SOURCE: Bureau County Republican,

www.bcrnews.com

Ann Burkey Brezinski

March 17, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Burkey Brezinski

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

SOURCE: WIEG.ORG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE Energies Blue Sky/ Green Field project in Fond du Lac County, WIsconsin

PSC Docket Number 1-AC-231

Announced March 16, 2010
 
WIND SITING COUNCIL

Tom Green, Wind developer, Wind Capitol Group, Dane County

Bill Rakocy, Wind developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC, Wind developer, Dane County

Doug Zweizig,  P&Z Commissioner, Union Township, Rock County

Lloyd Lueschow, Green County Board Supervisor, District 28, Green County,
 
Andy Hesselbach, Wind project manager, We Energies, Dane County
 
Dan Ebert, Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, WPPI Energy, Dane County

Michael Vickerman , Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
 
Ryan Schryver , Global Warming Specialist, Organizer, Advocate: Clean Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County

George Krause Jr. Real estate broker: Choice Residential LLC, Manitowoc County

Tom Meyer, Real Estate Agent, Restaino & Associates, Middleton, Dane County

Dwight Sattler Landowner, retired diary farmer, Malone, Fond du Lac County

Larry Wunsch, Landowner, fire-fighter, non-participating resident of Invenergy Forward Energy wind project, Fond du Lac County
 
David Gilles, attorney specializing in energy regulatory law, shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys at Law, Madison, Dane County

Jennifer Heinzen, Wind Energy Technology Instructor, Lakeshore Technical College, Manitowoc County, and President of RENEW Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
 
Jevon McFadden University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine & Public Health, Dane County

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Questions are being raised about the PSC's appointment of the President of RENEW Wisconsin as well the the Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. For those wonder why RENEW has two top representatives on the siting council, why not contact the PSC and ask? We'd appreciate hearing any answers they give you. CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US

Also, we can't help noting that of the 15 members on the siting council, ten of them are from Dane County. There are 72 counties in the state of Wisconsin.

In the news:

TOUGH TASK AWAITS WIND SITING COUNCIL

SOURCE: www.jsonline.com

Thomas Content

March 17, 2010

The controversial decision about how close wind turbines should be placed from homes is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council.

Homeowners who live near wind turbines built in some wind farms in Wisconsin have complained about the turbines and effects including shadow flicker and noise.

The council, appointed Tuesday by the state Public Service Commission, was set up as part of a law that passed last year to set up uniform wind siting standards for the state.

The legislation came in response to local ordinances that wind developers contended amounted to virtual outright bans on wind development. Some counties and local governments also enacted wind-development moratoriums. That stalled development of small wind farms across the state, with some developers saying they were looking to develop wind power projects outside the state.

Concerns from property owners led the Public Service Commission last fall to limit how far turbines could be located from properties in the Glacier Hills Wind Park to be built by We Energies.

More recently, concerns about living near turbines have led to nearly 200 public comments in concerning Chicago-based Invenergy’s proposal to build a big wind farm south of Green Bay in Brown County.

Two members of the council have ties to the PSC, including former chairman Dan Ebert, now with WPPI Energy, and David Gilles, former commission lawyer, now with Godfrey & Kahn. Other panel members hail from utilities, wind developers and local governments that have wrestled with development of local wind siting ordinances.

In a statement Tuesday, Eric Callisto, PSC chair, said, “Wind siting regulation is complex and sometimes controversial. I look forward to the Council’s input as we develop these rules for Wisconsin.”

SECOND FEATURE

Brown County wind farm could be slowed by new state rules

Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

Scott Williams

March 17 2010

The developer of a proposed Brown County wind farm said today the project could be slowed by a move to establish new statewide standards for wind farms.

Kevin Parzyck, project manager for Invenergy LLC, said the company already is adjusting its plans to account for standards imposed by state regulators on another wind project — with wind turbine setbacks of 1,250 feet from surrounding properties rather than the 1,000 feet originally planned by Invenergy.

If a new state advisory group recommends statewide standards before Invenergy’s project is under way, Parzyck said, that could require more adjustments.

“We’re moving down some parallel paths here,” he said during a meeting with the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board.

The state Public Service Commission on Tuesday named a 15-member advisory group to consider whether Wisconsin should set uniform policies regarding the construction of wind farms.

