Video of a home in an Ontario wind project

WIND HISTORIAN AND BOOSTER URGES REMOTE LOCATIONS FOR NEW WIND TURBINES

Via aeinews.org

Book review by Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute

January 2, 2011

On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”  

He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response.  Now I realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”

A new book, Windfall: Wind Energy in America Today, by historian Robert Righter,  was recently published by University of Oklahoma Press.  Righter also wrote an earlier history of wind energy, published by UofO Press in 1996.  In the intervening years, of course, the wind industry has blossomed from its initial mini-boom-and-bust in the California hills (Altamont, anyone?), with bigger turbines, larger government incentives, and growing commitment to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electric generation all leading Righter to feel that an update was in order.

As a hearty advocate of wind energy and continued rapid growth of the industry, Righter will startle many with his strong call for not building turbines “where they are not wanted.”  He spends chunks of three chapters addressing the increasing problems caused by wind farm noise in rural communities, chides developers for not building farther from unwilling neighbors, and says that new development should be focused on the remote high plains, rather than more densely populated rural landscapes in the upper midwest and northeast.  While not ruling out wind farms in the latter areas, he calls for far more sensitivity to the quality of life concerns of residents. (Ed. note: Righter’s book shares a title with, but should be clearly distinguished from, a recent documentary investigating local anti-wind backlash in a NY town.)

Righter seems to be especially sensitive to the fact that today’s turbines are huge mechanical intrusions on pastoral landscapes, a far cry from the windmills of earlier generations.  At the same time, he suggests that a look back at earlier technological innovations (including transmission lines, oil pump jacks, and agricultural watering systems) suggests that most of us tend to become accustomed to new intrusions after a while, noting that outside of wilderness areas, “it is difficult to view a landscape devoid of a human imprint.”

He acknowledges the fact that impacts on a few can’t always outweigh the benefits for the many in generating electricity without burning carbon or generating nuclear waste, but goes on to ask:

No matter how admirable this is, should a few people pay the price for benefits to the many?  Should rural regions lose the amenities and psychological comforts of living there to serve the city?  Should metropolitan areas enjoy abundant electricity while rural people forfeit the very qualities that took them to the countryside in the first place?  The macro-scale benefits of wind energy seldom impress local opponents, who have micro-scale concerns.  The turbines’ benefits are hardly palpable to impacted residents, whereas the visual impact is a constant reminder of the loss of a cherished landscape.

Righter also takes a realistic stance about the fact that our appetite for electricity leads to inevitable conflicts wherever we might want to generate it. He says, “…wind turbines are ugly – but the public produced the problem and must now live with it.  Turbine retribution is the price we must pay for a lavish electrical lifestyle.”

But unlike most wind boosters, he doesn’t content himself with this simple formulation.  He goes on to stress that even as recently as 2000, most experts felt that technical hurdles would keep turbines from getting much bigger than they were then (500kW-1MW).  The leaps that have taken place, with 3MW and larger turbines in new wind farms, startle even him:  ”They do not impact a landscape as much as dominate it….Their size makes it practically impossible to suggest that wind turbines can blend technology with nature.”  He joins one of his fellow participants in a cross-disciplinary symposium on NIMBY issues, stressing:  ”Wind energy developers must realize the ‘important links among landscape, memory, and beauty in achieving a better quality of life.’  This concept is not always appreciated by wind developers, resulting in bitter feeling, often ultimately reaching the courts.”

He was obviously touched by the experience of Dale Rankin and several neighbors in Texas, who were affected by the 421-turbine Horse Hollow Wind Farm.  Righter generally agrees with my experience there, that such wide open spaces seem the perfect place for generating lots of energy from the wind.  But two of these hundreds of turbines changed Rankin’s life. These two sat between his house and some wooded hills, and Righter says that to him, “the turbines seemed inappropriate for this bucolic scene.  For the Rankins the change is a sad story of landscape loss…”  He asked whether the developer had talked with them before siting the turbines here, but they hadn’t, since the land belonged to a neighbor and local setback requirements were met, so “the utility company placed the turbines where its grid pattern determined they should be.  Perhaps such a policy represents efficiency and good engineering, but (reflects) arrogance and poor public relations….(The developer) crushed Rankin with their lawyers when fairness and reason could have ameliorated the situation…the company could well have compromised on the siting of two turbines.  But they did not.”

On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”  He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response.  Now i realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”

While offering many nods to the constructive role of better public engagement early in the planning stages and making the case for societal needs sometimes outweighing those of a few neighbors, Righter also stresses:

While some objections to wind farms are clearly economically inspired and quite political in nature, no one can deny the legitimacy of many NIMBY responses.  When the electrical power we want intrudes on the landscapes we love, there will be resistance, often passionate.  This is part of the democratic process.  The vocal minority, if indeed it is a minority, has a legitimate right  to weigh the pros and cons of wind development in the crucible of public opinion, in public hearings, and if necessary in our court system.

