a coal-fired generating facility is available for dispatch, MISO will require that WEPCO dispatch the coal-generated electricity if it represents the LMP.
3. There is concern at the regional level about events in which utilities dispatch coal generated electricity ahead of wind-generated electricity, and the effects of this phenomenon on RPS compliance and costs.
4. Irrespective of whether MISO requires the dispatch of coal-generated electricity, WEPCO intends to sell all of its excess capacity. If there is a market, it will continue to generate electricity from its coal-fired plants regardless of the dispatch from Glacier Hills. This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone
would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities.
For these reasons, approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE
I. WEPCO HAS PROPOSED GLACIER HILLS TO SATISFY RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE GOAL OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
- 3 -
Under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d) and Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53, a public utility may not begin construction of a new plant, facility or equipment without a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) complying with the applicable rules of the Commission.
The statutory requirements for an application for a CPCN include determinations of need and cost-effectiveness, and specifically include the following:
3. The design and location or route is in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability and environmental factors.
WEPCO does not seek approval of Glacier Hills based on need and cost-effectiveness of satisfying demand in its service area. Rather, WEPCO has applied for a CPCN to satisfy the RPS requirements under Wis. Stat. § 196.378 (also referred to as “Act 141”). See, e.g., Application (Exhibit 1) at 1-2; Hesselbach Direct Testimony at 107-108; Elver Direct Testimony at 125-128. The application therefore must be reviewed in the context of satisfying the RPS goals and requirements.
The principal goal of Act 141 is to increase the use of renewable resources, which are defined by statute to include renewable fuel cells, tidal/wave action, solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. Wis. Stat. 196.378(1)(h)1. A primary purpose of this statute is to reduce Wisconsin’s reliance on and generation of electricity using fossil fuels (especially coal) that result in significant GHG emissions (especially CO2). See Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.5-P.1
The RPS targets for percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources focus on “electric energy consumed in the state.” Wis. Stat. § 196.378(2)(a). That is, the RPS does not account for generation of electricity in Wisconsin from non-renewable resources.
One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere.
That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities.
II. RETIREMENT OR OTHER REDUCTION IN COAL-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY IS NECESSARY FOR GLACIER HILLS TO SERVE ITS GHG-REDUCTION PURPOSE.
A. Glacier Hills or Ledge Wind Are Not Necessary to Satisfy Demand in WEPCO’s Service Area and Would Result in Excess Capacity for at least 12-14 Years.
There is no dispute that Glacier Hills is not necessary to satisfy demand in WEPCO’s service area, the conventional “need” requirement for a CPCN. WEPCO’s application acknowledges that if the application is approved, it would have excess capacity until at least 2019. See, e.g., Exhibit 1, § 1.3 at 2.
In its supplemental direct testimony based on revised forecasts and modeling, WEPCO testified that it would have excess capacity until at least 2024. See,Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.3-P; D4.5-P.
If one accounts for all additional capacity necessary to satisfy its RPS requirement, it is undisputed that WEPCO will have excess capacity until at least 2026. Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.3-P; D4.5-P.
B. Under the MISO System, WEPCO’s Coal-Fired Facilities May Be Required to Operate Notwithstanding the Availability of Renewable Resource Facilities.
WEPCO’s EGEAS modeling and testimony was based on its expected cost and dispatch of electric generating units within its own system, accounting for only its own resources. Exhibit 305; Mendl D4.13-P.
The modeling and assumptions do not reflect the reality of how units are dispatched because they ignore the fact that dispatch is directed on a regional basis by MISO.
Exhibit 307 is WEPCO’s response to discovery request 2-CWI-7. In that exhibit, WEPCO explained that under the MISO tariff, all WEPCO plants must be offered in the MISO Energy Market; and that MISO will dispatch units across the system based on cost. See also, Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.13-P.
The significance of the MISO Energy Market is profound. If a WEPCO coal-fired plant is available and within the price margin, it will be selected for dispatch irrespective of the availability of Glacier Hills or other facilities with a lower GHG profile. That is, MISO could dictate that WEPCO operate Pleasant Prairie or another coal-fired plant because of its low marginal cost, when it would otherwise select Glacier Hills or Port Washington. Id. at D4.13-P to D4.14-P.
The end result would be that, notwithstanding the construction and use of Glacier Hills, Wisconsin would be an underperforming state in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. Id.
Another unintended consequence is that the utility could operate (or be required to operate) a coal-fired facility in lieu of wind even though the cost of wind generation is logically lower. As Mr. Mendl explained, price is based on the locational marginal price (“LMP”) at the location of the vicinity. His evaluation of the LMPs at Columbia, in the vicinity of Glacier Hills, showed that there have been periodic negative LMPs (i.e., the utility pays MISO to take its energy production). Id. at D4.16-P. When price is set on a negative LMP, the utility’s interest is to shut down that resource. As Mr. Mendl explained in his testimony: The analysis suggests that particularly in summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence the way the MISO market works, free energy with the environmental benefits is too expensive!
Id. at D4.18-P. It bears reiteration that no party disputed this evidence and analysis: not WEPCO, not Invenergy, not the Commission staff.
C. Unless Required to Be Retired by the Commission, WEPCO Intends to Operate its Coal Fired Plants Irrespective of Need, and Sell Its Excess Generation.
There is no dispute that WEPCO intends to sell its excess capacity on the open market.
Exhibit 302 is a discovery response from WEPCO to 2-CWI-14, which identifies the amount of excess capacity that WEPCO expects to sell over the next ten years. That amount was based on its original forecast. Under its updated forecast reflected in its supplemental testimony, WEPCO would have more excess capacity available for sale. See also, Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.5-P to D4.6-P.
It is also undisputed that if WEPCO sells its excess capacity as planned, there will be little or no reduction in CO2 emissions from its electric generating fleet. Id. at D4.6-P.
As Mr. Mendl observed: The net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and then selling the excess capacity may be to improve the economics, but it would lessen the reduction in CO2 emissions relative to WEPCO’s analysis. Id. at D4.7-P.
If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions.
II. COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIRE WEPCO TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR RETIREMENT OF 100 MEGAWATTS OF COAL-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY.
The obvious and logical solution to the potential negative consequences described above is for WEPCO reduce the amount of coal-fired capacity that is available for dispatch in the MISO Energy Market. The only effective way to achieve this result is to retire existing coalfired facilities.
WEPCO has requested to increase its electric generating portfolio by Glacier Hills, with a rated capacity of 162 MW, part of the 662 mw of wind generation it predicts it will need to meet its RPS requirements. Ex.1, p. 2.
Glacier Hills has an accredited capacity of approximately 100 MW, as it operates intermittently based on the availability of wind. The evidence also indicates that WEPCO has excess capacity of 212-347 MW over the next decade. Id. at D4.6-P.
Accordingly, WEPCO can retire at least 100 MW of coal-fired capacity without jeopardizing reliability or its ability to satisfy demand within its service area, and it would still have excess capacity well into the 2020s.