Invenergy submitted a proposal last fall to build Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Glenmore and Wrightstown.

Once the firm’s application is deemed complete — the adjustments are under way — state regulators will have six months to hold public hearings and render a decision.

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS" What did the wind developer say to the 1000 people in a bad mood?

WARRING OVER WIND-

"With well over 1,000 people in attendance – and most of them in an unpleasant frame of mind – a public information session about the proposed Belwood Wind Farm project was held at the Lions Hall in Belwood on Tuesday, Mar 9."

NEW: Click on the button below to Follow Better Plan, Wisconsin on Twitter

 Wind project resident quote of the day: 

"My landscape has changed drastically. Open space, one of the remarkable qualities of this tall-grass prairie converted to corn production, is gone. We are now in a forest of blinking, whirling, whining, flashing towers."

James A. Thompson
Windom, Minnesota

Click on the image below to watch a video of shadow flicker around and inside of a home in Northern Illinois. This video has no sound.

Wind turbines stir up bad feelings, health concerns in DeKalb County

Proponents point to reduced dependence on foreign oil, say no evidence of physiological harm

SOURCE: Chicago Trubune

By Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter

March 14, 2010

Donna Nilles said she has experienced migraine headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker from 22 turbines she can see from her home. She says that red lights atop the turbines have turned the night sky into "an airport" and that her six horses are terrified by noise from the turbines.

"I want out of this state, out of this county as soon as I can," she said.

Months have passed since anyone has waved hello to one another in Waterman or Shabbona in rural DeKalb County. Some people claim they've even stopped going to church to avoid having to talk to former friends.

"It's gone. The country way of living is gone," declares Susan Flex, who lives in Waterman with her husband and their nine children.

The animosity stems from the greenest of energy sources: a wind farm.

The turbines started arriving last summer, at a rate of two a day, their parts trucked in on flatbeds. Today 126 turbines dot the county, with another 19 just over the border in Lee County. They have been making enough electricity since December to power 55,000 homes, roughly twice the needs of Oak Park.

DeKalb County's efforts appear to be in line with President Barack Obama's push for the U.S. to produce 25 percent of its energy needs with renewable resources by 2025. Illinois has added more wind power last year than all but four states.

Yet the story playing out just an hour and half from Chicago is one of policy-meets-reality. While the idea of creating power from the wind sounds ideal, the massive structures that have gone up have dramatically affected the people who live there, country life and the landscape.

Each turbine stands about 400 feet tall from the tips of their blades to the ground — roughly the height of the Wrigley Building in Chicago. Infighting over the turbines has pitted families against landowners, farmers against friends, and even family members against one another.

Proponents are landowners and farmers who say they want to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. They also point out that the money leasing land for a turbine is more than what they collect renting to corn and soybean farmers.

The turbines, which are assessed at a million dollars each, represent the largest investment made in the county, said Ruth Anne Tobias, DeKalb County Board chairman. And the expected annual tax revenue is unprecedented: $1.45 million.

Steve Stengel, a spokesman for turbine-owner NextEra Energy Resources, a unit of FPL Group, whose holdings include Florida Power & Light Co., said $50 million in payments is expected to be made to landowners over the 30-year life of the project.

But such windfalls haven't assuaged people who claim the turbines have harmed their health. They say noise from turbines is disrupting sleep, and they blame the strobe-like flashes produced by the whirling blades in sunlight — "shadow flicker" — for everything from vertigo to migraine headaches.

A group of 36 people who live near the turbines has sued DeKalb County and 75 landowners who leased land for the turbines. They claim the county illegally granted zoning variances and want the turbines taken down. NextEra is seeking to dismiss the suit based on "vague allegations of hypothetical harms."

Ken Andersen, a county board member who voted to allow the turbines to be built, says he is trying to understand the people voicing concerns. One man, he said, called at 6 a.m. and told him a turbine that sounded like a 747 jet engine was keeping him awake. Andersen said he got out of bed and drove over to listen for himself.

"I went to this man's yard," Andersen said. "I made more noise walking across the crunchy snow.'' The turbines, he said, "were making their whoosh, whoosh, whoosh noise.''

There is debate over whether there are links between the turbines and health problems. In December, an expert panel, which included doctors, hired by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association, national trade associations for the industry, concluded there is "no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects."