As a bottom line, and despite his support for the industry and belief that we may learn to appreciate a landscape with more turbines, Righter calls strongly for new development to proceed in ways that minimize or eliminate intra-community conflict.  Recounting one of many stories of a community torn apart by hard feelings between nearby neighbors (at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in New York), he concludes:

Should the wind companies shoulder the blame?  I believe they should.  Good corporate citizens must identify potential problems and take action, and that action should precede final placement of the wind turbines….The most optimal ridge need not be developed at the expense of residents’ rights to the enjoyment of their property.

“In the final analysis,” writes Righter, “we can best address the NIMBY response by building wind turbines where they are wanted…and where they do not overlap with other land use options.”  He elaborates:

Conversely, wind developers should give serious consideration to not insisting on raising turbines where they are not wanted…Unlike Europe, our nation has land.  there are vast areas of the United States that have excellent wind resources and welcome the wind turbines….We can hope the industry will adopt the attitude of Bob Gates, a Clipper Wind Power vice president: “If people don’t want it, we’ll go someplace else.”  Fortunately, the country can accommodate him.

Righter also stresses that current setbacks requirements encourage the building of wind farms in ways that almost inevitably cause heartbreaking problems for some neighbors.  While at one point he makes the mistaken assumption that most setback limits are already a half mile or more, he addresses in some detail the findings of a 2007 report from the National Research Council’s Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects.  Righter observes that scientific difficulties with subjectivity led the committee to “shy away from the most important subject,” the impacts on humans, including social impacts on community cohesion and psychological responses to controversial projects. But he’s pleased to note:

Yet they did address one key impact on human beings: the fact that those individuals and families who suffer negative visual or noise effects from the turbines live too close to them.  This is not the fault of the homeowners, for in most cases the home was erected before the wind turbines arrived.  Usually it is attributable to local government regulations, which often allow setbacks of only 1,000 feet.  Significantly, in their study the NRC’s wind committeee observed that ‘the most significant impacts are likely to occur within 3 miles of the project, with impacts possible from sensitive viewing areas up to 8 miles from projects.’

One might expect that this would preclude setbacks of less than at least a mile.  But the industry prefers setbacks measured in feet rather than miles.

Righter’s book also includes chapters addressing grid integration, government incentives, reliability, and smaller turbines.  He repeatedly makes the case for more research and development into smaller, vertical axis turbines, which, even with their smaller outputs, could be far more acceptable in many locations where landscape disruption and noise issues are paramount.  Anti-wind campaigners won’t find Righter to be very comfortable company, for he sees the technological and grid challenges as easily surmountable, and the government support and investment in the industry as both warranted and of proper scale. He also supports various efforts to achieve better community consensus, including making royalty payments to those not hosting turbines.  Make no mistake, this is an avid supporter of the industry.

Indeed, his long history and his deep knowledge of wind energy make his final recommendations about siting all the more striking.  Righter’s experience and stance has fueled my confidence that the path AEI has been pointing to for the past year or so is more than the pipe dream of a tiny non-advocacy nonprofit.  Larger setbacks, to protect unwilling neighbors from quality of life upheavals, combined with easements obtained via royalty-sharing or annual payments to neighbors who don’t mind hearing turbines a bit more often, is a fair and promising path forward.

As Righter says in his conclusion:

The days of an oil patch mentality of greed and boom-bust cycles are about over.  Most developers understand that it is in their best interest to operate openly and in good faith with the local community.  More problematical is the question of landscape.  Wind turbines placed in a pleasing agrucultural, scenic, or historic landscape evoke anger and despair.  At the heart of the issue is visual blight. Residents do not want to look at the turbines and are willing to fight wind development.  Their wishes should be respected.

Wind developers should take to heart geographer Martin Pasqualetti’s advice: “If developers are to cultivate the promise of wind power, they should not intrude on favored (or even conspicuous) landscapes, regardless of the technical temptations these spots may offer.”  The nation is large.  Wind turbines do not have to go up where they are not wanted.  We can expand the grid and put them where they are welcome.

NEXT FEATURE

From CNN

NEXT FEATURE

From The Waubra Foundation

From ABC

WINDS OF CHANGE: WIND LEASE CONSIDERATIONS

Via RJL, attorneys-at-law

Author(s): Robert S. "Sam" Arthur, Jr., Justin H. Boyd
Published: 12/22/2011

Beware of a wind developer who attempts to include unnecessarily long evaluation periods or free extensions, as such lessee may be attempt­ing to stockpile potential wind sites, without any intent to develop and with the hope of assigning the leases to larger wind developers.

Colorado has become a leader in the wind energy industry. According to the American Wind Energy Association, our state is the third-highest wind energy generator in the United States. Farm­ers, ranchers, and other landowners should consider if their property is suitable for wind energy develop­ment and how such devel­opment could be integrated into the current uses of their land. Some major factors that impact the decision to enter into a wind lease are discussed in this article.

Power in Numbers

Owners of land in areas that are advanta­geous for wind farm development should consider joining forces. Increasing the acreage available for wind farm development will increase the land­owners' leverage when negotiating with a wind developer. Landowners in high wind-speed areas may wish to collectively engage an environmental consultant to determine the suitability of their land for wind development.