CONCLUSION
Clean Wisconsin recognizes and agrees with the importance of the RPS requirement, the economic and environmental benefits of wind power, and the need for WEPCO to develop or purchase electricity generated from renewable resources.
While Clean Wisconsin has taken no position on the relative benefits of Glacier Hills versus Ledge Wind, Clean Wisconsin strongly urges the Commission to approve one of these facilities to partially satisfy WEPCO’s RPS
requirements in a cost-effective manner.
Clean Wisconsin also submits that the mere approval of one of the proposed wind power alternatives will not satisfy the statutory goal of reducing GHG emissions in Wisconsin. In order
to effectuate this goal, the Commission must also require that facilities with high CO2 and other GHG emissions be retired, so that those facilities cannot be operated to satisfy demand outside of Wisconsin while effectively placing the GHG emissions burden, with its expected CO2 costs, squarely on the shoulders of Wisconsin’s ratepayers and our environment.
Clean Wisconsin therefore asks that the Commission require, as a condition of approval, that WEPCO develop a proposal, on an aggressive schedule, to retire at least 100 MW of existing coal-fired capacity.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC.
/s/ Katie Nekola
_______________________________
Katie Nekola
State Bar No. 1053203
ADDRESS:
122 State Street, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 251-7020 x 14 (direct)
(608) 212-8751 (cell)
E-mail: knekola@cleanwisconsin.org
AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
/s/ Carl Sinderbrand
____________________________
Carl A. Sinderbrand
State Bar No. 1018593
Attorneys for Clean Wisconsin, Inc.
ADDRESS
2 E. Mifflin St., Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 257-5661
(608) 260-2472 (direct)
(608) 257-5444 (fax)
csinderbrand@axley.com
F:\EAFDATA\13687\63487\00620069.DOC
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Clean Wisconsin, GHG wind power, Glacier Hills wind project, Renew Wisconsin, We Energies, wind developer, wind farm easement, wind farm lease, wind farm shadow flciker, wind turbine, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off
11/28/09 Goliath VS Goliath in a fight over right to site wind farm in rural Wisconsin. With a 1000 foot setback, residents lose either way.
How big are the turbines? Click on the image above. The blades extend another 13 stories above the person who is descending from the hub of the turbine tower. In Wisconsin, industrial turbines 40 stories tall have been sited 1000 feet from homes.
WIND DEVELOPER WANTS STATE TO STEP IN
Green Bay Press-Gazette
28 November 2009
A wind farm developer proposing a large project in Brown County is urging state regulators to reject a similar project by another developer in Columbia County.
Invenergy LLC has unveiled plans for 100 turbines to generate electricity south of Green Bay in the towns of Glenmore, Wrightstown, Morrison and Holland.
Local and state approval is needed before the firm’s Ledge Wind Energy Project can move ahead.
In the meantime, Invenergy is asking state regulators to reject the We Energies’ proposal in Columbia County or approve both projects jointly.
In a filing earlier this week with the state Public Service Commission, Invenergy wrote that We Energies could purchase power from the Ledge Wind Energy Project for less than the cost of building its own wind farm.
The state has disclosed no timetable for deciding either proposal, although the We Energies project is further along in the regulatory review process.
Invenergy’s application to the state indicates that its Brown County wind farm could be in operation by 2011 and would generate enough electricity to power about 40,000 homes.\
OUR WIND FARM RESIDENT QUOTE OF THE DAY: [Click here for source]
“On Saturday or Sunday afternoon people come out here, stay for the afternoon, go home and wonder what the fuss is about. If you’re out here after 11pm you’ll known what we’re complaining about.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Glacier Hills wind park, Invenergy, We Energies, wind developer, wind farm contract, wind farm wisconsin, wwind turbine setbacks
|
Comments Off
10/19/09 The big "IF": If one of WEPCO's Wisconsin coal plants is retired, the Glacier Hills project will reduce CO2. If not....same circus, same CO2 clowns.
THE BIG IF
Better Plan takes a closer look at some of the expert testimony on the Glacier Hills Docket.
Today's testimony comes from Jerry Mendl who was hired by Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Glacier Hills wind farm at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.
(NOTE: Mr. Mendl served at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as Director of the Bureau of Environmental and Energy Systems and also as Administrator of the Division of Systems Planning, Environmental Review and Consumer Analysis. Learn more about Mr. Mendl by clicking here)
[download Mr. Mendl's complete testimony by clicking here]
His testimony is frank and full of surprises, the greatest of which is this:
Unless WEPCO fully retires a coal plant, the Glacier Hills wind farm will not reduce Wisconsin's CO2 emissions, and could in fact, increase them. [1] [2] [3] [4][5]
(We were unable to find any indication that WEPCO wishes to completely shut down one of its coal-fired plants, or that they would be obligated by the PSC to do so.)
Other findings from Mr. Mendl's testimony:
WEPCO does not need additional capacity until 2024. Regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024 which it intends to sell. Additional capacity clearly is not needed to serve the projected load and reserve margin. [1] [2]
Because WEPCO intends to sell the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2 emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. [3]
Unless WEPCO agrees to take a coal-fired plant off line, the net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and selling the excess capacity will be little to no reduction of CO2 emissions. The Glacier Hills wind farm itself won’t reduce CO2 emissions unless WEPCO retires a coal fired plant. [3]
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Another surprise in this testimony involves shutting down the Glacier Hills wind turbines in the summer in order to maintain profitability by burning coal instead. On page 18 of the testimony we find this:
Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs [locational marginal price] can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!
Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.
As far as Better Plan can tell, WEPCO has no intention of retiring a coal-fired plant and every intention of selling the excess energy. This is understandable in terms of a business plan where profit is the goal.
However if reduction of CO2 emmissions in Wisconsin is the goal, our question to the PSC is this:
What is the benefit of the Glacier Hills wind farm in terms of CO2 reduction to our state if WEPCO does not retire a coal plant?
If there is no CO2 benefit and if WEPCO has excess capacity until 2024 without the Glacier Hills wind farm, how can the PSC justify granting a Certificate of Public Need and Convinience?
The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the lack of reliable CO2 reduction from this project , CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.
References from the testimony document: [download complete testimony by clicking here]
[1] P3:1-13. "Reduction in greenhouse gases, including CO2, is an important purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) law that underlies the Glacier Hills proposal. The effectiveness of Glacier Hills project in reducing greenhouse gases can be best ensured if the Commission requires WEPCO (and other utilities in future RPS projects) to plan for corresponding retirements of existing coal capacity.
4. The opportunity to retire excess capacity exists because WEPCO, even without Glacier Hills, does not need additional capacity until 2024 under the updated forecasts that WEPCO witnesses relied upon for their supplemental testimony. When one adds Glacier Hills and additional wind generation to meet WEPCO’s RPS standard of 662 MW by 2015, WEPCO will not need additional capacity until at least 2026. Thus, it is clear that WEPCO could retire at least 100 MW of existing coal generation."
[2] P.5: 2-22 Q: Will the operation of Glacier Hills result in WEPCO having excess capacity?
A. Yes. According to its application in this docket, as amended by WEPCO’s updated forecast and supplemental direct testimony, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024, regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities.