But Dr. Nina Pierpont, a board-certified pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., who has spent the last four years studying so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome, insists not enough studies have been conducted to rule out any connection between turbine noise and flicker shadow with health complaints.

Pierpont said low-frequency sounds from turbines can throw off a person's sense of balance and cause unconscious reactions similar to car sickness. Sleep can also be disrupted. She said the feeling is similar to when people awake in fear, with a jolt and a racing heart.

Ben Michels' friends say he may have the worst of it. Five turbines stand in a line behind his home, the nearest 1,430 feet away; the county restricts turbines from being any closer than that.

"I never had problems sleeping," said Michels, a Vietnam War veteran. "I went to the Veterans Administration and they put me on sleeping pills. They had to continually upgrade them because they weren't working."

Michels, who has raised goats for 20 years and averaged one death per year, said nine have died since December. Autopsies didn't reveal anything physically wrong with them. But he said veterinarians told him the goats may have suffered from stress. "Common sense tells me, it's got to have something to do with the turbines," Michels said. Other farmers say the turbines have spooked their horses and other animals.

NextEra, which has more than 70 wind farms in 17 states and two Canadian provinces, is used to such controversies, Stengel said.

"As you move to more heavily populated areas, you would see more — I don't want to say opposition — but you would certainly have more people having questions and issues that needed to be resolved," Stengel said.

DeKalb County, with a population of more than 100,000, is more densely populated than some areas where wind farms are located. NextEra chose the area, in part, for its proximity to Chicago, which benefits from the power those turbines produce, said John DiDonato, vice president of Midwest wind development for NextEra.

NextEra said 147.5 megawatts of energy produced by the DeKalb-Lee wind farm is distributed in 13 states and the District of Columbia, including Chicago and DeKalb County. Another 70 megawatts is sold to a consortium of 39 municipal electric utilities, for customers in and around northern and central Illinois.

Because the power from the turbines flows to areas of the greatest need, little goes to where it's produced. That irony was highlighted on Christmas Eve when the lights went out in Waterman and Shabbona due to an ice storm and didn't turn back on again for four days in some places. Meanwhile, the turbines kept cranking power to homes and businesses hundreds of miles away.

Mark Anderson, who lives in Park Ridge and hosts two turbines on investment property he owns in Waterman, said the turbines protect farmland from urban sprawl.

For David Halverson, who leased land for two turbines in Malta, said it's a matter of national policy — not giving U.S. dollars to foreign oil.

"I am so pro-wind that I would let them put them up for nothing," Halverson said.

There's also the economics. Each turbine, which takes up about 3 acres total, pays Halverson about $9,000 per year, he said. That compares with the going rate of about $180 per acre per year to lease farmland in DeKalb County, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Yet not everyone who could have profited from the turbines did so.

Ken and Lois Ehrhart originally agreed to allow NextEra to run a power line through their property in Shabbona but then changed their minds. Leasing part of their 320 acres would have provided money to pay off a large hospital bill.

"I says nothing doing," recalled Ken Ehrhart, who raises soybeans, wheat and corn. "We're not the highfliers for all the modern ideas."

Now Ehrhart said he is sure he made the right decision. Ehrhart said he also suffers headaches and nausea from shadow flicker from nearby turbines.

Opponents say it's difficult to fight what has been held up as an answer to the planet's energy needs.

"This is a very politically correct thing going on right now, and to say you're opposed to a renewable energy source is like saying you don't like mom and apple pie," said Steve Rosene, who lives in Shabbona. "I used to go out in my front yard in a swing and just watch the sunset," he said.

Mary Murphy, who hangs her clothes on the line instead of using the dryer, recycles and describes herself as a green person, says the turbines represent "green money" not "green energy."

Others are so fed up they're ready to pack up.

Donna Nilles said she has experienced migraine headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker from 22 turbines she can see from her home. She says that red lights atop the turbines have turned the night sky into "an airport" and that her six horses are terrified by noise from the turbines.

"I want out of this state, out of this county as soon as I can," she said.

SECOND FEATURE:

'Lee County Informed' hosts wind turbine forum

Ashton Gazette, www.ashtongazette.com

March 12 2010

“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.

Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.

ASHTON — A group of more than 100 area residents gathered at the Mills and Petrie Building on Saturday afternoon to hear the negative impact of having wind turbines in the area. A group of representatives from the DeKalb area, as well as attorney Rich Porter spoke to those gathered for more than two hours.