Factors that may increase the value of the lease opportunities include proximity to transmis­sion lines, local and state economic incentives, and the approval process of the local regulatory authority. Factors sometimes found in Colorado, which may decrease the suitability for wind devel­opment, include rocky or mountainous terrain and close proximity to federally protected lands. If neighbors join forces, in addition to enhancing their bargaining power, the evaluation costs can be spread among the collective group.

The Four Stages of Wind Development That Must Be Addressed in the Lease

Evaluation Stage – During this period, the wind developer studies the feasibility of the site for constructing wind turbines, evaluates environ­mental issues, determines the permitting process, and obtains the necessary financing. While the duration of this stage will vary, the landowner should attempt to limit this stage to a period that lasts no longer than three years. In addition, during this time the wind developer should be paying a guaranteed monthly or annual rent pay­ment. Beware of a wind developer who attempts to include unnecessarily long evaluation periods or free extensions, as such lessee may be attempt­ing to stockpile potential wind sites, without any intent to develop and with the hope of assigning the leases to larger wind developers.

Construction Stage – Assuming that the wind developer desires to proceed from the evaluation stage, the construction of the wind turbines will begin. The landowner should negotiate for a con­struction bonus that reflects the value of the site and also may be based on the number of turbines constructed. The wind developer should continue to pay the monthly or annual rent during this stage.

Operational Stage – Once the equipment has been installed, wind energy is produced and sold for profit to available markets. Generally, the landowner will receive a royalty or percentage of gross revenues received from the production of the wind energy. The landowner should negotiate the percentage of gross revenues that it receives to be increased every five or so years of the lease. While the percentage will vary from location to location, the landowner should be suspicious of any pro­posed royalty of 3 percent or less of gross revenues during the beginning period of the operational stage. Operations of the wind turbines can last anywhere from fifteen to fifty years.

Termination Stage – If the wind developer terminates the lease prior to even reaching the construction stage, the landowner should negoti­ate for a termination fee. Otherwise, the wind developer will have encumbered the landowner's property for the relatively low price of the monthly or annual rent, when the landowner could have been negotiating with another wind developer with the means to actually construct and operate the wind turbines. Assuming that the wind devel­oper does complete the operation stage, the lease will provide for the wind developer to "decommis­sion" the wind turbines. The landowner should receive some type of security, in the form of a bond or cash security deposit, to assure that the wind developer has an economic incentive to properly remove its equipment. The landowner should ensure that the wind developer removes its wind turbines and other equipment in an efficient manner, and leaves the land in a condition no worse than when the wind developer commenced construction.

Beware of the Landowners' Indemnifications

As with many legal agreements, parties often agree to mutually indemnify the other for any damage caused by their own acts or negligence. For example, if the wind developer breaks the farmer's fence or irrigation structures when install­ing its large equipment, the wind developer will fix and replace the damage; such repair or replace­ment costs could run into thousands of dollars. Conversely, imagine if the farmer's tractor runs into the wind turbine, which costs millions of dollars to replace. Such type of damage could force many farmers into bankruptcy. As a result, the landowner may wish to negotiate a maximum limit to its indemnification obligations, to account for the parties' potential economic risks.

Location of Wind Development, Reserved Uses, and Prohibited Uses

The landowner should expressly require the wind developer to refrain from development on or use of specific portions of the land if the cir­cumstances dictate. For example, the landowner may prohibit the wind developer from operating within 500 feet of a residence or within 25 feet of either side of a river or a creek that runs through the property. Most importantly, the lease should expressly reserve to the landowner the right to use his or her property for other uses, such as grazing, hunting, fishing, mineral exploration, or solar energy. In addition, the landowner may desire to reasonably restrict the access rights of the wind developer so as not to disrupt the landowner's peaceful enjoyment.

Taxes and Utilities

Upon construction of the turbines, the value of the property will increase. As a result, the county assessor likely will increase the property taxes assessed to the property. In addition, the utility costs on the property to operate the turbines will rise dramatically. The landowner should ensure that these increased costs incurred by the wind developer are passed on to the wind developer.

Assignment

As mentioned previously, some wind devel­opers desire to obtain numerous wind leases without ever intending to construct or operate wind turbines. Instead, their hope is to assign these wind leases to larger wind developers. As advised above, landowners should work with their neighbors and join forces to cut out this type of middleman, and they should attempt to present their own attractive opportunity to a large wind developer. As another protection, the individual landowner also should restrict the ability to assign the lease. At a minimum, the landowner should have some type of "reasonableness" standard in being required to consent to such assignment to ensure that the assignee has the same economic capacity to both construct and operate the wind development.

The above are just some of the major factors that landowners should consider before entering into a lease with a wind developer. The wind lease may provide attractive economic security; how­ever, given the long duration of these agreements, the landowners must ensure that their interests are protected. If you have any questions regarding wind-lease issues, please do not hesitate to contact Sam Arthur or Justin Boyd.