Q. Does WEPCO plan to sell excess accredited capacity? A. Yes. Although WEPCO has not identified specific plans, it has indicated that it intends to sell all capacity over the 14.5% reserve margin prior to each planning year. It has done so for 2009.
[3] P.6:17-20 Q:What effect would WEPCO’s planned sale of excess capacity have on the emission of greenhouse gases from WEPCO’s power plants?
A: If WEPCO sells the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. WEPCO’s EGEAS runs show a decrease in CO2 emissions to supply electricity used by WEPCO’s customers. However, if the purchaser of the excess capacity takes energy at levels equivalent to or greater than that forecasted by WEPCO for its own loads without Glacier Hills, the net CO2 emissions from WEPCO plants would not be reduced and may be increased.
[4] p.14:1-15 In concept, Wisconsin utilities may install renewable resources to meet the RPS objectives and to reduce greenhouse gases, and MISO could then dispatch the resources available without reducing the utilization of Wisconsin coal-fired power plants. In this example, Wisconsin’s CO2 emissions would stay the same, although MISO dispatch would reduce the utilization of power plants elsewhere in the MISO 5
footprint.
Q. Should that be a concern to this Commission? 7
A. Yes, for at least two reasons. First, if MISO dispatch displaces a highly efficient natural gas fired combined cycle plant with generation from Glacier Hills, the effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions will be far less than if MISO displaces a relatively inefficient coal-fired unit with much higher CO2 emissions per kWh.
Second, if CO2 emissions by state are ever used as a benchmark of global climate change performance, Wisconsin would be identified as an underperformer because MISO dispatch produced CO2 in Wisconsin plants, even though the energy was consumed elsewhere.
[5] P.18: 8-16 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!
Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Glacier Hills wind park, Wind farm, Wisconsin wind farm, wind developer, wind easement lease, wind farm property values, wind ordinance, wind turbine, wind turbine moratorium, wind turbine noise, wind turbine setbacks, wind turbine shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
10/13/09 The Birds, the Bats and the proposed Glacier Hills Wind "Park"
Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.
Download the entire EIS by clicking here
Today we're looking at the section called ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK which begins on page 24 with the issue of bird mortality.
We're very troubled to learn the pre-construction bird and bat studies were done by same utility that is proposing the project.
Here's what the EIS says about birds:
"The potential for avian mortality and displacement from feeding and nesting habitat is a major environmental concern. Bird collisions with turbine blades and towers have been widely reported in this country and abroad.
WEPCO conducted a pre-construction avian study of the project area between mid-June 2007 and mid-June 2008.1 The methodology used and the timing of the survey was consistent with the Breeding Bird Survey methodology and provided a general assessment of bird use in the project area during the one-year study period. The avian study did not identify any heavily used local flight paths or any locations in the project area
where bird activity was heavily concentrated.
The surveys recorded observations of 151 bird species.
Three state-listed threatened species were recorded. An additional 20 species that are listed as species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) were observed in the project area.
Almost all project construction would occur on active agricultural lands. Only a small amount of habitat other than agricultural lands would be directly disturbed by the project. Active agricultural lands provide feeding areas for some bird species during migration and winter but provide only limited habitat for nesting birds. The impact to bird habitat from direct habitat removal and from fragmentation of existing habitat would be relatively low."
NOTE: Though the impact to bird nesting habitat would be relatively low, what about the impact to the birds themselves? Concern about the effects of a large scale industrial wind farms on actual bird populations is growing.
According to a new study by the Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wind farms can reduce bird numbers by up to half. [click here for source]The research, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, suggests the most likely cause of the decline is the fact that birds are less likely to live near wind farms because of the noise and development.
In another report, [source] Purdue University Associate Professor John Dunning says wind turbines could also pose a threat to animals that share the airspace: “The worry is if you put something dramatically different, like big towers with whirling blades in it, some of the species that previously used that area, might not get killed but they might avoid going into the area,” Dunning said.
Newsweek published a recent report entitled "Birds VS Environmentalists" with the sub-heading:"The wind industry may be green, but it's proving deadly to wildlife"[source] In it, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy says turbines kill three to 11 birds per megawatt of wind energy they produce. Right now, there are about 20,000 megawatts produced in the United States, which can mean—at worst—up to 220,000 bird fatalities a year. With wind energy expected to produce 20 percent of this country's energy by 2030, output would grow tenfold and, environmentalists worry, deaths could increase at a similar rate.
Because the turbines in the Glacier Hills wind farm will cover over 17,000 acres, and because out of the 151 species of birds identified in WEPCO's pre-construction study, 3 species are threatened and 20 more qualifiy as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) we believe another independent study should be conducted by a party with no financial interest in providing results required to get approval of this project.
Residents in both the Invenergy wind farm near the Town of Byron and in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm near the Town of Malone in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties have said there have been fewer birds since the turbines have gone up. Many have specifically mentioned the loss of barn swallows, even on farms where barn swallow flocks have been coming to nest for years.
Wind developers will often say more birds are killed by cats than by wind turbines. True or not, this statement seems intended to make turbine related bird deaths more acceptable.
Scientists study birds killed by wind turbines
By DAVID SCHECHTER / WFAA-TV
13 October 2009
When it comes to generating green energy from the wind, Texas leads the way.
But in the pursuit of cleaner energy, there’s also an environmental cost: dead birds and bats killed by turbine blades.
Now a unique research project in North Texas is trying to find out how many are dying and what can be done to save them.
As Texas continues to flip the switch from dirty coal to clean wind, not all is perfectly green.
That’s why Texas Christian University researchers are scanning the base of a wind turbine at Wolf Ridge, outside Muenster, Texas.
“Some of them are obvious that the turbine killed them. Other times you can’t tell,” said field technician Jennifer Ellis of the dead birds she finds.
Among them are raptors, vultures, yellow-billed cuckoos, said Amanda Hale, TCU researcher.
Birds killed by wind turbines pale in comparison to birds killed by cars, buildings and other animals.
“We do know that birds and bats are being affected by wind turbines,” said Hale.
Hale and her team want to definitively determine how many birds and bats are killed by wind turbines.
Her peer-reviewed research project is funded by the nation’s biggest renewable energy company NexTera.
“We’ve actually seen a huge variety of birds,” Hale said.
But it turns out, dead bats are the surprise finding.
Hale did not expect to find any. Instead, her team has found five times more bats than birds.
Why is that a problem?
The bat population is smaller, more susceptible to disease, and slower to reproduce.
“If we add wind on top of it, it’s enough to be a real concern,” said Hale.
Back at the Hale’s laborartory at TCU, they carry out tests.
“We can measure how good we are at finding these bats,” said Kris Karsten.
Hale’s team analyzes DNA, weather patterns and mortality trends at the Wolf Ridge Wind Farm, all for one purpose.
“If we can predict when mortality happens, we can use that information to prevent it,” said Hale.
As our reliance on wind energy grows, a discovery like that may keep us from making things worse, while we’re trying to make them better.
THIS from USA TODAY: [click here to read at source]
Updated 9/22/2009 3:21 AM ET For years, a huge wind farm in California's San Joaquin Valley was slaughtering thousands of birds, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls.