From Illinois

NO WELCOMING COMMITTEE FOR WIND FARMS: HAMILTON TOWNSIP AMONG COMMUNITIES IN OPPOSITION

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

Via www.saukvalley.com 

December 23, 2011 

“They wanted us to sign a 70-year contract,” Gonigam said. “That would affect my kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

WALNUT – Stacy Gonigam’s family decided against having wind turbines on their farm in southwestern Lee County.

Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power approached the family for its Green River wind farm, which is planned for Lee, Whiteside and Bureau counties.

Gonigam said she didn’t sign a contract with Mainstream because it would bind her family for a long time.

“They wanted us to sign a 70-year contract,” Gonigam said. “That would affect my kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

Gonigam also is the supervisor for Hamilton Township, population 236.

During the past summer, the township board voted unanimously for a comprehensive plan that recommended against the construction of wind turbines.

The township is not alone in its opposition. In the spring, the village board in Whiteside County’s Deer Grove, population 48, voted unanimously to regulate turbines within 1.5 miles of its boundaries. That was in response to news of Mainstream’s plans.

Now that Deer Grove has passed a zoning ordinance, the village has the right to ban wind farms in the areas near its borders, county officials say. Opposition to Mainstream’s proposal is strong in Deer Grove, so it’s doubtful the board will approve construction of turbines nearby.

While Hamilton Township’s comprehensive plan isn’t binding, it’s a statement against turbines, Gonigam said.

Sandy Cruse, a lifelong resident of Hamilton Township, said her survey found that 80 percent opposed wind turbines.

“Our area is recovered swampland,” said Cruse, whose family has a farm. “We’re 90 percent flood plain. It’s all supported by good drainage.

“We are stewards of the land, and we want to be good stewards. We’re all agricultural, and that’s what we would like to see.”

She feared that a wind farm would affect the drainage. She also said she and others don’t want the noise and shadow flicker associated with turbines.

Mainstream officials have pledged to be good neighbors, saying they want to reach out to residents.

Mainstream plans to put in 60 to 90 turbines in the first phase, the vast majority of which would be in Lee County. The second phase would include a similar number, officials say.

Last month, Whiteside County finished its review of its wind energy regulations. Officials decided against making changes.

Mainstream was expected to turn in its application to Whiteside County soon after that. But the company has yet to do so.

John Martin of Mainstream said his company is working on the application and expects to complete it soon.

The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals has been meeting since the summer; it has recommended many changes to the existing ordinance.

On Thursday, the board will debate perhaps the biggest issue of all – the required distance between turbines and houses.

That should be the last major item of business.

The board’s recommendations will go to the full Lee County Board, which has the final say.

A £2 million, 100 metre tall wind turbine catches fire in hurricane-force winds at Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, Scotland. The wind turbine was spinning so fast it caught fire. The engine of the giant turbine went up in flames and its blades were blackened by smoke. The turbine was one of 15 set up on hills overlooking the Scottish coast, built to supply green electricity to 20,000 homes.

SOURCE: Telegraph, UK

An investigation has been launched into the cause of a wind turbine blaze during Thursday's hurricane-force storm.

By Mike Farrell, 

SOURCE news.stv.tv

December 9, 2011

As a standard precautionary measure, all Infinis staff vacate wind farms when wind speeds exceed 55 mph and therefore no one was present on site at the time of the incident.

The turbine in North Ayrshire burst into flames during the storms on Thursday afternoon.

Material from the 328ft turbine broke off during the spectacular fire, which started after the wind farm had been turned off by owners Infinis as wind speeds of more than 55mph had been recorded.

The company, which bought the 30mw farm for £53.8m from Scottish and Southern Energy in 2010, said it was trying to establish the cause of the blaze that broke out at around 3.40pm.

Infinis confirmed the nacelle, which is the white cover housing the generator and gear box of the turbine, caught fire.

A spokesman added: "Infinis confirms that a nacelle on a turbine at its Ardrossan wind farm, in Ayrshire, caught fire this afternoon in extreme stormy weather conditions.

"The fire had extinguished itself before the fire services arrived and did not result in personal injury. As a standard precautionary measure, all Infinis staff vacate wind farms when wind speeds exceed 55 mph and therefore no one was present on site at the time of the incident.

"The local distribution network operator, Scottish Power, was immediately notified of the incident and the site has been disconnected from the electricity network as a precautionary measure. The cause of the fire is not yet known and Infinis has taken immediate steps to investigate the incident fully."

The storm on Thursday caused devastation across Scotland, blocking roads, closing schools and flooding areas as winds of up to 165mph were recorded.

Ardrossan resident Stuart McMahon captured the fire in photos. He said: "I didn’t hear any explosion or anything, but my wife shouted for me to come down and see the fire.

"There are around 13 or 15 wind turbines in the farm above Ardrossan. They were all off today because of the high winds, so something has obviously shorted out and gone on fire.

"The fire was out quickly, but some debris fell from it and drifted quite a distance in the winds. The fire brigade are there, but the turbine was turning in the wind for a while after the fire."

Another resident, Tom Young, caught the blaze on video. He said: "Loads of fire engines and police were called out, but the fire was out pretty quickly.