The raptors would get sliced up by the blades on the 5,400 turbines in Altamont Pass, or electrocuted by the wind farm's power lines. Scientists, wildlife agencies and turbine experts came together in an attempt to solve the problem. The result? Protective measures put in place in an effort to reduce deaths by 50% failed. Deaths in fact soared for three of four bird species studied, said the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study. The slaughter at Altamont Pass is being raised by avian scientists who say the drive among environmentalists to rapidly boost U.S. wind-farm power 20 times could lead to massive bird losses and even extinctions. New wind projects "have the potential of killing a lot of migratory birds," said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy in Washington. Wind projects are being proposed for the Texas Gulf, the Atlantic Coast, the Great Plains and Upper Midwest. President Obama said in April that he would allow turbines along the Atlantic as one way to help meet a goal by environmentalists and the industry of generating 20% of the nation's electricity through wind by 2030. Currently about 1% of U.S. power comes from wind, according to the American Wind Energy Association. "There's concern because of the scale of what we're talking about," said Shawn Smallwood, a Davis, Calif., ecologist and researcher. "Just the sheer numbers of turbines … we're going to be killing so many raptors until there are no more raptors." Working on the problem Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is aware of the problem and says the administration is working with energy companies and wildlife groups to help lessen the deaths. "I think we will be able to minimize the number of birds being killed, just in terms of sheer numbers," Salazar said. "The fact that some birds will be killed is a reality." Officials in the wind-energy industry say migratory birds and birds of prey, including eagles, are killed each year at some of the nation's biggest wind farms, but they say the concerns are overstated. Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association, said the industry has taken steps to reduce bird deaths. "We have hundreds and hundreds of projects all over the country that are not having those impacts," she said, referring to Altamont. Bird deaths cannot be completely eliminated, Jodziewicz said. "There will be some birds that are killed because they do collide with so many structures," Jodziewicz said. Salazar said new technology in the design of turbines and more careful placement, such as outside of migratory paths and away from ridgelines, can reduce bird deaths. Fry says other methods include using radar to detect and shut down turbines when migratory birds approach, building towers higher and with more space between them, and placing them away from areas where raptors hunt for small animals. "Technology has evolved over the last several decades in significant ways," Salazar said. "We know how to do wind farms in ways that minimize and mitigate the effect on birds." Non-wind utilities fined heavily Some see a double standard for wind farms. ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court in August to the deaths of 85 birds at its operations in several states, according to the Department of Justice. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Exxon agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees. In July, the PacifiCorp utility of Oregon had to pay $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That is far fewer than the estimated 10,000 birds (nearly all protected by the migratory bird law) that are being killed every year at Altamont, according to Robert Bryce, author of Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence." Bryce says that follows a decades-long double-standard where oil and gas companies face prosecution, but "politically popular" forms of energy get a pass. Salazar said his department's Fish and Wildlife Service task force will recommend guidelines for wind farms that are friendlier to birds. Bird advocates raise doubts about the impact, because the guidelines are voluntary. "It's still entirely up to power companies where to place towers," said Gavin Shire, spokesman for the American Bird Conservancy. |
 |
Bats
We are grateful to the PSC for recognizing that the number of bat fatalities caused by the Glacier Hills wind turbines could be high.
Here's what the EIS has to say about bats:
Bat mortality has exceeded bird mortality at most wind farms where post-construction monitoring of both animal groups has been conducted.
Many species of bats are long-lived and have low reproductive rates.
Also, Bat Conservation International estimates that more than 50 percent of American bat species are in decline.
These characteristics make bat populations more vulnerable to the cumulative impacts that could occur as the number of wind projects continues to increase.
Seven species of bats are known to occur in Wisconsin; five of these are state species of special concern exhibiting some evidence of decline.
Very few bat studies have been conducted in Wisconsin and thus bat numbers and behavior are not well understood.
A pre-construction bat activity study was conducted in the Glacier Hills project area. The study, based on acoustic surveys, focused on bat activity patterns during the post-breeding and fall migration periods. No species identifications were performed during the study.
It is certain there will be some level of bat mortality if the proposed wind farm is constructed. However,due to the lack of research on bat mortality at wind farms in the Midwest, it is not possible to make predictions about the magnitude of bat mortality for this project or whether that mortality would have a significant impact on bat populations.
Post-construction mortality studies are being conducted at three recently completed wind projects in Wisconsin, including WEPCO’s Blue Sky Green Field (BSGF) project. These projects have land cover similar to that present within or adjacent to the Glacier Hills project boundary. In addition, the projected bat activity levels based on pre-construction surveys at BSGF are similar to the pre-construction estimates for the Glacier Hills project.
The initial post-construction data from the BSGF project show a high level of bat mortality.3 Thus, it is possible that bat mortality at Glacier Hills could also be high.
The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on page 24 of the EIS regarding the impact of 90 wind turbines on bird and bat poplulations in the Glacier Hills project area, CLICK HERE
To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.
To watch a short video about bats and wind turbines, click on the image below.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Bats wind turbines, Birds wind turbines, PSC, WEPCO, Wisconsin, bat mortality, glacier hills, industrial wind turbine, post-construction bat mortality, wind developer, wind turbine shadow flicker, wind turbines noise
|
Comments Off
9/9/09 Success is in the eye of the lobbyist: Let's take another look at what happened in Kewaunee County.
In a recent letter to the editor of Madison's weekly paper Isthmus, a lobbyist who receives money from wind developers and major Wisconsin utilities angily takes the paper to task for an article entitled "The War Over Wind"
[Click here to read "War over Wind"]
[click here to read the entire letter to the editor]
In an unusual step, the lobbyist even writes a headline for his own letter:
Anti-wind article damages Isthmus credibility:
To the Editor:
There’s a word to describe the unexamined regurgitation of antiwind talking points sprinkled throughout Brian McCombie’s article “The War Over Wind,” September 11, 2009), but journalism isn’t it. Stenography is much closer to the mark.
But this one-sided article raises an unsettling question: why did the reporter, and by extension Isthmus, leave out so much counterbalancing material in its haste to present windpower in an unambiguously negative light?
Why, for example, was there no mention of Madison Gas & Electric’s Kewaunee County wind energy project? This 17-turbine installation has produced emission-free electricity since 1999. Much of its output feeds MGE’s hugely successful Green Power Tomorrow program.
[The letter goes on and you can read the rest of it by clicking here]
[NOTE: Though the lobbyist has posted the letter on his own website, Isthmus says they had not yet recieved it. The editor tells us, "It hasn't crossed my desk, and I'm the person who edits letters. We have gotten other letters that have made similar points." ]
The BPWI Research Nerd followed the suggestion and took a look at the history of the Kewaunee County wind projects, and is puzzled, saying, "Only a wind lobbyist or a utility could call what happened to wind farm residents in Kewaunee County a success."
Consider this: At least two homes in Kewaunee County were made uninhabitable by wind turbine noise, purchased by the utility and bulldozed.
Complaints about noise and shadow flicker were so frequent they resulted in the Town enacting a moritorium on any further wind development. A survey was sent to residents in the wind farm and the Town then issued the following report.
Even skimming the report quickly will give you an idea of why the lobbyist's use of the word "success" is so puzzling.
EFFECTS OF WINDFARMS – Lincoln Township, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
[Download the entire report by clicking here]
Here are excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln’s Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee.
Prepared by Elise Bittner-Mackin, former Chicago Tribune reporter.
For additional information Dale Massey, Lincoln Township clerk: 920-837-7298
Introduction
After the wind turbines went online in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, the Lincoln Township Board of Supervisors approved a moratorium on new turbine construction. The purpose of the moratorium was to delay new construction of wind turbines for eighteen months, giving the township the opportunity to assess the impacts of the 22 turbines installed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which went online in June, 1999.
The following document summarizes some of the problems the Moratorium Committee faced in trying to address problems the township hadn't faced prior to turbine construction and some of the resulting changes the committee proposed as a result of its study. Verification of this information can be obtained from Lincoln Township officials.
The Moratorium Committee met 39 times between January 17, 2000, and January 20, 2002, to 1) study the impact of wind factories on land, 2) study the impact on residents and 3) review conditional use permits used to build two existing wind factories in Lincoln Township.
Survey
The committee conducted a survey on the perceived impacts of the wind turbines that was sent out to all property owners residing in the township. Each household received one vote. The results were presented on July 2, 2001, to the town board, two years after the wind factory construction.
SURVEY OUTLINE
a. Shadows from the blades
b. TV reception
c. Blinking lights from on top of the towers
d. Noise
e. Other problems
-increased lightning strikes
-hazardous traffic conditions during and after construction
-being awaken by sound of wind turbines
-how close would you consider buying or building a home?
Wind developers (WPSC)’s buyout offers
Property values
Stray Voltage
Question: Are any of the following wind turbine issues currently causing problems in your household?
(The first percentage number is from residents within 800 ft to 1/4 mile of a wind turbine
The second percentage number is from residents within 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile of a wind turbine)
_____________________________________________________________________________
a. Shadows from the blades
33% yes 41% yes
Here are additional write-in comments from the survey:
• "We get a 'strobe effect' throughout our house and over our entire property (40 acres)."
• "Shadows are cast over the ground and affect my balance."
• "We installed vertical blinds but still have some problems."
• "They catch my eye and I look at them instead of the road. They are dangerous."
• "Strobe light, headaches, sick to the stomach, can't [shut] everything up enough to stop the strobe coming into the house."
An additional comment from Lincoln Township Supervisor John Yunk:
• "The strobing effect is so terrible that turbines should not be any closer than 1 mile from schools, roads and residences . . . They should never be set on East-West."
Dr. Jay Pettegrew, researcher, neurologist and professor for the University of Pittsburgh, testified before the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals that strobe effect could cause drivers to have seizures, which could result in fatal traffic accidents. At the very least, drivers could become disoriented and confused, he said. He testified that the turbine spacing (sited on top of hills instead of in a single field in orderly rows) would increase the likelihood of seizures.
It is important to know that according to Lincoln Township Chairperson Arlin Monfils, the wind developers publicly stated that strobe and shadow effect would not occur once the turbines were operating. In reality, strobe and shadow effects were problem enough that residents vehemently complained and the power company anted up for awnings, window treatment blinds and small trees to block the light at certain times of the day. Strobe and shadow effects take place for about 40 minutes during sunrise or sunset if the angle of the sun and the light intensity create the right conditions. Mr. Jeff Peacock, Bureau County highway engineer, has recommended denying permits for 8 turbines due to safety concerns, including strobe effect.
Diane Heling, whose property is adjacent to the WPSC turbines, said the utility purchased blinds for her home, but especially in the spring and fall when there are no leaves on the trees, the strobing is at its worst in her home. "It's like a constant camera-flashing in the house. I can't stand to be in the room," Mrs. Heling said. Her neighbor, Linda Yunk, whose property is adjacent to the WPSC turbines, describes the strobe effect as unsettling. "It's like somebody turning something on and off, on and off, on and off . . . It's not a small thing when it happens in your house and when it affects your quality of life to that extent," Mrs. Yunk said.
residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
b. TV reception 33% yes 37% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:
• "Ever since they went up our reception is bad."
• "At times you can see shadowing on the TV that imitates the blades' moves, also poor reception."
• "Minimum of 50' antenna tower proposed but no guarantee that would be high enough. Such a tower is unacceptable."
• "At times we get black and white TV. Two channels come in hazy!!"
residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
c. Blinking lights from on top of the towers 9% yes 15% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:
• "Blinking red lights disrupt the night sky. They make it seem like we're living in a city or near a factory."
• "At night it is very irritating because they flash in the windows."
• "We have to keep drapes closed at night."
• "Looks like a circus, live in the country for peace and quiet."
residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
d. Noise 44% yes 52% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:
• "Sounds like a gravel pit crushing rock nearby."
• "Sometimes so loud it makes it seem like we live in an industrial park. The noise dominates the 'sound scape.' It's very unsettling/disturbing especially since it had been so peaceful here. It is an ongoing source of irritation. Can be heard throughout our house even with all the windows and doors closed."
• "The noise can make it impossible to fall asleep. It makes an uneven pitch not like the white noise of a fan. Can be heard through closed windows making it hard to fall asleep anytime of the year."
• "You can hear them at times as far as two miles away."
• "It is the annoyance of never having a quiet evening outdoors. When the blades occasionally stop its (sic) like pressure being removed from my ears. You actually hear the quiet, which is a relief."
The most illustrative description of turbine noise was that of reverberating bass notes from a neighbor's stereo that penetrate the walls and windows of a home. Now imagine having no recourse for asking anyone to turn down that noise, whether it's during the day or in the middle of the night.
As the result of so many noise complaints, WPSC paid for a noise study. However, residents are still upset that the study was inadequate in that it measured decibel levels for a maximum of five days per season, sometimes only for a few minutes at some sites, and included days when rain and high winds blotted out the noise from the turbines. In addition, many measurements were taken when the turbines were not running. WPSC claimed it did not have the funds for a more comprehensive study, according to resident Mike Washechek, whose home is victim to some of the worst noise caused by the turbines, due to its location downhill and downwind from the WPSC turbines.
e. Other problems
On the survey, several residents showed concern over the perceived problem of increased lightning strikes in the area.
Additional write-in comments from survey:
• ". . . bring lighting (sic) strikes closer to our home."
• "More concern over seeing more lightening (sic) than in the past -- before generators were erected."
According to Township Chairperson Monfils, the wind developers declared prior to construction that lightning would not affect the turbines; however, lightning later struck and broke a blade that had to be replaced.