"It was quite spectacular to say the least."

NEXT STORY

From Indiana:

FARMING COMMUNITY AGAINST WIND FARM

By Rachel Martin,

SOURCE Indiana’s NewsCenter, www.indianasnewscenter.com

December 8, 2011 

The Wells County Plan Commission and Apex Wind Energy held another public meeting Thursday night to give answers and hear more public feedback about the proposed wind farm in southern Wells Co.

The wind was blowing strong in Wells County Thursday night, but not the way the Plan Commission and Apex Wind Energy officials had hoped. The Wells County Plan Commission was supposed to vote on the proposed wind farm project in Chester and Liberty townships, but community members were not allowing it.

A little over a dozen people raised their hands when asked who was in favor of the wind farm. Otherwise, almost all of the approximately 100 people that crowded the Southern Wells High School cafeteria were greatly opposed to the idea.

The community’s main concerns are noise, health risks, and decreasing property values. Residents are worried the hum of the spinning turbines will cause “wind turbine syndrome,” a constant ringing in the ears, and keep them up at night. Apex officials say the turbines would create between 50 and 90 decibels of noise, which is equivalent to the hum of a refrigerator.

A few residents shared their concerns with Indiana’s NewsCenter regarding, “strobe effect,” where light flickers off of the turbine blades. They say shadow flickering could cause seizures and epilepsy. Tim Stepp will have a wind turbine built 1000 ft. from his front door. He also has a relative who suffers from seizures that he and his wife care for. He says the shadow flickering, could exacerbate the problem.

“We are in one of the most intense areas of the entire plan. If this were to happen, my sister-in-law would not be able to stay in our residence. She would then have to relocate and since we are her care givers, we also would have to relocate,” Stepp said.

The biggest issue among residents is the decrease in property values from the wind farm. Residents say they would feel trapped because no one would buy a home close to a wind farm. Allison Alma and her husband just purchased property in Liberty Township to build a home. She said she just found out a 490 ft. wind turbine will be built in her future back yard.

“I paid for all the permits and nobody ever said anything to me about it. My house is probably going to be done in about two months and now I’m sitting there thinking, ‘what am I going to do?’ If I would’ve known, I would’ve never purchased this property,” Alma said.

Alma said her sister happened to be in the Plan Commission’s office one day and noticed a map marking the locations of the turbines. Alma says she tried contacting the Governor and has made numerous other calls trying to figure out her rights to fighting Apex. Alma says if the project is approved, “I’ll probably cry,” she said. “And then I’ll pick up the pieces and maybe we’ll start fighting.”

Both Alma and Stepp say they have not been contacted by anyone from Apex concerning compensation for the wind turbines on their properties.

Nick Huffman is one resident who is in favor of the wind farm project. He says the wind farm will boost the county’s economy. He says Southern Wells High School will receive between $600K and $900K toward Capital Funds Projects, and fire departments in Chester, Liberty, and Nottingham Townships will receive between $8-$20K. He says the wind farms will create more jobs and gain recognition for Wells Co.

“We don’t have anything in Wells Co. to show for. With this, it’s going to get us on the map a little better,” Huffman said.

Apex handed out a packet of questions and answers at the meeting. The packet confirms Huffman’s statements and also addressed the issues of noise, health, and depreciating properties. Apex and the County Plan Commission conducted a study of realtors and appraisers from Benton and White counties in northwestern Indiana where other wind farms are located. Their study shows property values did not go down in those areas, and homes were selling for market price.

Apex and the Plan Commission officials say approximately 200 people have leased their properties for wind turbines in Wells Co. so far. If the project gets approved, construction will begin in the Spring of 2012.

NEXT STORY:

From West Virginia

KEYSER HOMEOWNERS DISTURBED BY TURBINE NOISE

by Katie Kyros,

SOURCE your4state.com 

December 8 2011

[Click here to watch video]

KEYSER, WV - Green Mountain in Keyser has been known a peaceful and idyllic place to live, but in the past month, residents say all that's changed because of 23 new wind turbines that they say are piercing the silence.

"The noise, it sounds like a subway in our yard," says resident William Shillingberg.

"A jet flying around, or a train coming through," says another resident, Donald Ashby.

"It's like someone is setting out front of your house with the base turned up real loud on their vehicle," says homeowner Gary Braithwaite.

They say the culprit is 23 new wind turbines. Pinnacle Wind Farm went into operation on November 4th. Since then, residents say it has disrupted their peace and quiet.

"I have woken up several nights from the windmills," says Ashby.

Residents say the turbines produce a loud, steady noise that's anything but peaceful.

"It's not every day, but it seems like to me in my house, it's every night," says Braithwaite.

Now they're asking Edison Mission Energy to keep them off at night. The U.S. Wind Force says the sound measured no higher than 56 decibels at the nearest residences. However, at the closest home,  it could be heard through the wind, which was measuring at levels above 70 decibels.

Ashby was on the advisory committee for the wind farm.

"Everybody's looking for jobs in our area, so I was in support of it at the beginning," he says.