In addition, Mrs. Yunk said that one month after the turbines went online, in July, 1999, a lightning and thunderstorm sent enough electricity through the power grid that Mrs. Yunk and Mrs. Heling both lost their computers to what the service technician called a "fried electrical system" -- even though both computers were surge protected. The reason that Mrs. Yunk attributes the electrical surge to lightning striking a turbine on that particular night is that on the night of the storm, her relative, Joseph Yunk, whose television set was also "fried" that same evening, reported seeing lightning move from one of the turbines along the power grid to the nearby homes, which is a common occurrence with wind factories since nearby strikes to either turbines, external power systems or the ground can send several tens of kilovolts along telephone and power lines. Replacements for the computers and television were paid by the residents.
e. Other problems (continued)
On the survey, several residents showed concern over hazardous traffic conditions during and after construction of the turbines.
Additional write-in comments from survey:
• "People driving and stopping."
• "While they were being installed the destroying of the roads, noise, and extra traffic have been negative."
• "More traffic and have to back out of driveways (live on hill, hard to see)."
• "More traffic. I used to feel safe walking or riding bike (sic)."
In addition, Mrs. Yunk said that especially when the turbines first went up, other drivers would be looking up at them and they would "dead stop in front of you." She said she narrowly avoided colliding with a car that had stopped abruptly in front of her.
Question: In the last year, have you been awakened by sound coming
from the wind turbines?
residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
67% yes 35% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:
• "Enough to go to the doctor because I need sleeping pills. Sometimes it absolutely drives you 'nuts.' "
• "I wake up with headaches every morning because of noise. Causes my (sic) to have very restless sleep at night!"
• "We have no way of knowing long-term affects (sic). Growing concerns with stray voltage and its affect (sic) on health. We've had frequent headaches, which we didn't have before. Especially in the morning, after sleeping at night. We need answers!"
• "Not awakened but found it hard to fall asleep!!!"
Question: How close to the wind turbines would you consider buying or building a home?
The results for all survey respondents in the study, including those living over 2 miles away are as follows:
• 61% would not build or buy within 1/2 mile of turbines
• 41% would have to be 2 or more miles away from turbines in order for them to build or buy
• 74% would not build or buy within 1/4 mile of turbines
These are people who know first-hand about the problems caused by the wind factories. They have lived with the turbines for three years. Again, 74% responded that they would not build or buy within 1/4 mile of turbines. Common sense dictates that if a 38-story skyscraper is built next to any home and it obstructs the view, that home would not be as valuable on the market as an equivalent home sited away from such an obstruction. Common sense also dictates that if the skyscraper had moving parts that contribute to or have the potential to contribute to blinking lights, strobing, noise, stray voltage, ice throws, and health problems, that home would not be as valuable as it had been previously. The above numbers from Lincoln Township corroborate that common sense.
Additional write-in comments from surveys:
• "Ugly, would not buy in this area again."
• "25+ miles. They can been seen from this distance."
• "Would never consider it. Plan on moving if we can sell our house."
• "No where near them never ever!! Not for a million dollars."
A sampling of some of the overall write-in comments from the survey is as follows:
• "I live approximately 1 1/2 miles from the windmills. On a quiet night with the right wind direction, I can hear the windmill noise. People living within a 1/4 mile should probably be compensated for the noise and the nuisance."
• "The noise, flashing lights, interrupted TV reception, strobe effect and possible effect of stray voltage has created a level of stress and anxiety in our lives that was not present before the turbines' installation. From the beginning there has been a lack of honesty and responsibility."
• "Let other counties or communities be the guinea pigs with the long-term effects or disadvantages of having the windmills. All the landowners who put the windmills up have them on property away from their own homes but on the fence lines and land near all other homeowners."
• "Our whole family has been affected. My husband just went to the doctor because of his stomach. He hates them. We have fights all the time about them. It's terrible. Why did you put them so close to our new home and expect us to live a normal life. If it isn't the shadows it's the damn noise. The only people that think they are so great and wonderful are those who really don't know."
• "When we were dating back in the 1970's we always said that someday we were going to build a home here. It was great and then you guys did this . . . This should have never happened. If only you would have taken the time and study this more. Everyone was thinking about themselves and money. No one cared about anything else."
WPSC's buyout offer
During the two years of the Moratorium Committee work, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation made offers to buy houses and property to six property owners around the WPSC wind factory site. Offers were made to property owners who vocalized complaints about the wind factory's effects on their quality of life after construction. According to Lincoln Township Supervisor John Yunk, some of these residents were identified on the Noise Complaint Log record kept by the township. Over 90 complaints were logged in one year.
According to the Moratorium Committee report, WPSC publicly stated the buyout was to establish a buffer zone around the wind factory. The Noise Complaint Log was discontinued by WPSC after the buyout offer.
According to the Moratorium Committee report, WPSC's intention was to bulldoze the houses and subsequently keep the property from being developed for rural residences. Owners were allowed only one month to consider the offer.
According to the Moratorium Committee report, "This tactic did not sit well with the Committee. In response the Committee drafted and approved a resolution condemning the WPSC ploy, and requesting that WPSC meet with the town board to develop a better solution for the township."
WPSC officials met with the town board and concerned citizens at the August 6, 2001, regular board meeting, reiterated their policy to purchase property and destroy the homes, and stated that they had no intention of meeting with the town board or changing their policies at the request of the town board.
Mrs. Heling was offered the buyout, but she said she and her family were allowed only one month to make the decision and only six months to move. In addition, the buyout offer was based solely on an appraisal by someone hired by WPSC. Mrs. Heling said WPSC refused to consider independent appraisals. Mrs. Heling said she couldn't obtain another property within six months, so she and her family rejected the buyout.
• The Gabriel household was set back 1000 feet from the nearest turbine. The family took the buyout. The county no longer receives property taxes on that raised homestead. The family no longer lives in the area.
• The Kostichka household was set back 1200 feet from the nearest turbine. The family took the buyout. The county no longer receives property taxes on that raised homestead. The family no longer lives in the area.
• Four remaining homeowners are suing WPSC.
The most recent development is that one homeowner contacted Township Supervisor Yunk during the week of September 11, 2002, and asked what the process would be to request MG&E to buy out her home. She said she has a new baby and two other young children and that she does not want to live in her house any longer because she is too scared about the effects on her family by electronic radiation, stray voltage and other electricity associated with the turbines.
Property values
The following information will directly refute the "Market Analysis: Crescent Ridge Project, Indiantown & Milo Townships, Bureau County, Illinois" report submitted by Michael Crowley to this board.
Mr. Crowley, a paid consultant to the Crescent Ridge developers, alleges in his report that property values won't be affected in Bureau County, based on his analysis, in part, of property values in Kewaunee County.
However, Town of Lincoln zoning administrator Joe Jerabek compiled a list of properties that have been sold in the township, and their selling prices. The list compared the properties' selling price as a function of the distance to the wind factories, using real estate transfer returns and the year 2001 assessment roll.
Conclusions were as follows:
• "Sales within 1 mile of the windmills prior to their construction were 104 percent of the assessed values, and properties selling in the same area after construction were at 78 percent, a decrease of 26 points."
• "Sales more than 1 mile away prior to construction were 105 percent of the assessed values, and sales of properties 1 mile or more after the construction of the turbines declined to 87 percent of the assessed value, an 18 point decline."