Many homeowners on Green Mountain are now petitioning Edison Mission. The U.S. Wind Force says none of the energy generated by the wind turbines is going to West Virginia. It's all been purchased by the University of Maryland, and the Maryland Department of General Services.

VILLAGE OF CASCADE FACING LAWSUIT OVER OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATIONS

Written by Eric Litke,

SOURCE www.sheboyganpress.com

November 15, 2011

Cascade officials were more than happy to talk publicly about their two wind turbines last summer, when the 120-foot generators made the village the first in the state to power its wastewater treatment plant solely by wind.

But one resident says village government was too quiet in the months leading up to construction, alleging in a lawsuit that the seven-member board violated state open meetings law by repeatedly discussing the $500,000 expenditure using vague agenda items that gave residents no warning or chance for input.

Susan Lodl, 60, of Cascade, filed the lawsuit in November 2010, and her effort garnered some judicial backing last month when Sheboygan County Circuit Court Judge Terence Bourke ruled there was enough evidence to proceed toward trial on the core allegations.

Lodl said she didn’t set out to sue the village that has been her home since 1974, but she was left with no recourse when the board responded to her initial objections with indifference and even hostility.

“A number of us started going to meetings, and we were treated quite rudely. A friend of mine was even called names,” she said. “I even told them at one of the board meetings, ‘Your agenda and your minutes do not coincide.’ And they just kept doing their thing. … They just blew me off as a disgruntled village resident.”

So Lodl decided to take a stand.

“It’s been a haul, let me tell you. It’s been very hard, very time consuming and nerve-wracking and hard for some common Joe Citizen to do this,” she said. “I (hope) the Village Board — and I’m hoping other municipalities — will learn from this that they have responsibilities to their constituents to be specific on what they’re going to do and vote on at meetings, and they have to abide by the laws that govern them. The public has a right to know.”

‘Their meetings have been a sham’

The lawsuit alleges an array of open meetings law violations from November 2008 to February 2011, but the wind turbines are at the heart of Lodl’s concerns.

The pair of 100-kilowatt generators went into service in June 2010 next to the wastewater treatment plant, located on Bates Road on the east side of the village. Cascade received $400,000 in grants but still had to borrow about $500,000 to finish the project.

The turbines were projected to save $30,000 in electricity annually and generate additional power for sale to WE Energies, meaning they should pay for themselves in about 12 years, officials said at the time. The Sheboygan Press filed an open records request Nov. 4 seeking documentation on the cost and savings to date, but the village has not yet responded.

Lodl, who lives just over 1,000 feet from the turbines, was unaware of the project until the village sent a letter in May 2009 advising residents of a special meeting. By then, she said, the time for input had clearly passed.

“Our president informed me and everyone else sitting in the room, that yeah, this was basically a done deal,” said Lodl, who was on the Village Board about 10 years ago. “We’ve been sold a bill of goods all the way down. This was planned. They had this thing staked out. Their meetings have been a sham.”

When Lodl objected to the lack of prior notice, she said one board member “very snidely turned and said, ‘It’s your responsibility to go to the meetings, and everything is posted on the agendas.’” So Lodl looked back at those agendas, and what she found — allegedly — were meetings where the turbines and other topics were discussed with little or no mention on the agenda.

The lawsuit, filed Nov. 11, 2010, names as defendants the Village of Cascade, the Village Board, the village’s Sewer and Water Committee, Village President David Jaeckels, Village Clerk Sherry Gallagher, the six village trustees, one former trustee and one other citizen who sits on the sewer committee. An amended complaint was filed March 10 that contains a total of 19 purported violations.

Meetings cited in the complaint include a Feb. 10, 2009, board meeting where a discussion about purchasing the wind turbines and land took place under an agenda heading of “sewer and water — 2nd well / facility plant update.” Similar discussions occurred under the same heading April 14, 2009, the same day the board declared the meeting was a public hearing regarding floodplain and shoreland ordinances even though the agenda made no mention of a public hearing, the complaint said.

On March 10, 2009, the sewer committee discussed hiring a consultant for the turbine project without any mention in the agenda. The committee also discussed the appraisal and purchase of property for the wind turbine without agenda notice on May 12, 2009.

The board also discussed a truck purchased in January and February 2009 although there was no mention of the truck on the agendas.

Judge rules lawsuit has merit

The village claimed in court filings that the agendas were sufficient because items discussed without notice were listed in previous agendas, meaning residents had sufficient notice that the issues would be discussed at some point. Judge Bourke rejected that claim.

“Looking at other agendas to understand what’s in a particular notice I don’t believe would reasonably apprise an individual of what was going on at that particular meeting,” Bourke said.

Raymond Pollen, an attorney representing the village in the lawsuit, would not elaborate on the village’s defense in an interview last week.

“I think the village has a long history of trying to prepare agendas that completely and accurately communicate what they’re going to be talking about,” Pollen said. “I think they tried to do that here.”

The village made a motion for summary judgment — asking Bourke to rule in their favor without going to trial — and on Oct. 18 Bourke ruled the wind turbines and the truck objections were sufficient to go to trial.