Furthermore, not taken into account in Mr. Jerabek's conclusion are the homes that were bought out and bulldozed by WPSC.
Also not taken into account is the fact that of the homes that sold within one mile of the turbines since their construction, four of them were owned within the Pelnar family as the family members shuffled houses. One brother sold to another brother. One brother purchased his father's home. The father built a new home. And a sister purchased land from one brother and built a home. It is important to note that two of the family members are turbine owners themselves.
Subsequent to the zoning administrator's report, homes have gone on the market that are still for sale.
• 1 home, sited across the road from the wind factory, was constructed after the turbines were built and has been on the market for over 2 years.
• 2 homeowners adjacent to the turbines are contemplating selling to WPSC, which may bulldoze the homes, according to neighbor Scott Srnka.
• 1 homeowner is in the process of finding out if MG&E will buy out her home.
• 1 homeowner, Mrs. Heling, who previously was offered the WPSC buyout, said she would sell if she thought she could get fair value for her home and if it would sell quickly enough that she wouldn't be paying on two properties at once. She said she doesn't believe that can happen, so she has not put up her home for sale.
• 1 homeowner, Mrs. Yunk, who lives across from the WPSC turbines, said she and her husband have decided that after having lived in their home for 28 years, they will be putting it up for sale to move to property farther away from the turbines. She said they are worried about selling their current property because of its proximity to the turbines. They will have to find a buyer who doesn't mind the turbines, she said.
Stray voltage
Another issue addressed by the Moratorium Committee is that of stray voltage and earth-current problems that may be exacerbated by the wind factories. This issue was brought to the attention of the Lincoln Town Board by the committee and concerned residents. An ordinance was passed by the Town Board to study the potential effects and to declare a moratorium on any further turbine development. The Committee agreed that any study of earth currents and stray voltage issues must include an analysis of the distribution system, analysis of the wiring from the utility's grid to the wind turbines, and an analysis of the grounding system used for the wind turbines. They also drafted a request for proposals to identify an expert that could help pinpoint the issues surrounding stray voltage and earth currents. The issue has yet to be resolved.
In the meantime, farmers and their livestock in Lincoln Township have been suffering. There are over four farms that are battling -- among other problems -- herd decline due to diseases that were not present in the herds prior to turbine construction, but are present now, according to farmer Scott Srnka. These problems are not limited to non-participating leaseholders. Farms with turbines have been affected as well, as evidenced by the trucks, which have grown more and more frequent, hauling away animal carcasses, Mr. Srnka said.
Mr. Srnka is a former supporter of the WPSC wind power project that is across the road from his family farm. His dairy herd is about 175 cows on 800 acres of land. Mr. Srnka said, "Thirteen turbines were proposed for my land, but we decided to wait. Thank goodness we did or we'd be out of farming."
Mr. Srnka has traced the decline of milk production and increase of cancer and deformities in his formerly award-winning herd to an increase of electrical pollution on his farm after turbine construction. He also has seen the same chronic symptoms that are in his herd in his family.
Animal health problems in the Srnkas' formerly award-winning herd include cancer deaths, ringworm, mange, lice, parasites, cows not calving properly, dehydration, mutations such as no eyeballs or tails, cows holding pregnancy only 1 to 2 weeks and then aborting, blood from nostrils, black and white hair coats turning brown, mastitis, kidney and liver failure.
Within a few months in the first year after the turbines were erected, 8 cows died of cancer. No previous cases of cancer were detected ever before in the Srnka herd, which is a closed herd, according to Mr. Srnka.
Mr. Srnka also detected a change in well water on his property, and there has been a definite change in taste, he said, which has contributed to the decrease in water consumption by his herd. In the past his cows consumed 30 gallons of water a day, but that figure declined to 18 to 22 gallons of water a day after turbine construction. As a result, cows became dehydrated and terminally ill.
------------------
Video: What the Zoning Board of Appeals members saw was a brief, unedited video interview with Mr. Srnka in his dairy barn, taken this spring. In it there were some of the cows in his herd and Mr. Srnka talking about some of the rewiring that he has had to install to try to combat problems of electrical pollution. Mr. Srnka said that he has had to resort to insulating the farm through electrical wiring to put his farm, in effect, on what he calls its own island.
Dr. Pettegrew, testifying before the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals, said he would be remiss as a doctor if he didn't tell the board that he thought the weaknesses and illness he saw in the cows in the video were most likely caused by EMFs or electrical pollution. Dr. Pettegrew also said the risk would be greater in Indiantown and Milo for animals and humans to become ill than in Wisconsin because the proposed turbines would be taller and would produce more electricity.
------------------
Back to what Mr. Srnka has personally experienced. Mr. Srnka and neighbors report serious health effects on not just dairy cows. Health problems in residents include
• sleep loss
• diarrhea
• headaches
• frequent urination
• 4 to 5 menstrual periods per month
• bloody noses: Mr. Srnka had cows bleed to death from uncontrollable bleeding from the nostrils
• inability to conceive
Sometimes even short-term visitors to the farms or homes contract the symptoms, including construction workers on the Srnka property who broke out in nosebleeds after only a few hours. One of the workers left and refused to return.
The Srnkas are so concerned with health effects that they "aren't going to have kids anymore because we're so afraid."
At the time of his testimony before the Bureau County ZBA in October, Mr. Srnka said he had spent upwards of $50,000 of his own money to try to remedy the electrical pollution in his home and on his farm. Mr. Srnka stated that in his opinion, there were three other farms in the area facing enough problems with their herds in the aftermath of the turbines going online that those three farms are "almost ready to sell out."
Representatives of WPSC have denied that there are stray voltage or earth currents affecting Mr. Srnka's family or livestock and will not compensate him for his family health bills, electrical system upgrades, loss of herd or decrease in milk production.
How did the situation become so grave when wind factory developers swore there would be no problems?
Even if a wind developer may claim that the wind factories, substations and power grids will not contribute to stray voltage or electrical pollution because 1) insulated cable will be used, 2) all cable will be buried feet beneath the surface, and 3) cables are laid in thick beds of sand -- these statements should be viewed with suspicion because of poor project track records, according to Larry Neubauer, a master electrician with Concept Electric Inc., in Appleton, Wisconsin. Mr. Neubauer, who has customers who are dairy producers, who are homeowners with stray voltage problems, and who are farmers with turbines on their property, said that currents from each ground on the cables and project substations, as well as the regional transmission lines that receive electrical energy and that are electrically tied together, do not harmlessly dissipate into the soil. Energy disperses in all directions through the soil and these currents seek out other grounded facilities, such as barns, mobile homes and nearby residences. Only in California is it illegal to use the ground as an electricity conductor. In the rest of the country, including Wisconsin and Illinois, power companies are allowed to dump currents into the ground, according to Mr. Neubauer.
Residential properties that are in a direct line between substations and the ground conduits are particularly at high risk since electricity takes the path of least resistance. Mr. Neubauer said that burying the cables, as the Illinois Wind Energy, LLC, project intends to do, "makes it worse," citing the short lifespans of buried cables, frosts that wreak havoc on the cables, and the problems of locating trouble spots that cannot be seen without digging up the cables.