“I believe there’s a genuine issue of fact for trial regarding those allegations,” Bourke said, according to a court transcript. “If I had appeared in Cascade at that particular time and I was unfamiliar with the issues going on in the village, I would not know what the notice meant.”

Bourke ruled Lodl’s complaint was not sufficient in its objections to numerous discussions from 2009 to 2011 under vague headings such as “committee reports,” “old business,” “new business” and “letters.” He then dismissed 10 of the 19 counts in the amended complaint.

“Those counts (that remain) really address the issues that were most dear to my client,” said Matthew Fleming, Lodl’s attorney. “The other things we just kind of threw in there to address what we thought was a pattern of not living up to what the open meetings law required.”

State statute says “every public notice of a meeting of a government body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting … in such a form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.”

A brief filed by the village said Village Board and committee members were not aware general topic headings “may not be sufficient to give public notice under all circumstances” and did not intend to violate open meetings requirements. It said the village has since changed its procedures to provide more specific notice.

Fleming noted in a reply brief that state statute does not allow ignorance of the law as a defense and that the village’s response “implicitly admitted” to violating the law.

“Intentional or not, the village has at least been willfully negligent in how it noticed its meetings,” Fleming’s brief said. “Because of its shoddy practices, two wind turbines were all but approved for purchase for use across from Ms. Lodl’s home before she or many other concerned members of the public ever knew about the plans.”

Lodl open to resolving case

Lodl’s complaint said she is asking that each defendant be ordered to pay a forfeiture of $25 to $300 for each violation, and Lodl is seeking reimbursement for her court costs and any other payments “as the court deems just and equitable.”

But Lodl and her attorney said they may settle for simply better government.

“The real goal here is to get the village to start following the open meetings law the way they should and give better notice on their public meeting notices,” Fleming said.

Added Lodl: “They have to change and they have to start learning things and they have to start conducting their meetings differently.”

To this point, however, Lodl said her objections and her lawsuit have been met only with enmity.

“The village president won’t even acknowledge me standing next to him in a public building,” she said. “Now we go (to meetings) and they just glare at us — just glare. You do not feel welcome, and that’s sad.”

Pollen, the village’s attorney, said he was unaware of any proposed settlement but would be happy to pass word to the village.

“I’m encouraged … that Mrs. Lodl and her counsel are looking at alternatives to continuing the litigation, and I hope that they will be able to speak with me so that I can communicate that back to the village,” he said. “That’s a very positive thing.”

Pollen said his firm has so far accumulated $33,500 in legal fees from the case, costs that have been billed to the village’s insurance company, Rural Insurance.

Village officials refused to discuss the case, so it was not clear what deductible, if any, the village has been responsible to pay.

NEXT STORY

From Illinois

BEEF UP LAW; END TRESSPASSING BY WIND FARM CREWS

By the Sauk Valley Media Editorial Board,

SOURCE www.saukvalley.com

November 16, 2011

It’s bad enough when poachers or irresponsible hunters trespass on a farmer’s property. But when a wind farm company is alleged to have done the trespassing, that’s worse.

A Compton farmer, Gale Barnickel, told the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals recently about his beef with contractors building Goldwind USA’s 71-turbine Shady Oaks wind farm in eastern Lee County.

Barnickel told board members that wind farm construction crews had repeatedly trespassed on his family’s property. Transit of construction equipment over farmland caused crop damage, he said.

Barnickel posted signs that prohibited trespassing at various places along his property line. Workers who entered the property should have been aware of what they were doing.

After all, what part of “no trespassing” would they not understand?

According to a Goldwind spokesman, the whole situation was a mistake. The contractor apologized to Barnickel, and the contractor took “concrete steps” to clearly mark the farmer’s land so no further trespassing would occur.

But, as the saying goes, it’s like closing the barn door after the horse ran away.

Goldwind and its contractor should have had a better plan in place to avoid trespassing on a non-participating farmer’s land.

Barnickel filed two reports with the Lee County Sheriff’s Department about the trespassing incidents. He decided not to file any more, as they apparently weren’t doing any good, and he wanted to avoid wasting taxpayers’ money.

The whole situation should be a wake-up call to county governments near and far – especially in Whiteside and Ogle counties, where new wind farms are contemplated.

Are there strong enough trespassing laws in place to keep wind farm construction crews in line?

Are enforcement provisions ready so that if construction crews trespass, authorities can mount a swift and effective response?

Are the fines large enough to discourage construction crews from ever entering private property unless they are absolutely certain it belongs to a participating landowner?

Farmer Barnickel stated: “It’s nerve-wracking being pushed around. Why should I have to put up with that?”

He shouldn’t.

Neither should anyone else.

Goldwind spokesman Colin Mahoney said his company was committed to minimizing the impact of wind farm construction.

We think area counties should strengthen their ordinances so landowners are better protected when wind farm companies stray from such commitments.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Wind developers-- sometimes called "landmen"-- a term for those who get rural property owners to sign long-term leases to permit development on their property-- use a lot of the same tactics used in the gas industry to get those contracts signed.