Two of Mr. Neubauer's clients, who were interviewed in October, are dairy farmers who have spent over $250,000 and $300,000 trying to rewire their farms to reduce stray voltage. That cost does not included herd loss or losses from diminished milk production. Mr. Russ Allen owns 550 dairy cows in DePere, Wisconsin. His farm is in a direct line between nearby WPSC turbines and a substation. Mr. Russ said he was losing one or two cows a day during the three years prior to his installing electrical equipment to help reduce currents on his farm. About 600 cows died, he said. Mr. Russ said he has so much electrical current on his farm that he laid a No. 4 copper wire around his farm for 5,000 feet. The wire is not attached to any building or additional wires; yet it can light up a lightbulb from contact with the soil alone. Mr. Russ has scheduled a media day on October 24 to draw awareness to the problems of stray voltage and he said to encourage everyone in Bureau County to attend.
"What scares me more is that I know . . . they're pumping current through people. They're pumping current through kids," Mr. Allen said.
It is important to note that Mr. Noe and his electrical engineer, Mr. Pasley, deny that there will ever be EMFs or stray voltage resulting from the proposed Indiantown/Milo turbines. Just as WPSC has dismissed any problems in the face of mounting evidence, Mr. Noe testified that he will never implement electrical pollution studies and that he thinks they would be a waste of money.
Moratorium Committee findings
Insurance. The town is named as an additional insured and the town is held harmless in any litigation.
Fees. Wind developers pay for all costs associated with the permitting process, including hearing costs plus attorney fees -- up front.
Wells. Residents' wells are protected against damage from any type of foundation construction, not only blasting, within a 1-mile radius of each turbine. This includes the requirement that wind developers will pay for independent testing of wells within 1 mile of the project for flow rate and water quality. Developers also must pay for remediation and fix problems within 30 days of complaints.
It is important to note that no well water studies of properties adjacent to the proposed Indiantown/Milo project are planned to assure that all well wills retain the same quality of water before and after turbine construction.
• TV reception. Wind developers will pay for testing of television reception prior to construction and pay to correct degradation of TV signals. Wind developers will expand the potential problem area to a 1-mile radius for all complaints -- period.
It is important to note that despite claims that television reception would not be affected, the wind factory developers in Lincoln Township had to pay for power boosters and reception equipment to counteract the effects of the turbines. The residents also had to fight with the utilities when an additional local station was added and the utilities refused to pay for any more TV reception improvements for the duration of the 30-year turbine contract. Residents had to fight to get the power company to add the station. Three years later, residents are still unhappy about how the turbines continue interfere with their reception, in many cases observable in unclear stations and in the color flashes that coincide with the turning of the blades, according to Mrs. Heling.
It also is importation to note that no television reception testing is planned prior to turbine construction in Indiantown or Milo townships and that Mr. Noe said steps taken to correct reception problems would have to be reasonable.
• Noise. 50 decibels for noise is too great. Noise shall not exceed 40 to 45 decibels, though 35 decibels was recommended unless there is written consent from affected property owners.
It is important to note that the noise study submitted by Illinois Wind Energy, LLC, uses theoretical generalizations about topography and noise conduction and does not use the same height or turbine models proposed for Indiantown and Milo.
As a side note, according to Walgreens Drug Store Web site, the "most sensitive" earplugs they sell only block out noise at 30 decibels.
• Tower removal. Turbines and all relegated aboveground equipment shall be removed within 120 days after the date the generators reach the end of their useful lives, the date the turbines are abandoned, the termination of the landowner lease, or revocation of the permit. An escrow account will be established or bonding provided by the wind developers to ensure tower removal.
• Tourism. Wind developers are banned from promoting the project as a tourist destination, will not provide bus or tourist parking and will not provide promotional signs located at the projects or elsewhere.
It is important to note that despite the ordinance prohibiting promotion of the wind turbine project, WPSC was caught red-handed by Township Supervisor Yunk last month in August filming a promotional video with child actors riding bicycles in front of the turbines. Mr. Yunk ordered the film crew to leave, but they refused and continued filming. The township has found that once the turbines were constructed, it has been practically impossible to enforce the ordinance or gain cooperation from WPSC or MG&E.
• Road damage. Wind developers will pay for the total cost to return the towns' roads to town standards, not just pay for damaged areas. Any road damage caused by the wind developers during the repair, replacement, or decommissioning of any wind turbines will be paid for by the wind developers. An independent third party will be paid by the wind developers to pre-inspect roadways prior to construction.
It is important to note that Township Chairperson Monfils said that it's not a matter of "if" there will be road damage. There will be road damage. The wind factory developers in Lincoln Township said originally that they would fix the roads if there were damage. But when it came time to fix the roads, the township had to "scrap with them to get it done," according to Mr. Monfils. He said the developers disputed the costs and he had to battle with them two or three times to get repairs paid.
• Periodic review. Every year the project will undergo a periodic review for the purpose of determining whether wind developers have complied with the permit and whether wind projects have had any unforeseen adverse impacts. Any condition modified or added following the review will be of the same force and effect as if originally imposed. Wind developers will send a representative at least once a year to report the operating status of the projects and to receive questions and comments from the governing body and township residents.
It is important to note that even with the review, Lincoln Township residents reported being dissatisfied with the developers' response to their complaints. Mrs. Yunk said the developers were readily available prior to construction, but afterward were scarce. She said she fielded calls from residents who could not reach developers and residents who were given the run-around, being told they needed to contact other people within the organization. She said residents' concerns and problems were deflected by the developers, who said residents had to prove that problems did not exist previously and residents had to prove that without a doubt the problems were the result of the turbines.
• Health and safety. If a serious adverse unforeseen material impact develops due to the operation of any of the turbines that has a serious detrimental effect on the township or a particular resident, the township has a right to request the cessation of those turbines in question until the situation has been corrected.
• Strobing effect, blade shadows and stray voltage earth currents are some other issues to be addressed.
In effect, with these guidelines, Lincoln Township is making construction of new turbines unattractive to further development. They are finding it almost impossible to remedy problems with the current turbines and restore a former quality of life to residents. However, they are trying to ensure no more mistakes will be made.
As Mrs. Yunk plainly said, "Anyone that thinks there aren't going to be problems resulting from the turbines has got another guess coming." She said that she and other residents felt like the bad guys for opposing the turbine project and warning other residents that the project would spell disaster. She said she hates now that what they feared has come true; there isn't any self-satisfaction in being able to say, "I told you so."
The board must weigh heavily the situation of Kewaunee County and the voices and experiences of residents who have no vested interest in wind development in Bureau County. They have no vested interest in telling anything but the truth. They are telling it like it is, and unfortunately, like it was.
For additional information
Dale Massey, Lincoln Township clerk: 920-837-7298
Prepared by Elise Bittner-Mackin, former Chicago Tribune reporter
The BPRC Research Nerd
in NIMBY, Wind farm, Wisconsin, anti-wind, setbacks, shadow flicker, turbine noise, turbine siting, wind developer, wind easement, wind project, wind turbine
|
Comments Off