A memo that recently surfaced in Ohio lays those strategies out. For those of us who have been following the story of how Big Wind came to Wisconsin, these tactics are identical to those used to get rural landowners in our state to sign onto contracts with wind developers they now regret.

"Remember, if at all possible, try not to deliberately mislead the landowner."

CAUGHT RED-HANDED:

According to an article in Businessweek.com, a memo that appears to coach buyers of oil and gas drilling leases in rural Ohio to use deceptive tactics on unsuspecting landowners surfaced earlier this spring.

"Door-to-door lease buyers called "landmen" have proliferated for months in hopes of landing rights that will give their companies access to potential energy riches."

This memo tells them 'how to hunt and catch a rural mid-westerner'

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE MEMO BY CLICKING HERE

EXCERPTS

 Know your demographics!

We have paid for an analysis of Ohio and its people. Use that Data.

 Ohio is a conservative leaning, Mid-west state. The typical Ohio resident will welcome you into their home and allow you to speak. This is critical. Face to face interaction can make all the difference.

Most mid-west Americans dislike confrontation. Even if they disagree on a selling point, they are unlikely to confront you over it. Therefore it is critical to obtain a lease signature at the first meeting or at least the agreement to sign and take the lease to a notary.

Drive them to the notary if you have to. If they have time to think it over, they are more likely to decline the offer.

Provide the overall position of the nation

Most landowners will be patriotic Americans and will desire to free our nation from foreign oil dependence...Fear of foreign encroachment is the biggest asset we have in selling our development strategy. Our analysis of Ohio shows that even the most liberal landowners will agree on this point.

ALWAYS start your conversation with a new potential signee on a point they will agree with. This is pure psychology. They will be more likely to let you stay and talk. Studies show the longer you talk, the more chance we have of signing.

At any point in the pitch, if talk turns to local issues, environmental hazards etc-- a good way to re-direct hte conversation is to re-engage over the nation's energy needs....

Talk about our business

... More educated landowners may know that we often sell our land leases to larger corporations. While this is often true, we don't always sell our interests. So it is reasonable to say we plan all developemnt in Ohio without partners. Future plans do not need to be fully disclosed......

[POSSIBLE PROBLEMS]

Truck Traffic: There will be extra traffic, but stress that we will do everything to keep it to a minimum... just tell landowners the more trucks, the more royalties. Money will usually deflect most arguments. Return to the nation's energy needs if you need to.

Noise: If pressed for details tell them we monitor noise to endure it is approximately [#] decibels at [#] feet.

They will not likely understand the details and will not admit that the technical data means little to them. Do not compare it to anything tangible, like train noise or airplane noise.

Stick with the numbers. They provide the truth but make it hard to understand the exact implication.

GET THE LEASE SIGNED!

If a landowner is undecided, there are several ways to offer incentives:

-Offer a slight increase in the initial lease payment. Even a $50 increase may be enough to sway the decision. Tell them it's to cover the Notary Public costs. That way you are making a concession without caving and getting into a negotiation. Mid-west Americans appreciate feeling valued. This will work in your favor.

-Tell the landowner that all their neighbors have signed. Even if the neighbors have not, this will often push an undecided landowner in favor of signing. Remember, the first visit is the most crucial. They will not know if their neighbors have signed and even if they do they will want to sign so they do not lose out on potential profits. Once they have signed, you can show those leases to undecided neighbors for added pressure.

FROM US & CANADA

Why pro-wind studies often use a 10 km radius

by Alec Salt, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine

Last week I was reading of an Australian study, by a Professore Gary Wittert, which had shown sleeping pill usage for those living near wind turbines was no greater than the general population .

The study compared those living within 10 km of turbines with those living more than 10 km away. There have been similar studies with property values using a 5 mile or 10 km radius that showed property values are not affected by wind turbines.  Had you ever thought why they pick a 10 km radius?

Consider this graphic. It shows 1 km bands with the calculated area for each band shown in blue.

Let’s keep it easy and assume that households are evenly distributed and there is one household for every 10 square kilometers.

So, within 2 km (the two innermost bands) of the turbine, the area is 3.1 + 9.4 km2 (=12.5 km2) which would represent 1.2 households.

Now let’s consider the two outermost (9 km and 10 km) bands. The area of these bands is 53.4 + 59.7 km2 (= 113.1 km2) which represents 113 households. So the outermost bands have about TEN TIMES the number of households of those living within 2 km, making sure that the contribution of the inner bands is diluted, swamped, covered up or however else you would describe it.

Or consider if you live within 2 km of a turbine. The outer bands of those living from 2 – 10 km from the turbine adds up to 301.6 km2, which would represent 30.1 households – which is 24 TIMES the number of households within 2 km.

No wonder your voice is being “drowned out”. The bigger the circle, the more “dilution” occurs.

Add this to the list of things where “size matters”, and next time you see a study like this, consider the radius and area that was chosen. The choice of the circle size plays a major role in the result obtained and speaks volumes about the motivation of the author.

Alec Salt