DeKalb residents who have been battling with wind turbine companies since 2003 said their presentation was to educate the citizens on the adverse effects they’ve personally experienced. The group has continued their efforts since the turbines went online in December and are seeking litigation.

“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.

Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.

Hinshaw & Culbertson Attorney Rich Porter who opened the informational meeting with a presentation called, “Don’t Get Blown Over By a Wind Farm,” said a study has compared the noise to a leaky faucet in the middle of the night.

Though the panel of DeKalb County residents admit some of their complaints don’t occur around the clock, they said problems are affecting their everyday lives.

Others like rural Waterman resident Ron Flex said the turbines have made he and his family physically ill since being turned on. Flex said his wife became nauseous the first day they were turned on. Something he attributes to the shadow flicker from the rotating of the propellers.

Shadow flicker occurs when the sun is at an angle to produce a large shadow from the propeller of a wind turbine as it rotates around. The repetition of the shadow fading in and out is considered an annoyance.

Noise seemed to be an overwhelming complaint from each of the speakers.

Porter said that even though no noise seems present when standing below one, the turbines create a noise short distances away and can sometimes be amplified when inside a home.

Also included in the list of complaints with the turbines are lower property values, speculation about tax revenue, the inability to negotiate the contracts with the companies, and negative effects on livestock and other wildlife.

Porter urged local officials to adopt special use ordinances that deal specifically with wind turbines.

“You should be doing something about your ordinances,” he said. “There are a variety of developers circling your county.”

Speakers also urged attendees to educate themselves whether they were considering allowing the turbines on their properties.

Porter warned the crowd to be very skeptical of what they hear about tax revenue being a major benefit for schools. Taxation for the turbines as currently exists expires in 2011 and he warned there is always the possibility of them becoming tax exempt because of their portrayal as green technology.

Speaker and DeKalb County resident Tammy Duriavich added that people need to stop labeling areas with turbines as wind farms and view them as industrial.

“If you can’t plant it, harvest it, breed it…it’s not farming,” she said.

Duriavich explained the group doesn’t oppose renewable energy, but said she believes the turbines are not a good example of efficient green technology because of how much land they take out of crop production and for various other reasons.

“We’re not against renewable energy,” she said. “We just think it could be done responsibly.”

Several elected officials from the area were present to hear what they had to say.

Attempts by Brad Lila, of Renewable Energy Sources in Ashton, to point out differences between the companies were cut short. Presenters claimed the audience was there to hear the other side of the story.

THIRD FEATURE

Do turbines sway in the wind?

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

3/14/10 My, what big feet you have: Look at the size of that carbon footprint

 Grease and oil on Fond du Lac County turbine towers.

Home in a Fond du Lac County wind project: February 2010

Morrison residents reject wind farm in 245-18 vote

Vote asks Town Board to block proposal for 54 turbines

SOURCE: Greenbay Press-Gazette

By Tony Walter

March 9, 2010

MORRISON — Town residents voted decisively against wind turbines Monday night. 

Packing the gymnasium at Zion Lutheran School, residents and property owners campaigned against the effort of Chicago-based Invenergy LLC, whose project is in the hands of the Public Service Commission. In all, 20 people spoke, and only one supported the wind turbines. 

The Town Board meets at 7 p.m. today, but Chairman Todd Christensen said the wind turbine issue will not be on the agenda.

He said it will likely be addressed at the annual town meeting in April.

Jon Morehouse, a 20-year-resident of Morrison, proposed the four-part strategy that would:

Home in a Wisconsin wind project. Fond du Lac County 2009

Construction of Wisconsin's largest wind farm put on hold as WEPCO struggles to find willing landowners: use of eminent domain may be only option.

A resident in Columbia county has contacted Better Plan to say We Energies representatives are scrambling to find enough landowners willing to sign the easements needed to begin construction on the Glacier Hills wind project which is set to occupy the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott. The 90 turbine project which was recently approved by the Public Service Commission, would be the largest in the state.

 We Energies representatives are reportedly offering residents a signing bonus of $5000 for completion of contract paperwork by February 28th. The contracts offer landowners a yearly payment of $2,000 with a 2% annual increase.  Residents report these numbers can vary widely depending on the importance of a particular easement to the project.

The easements would give We Energies permission to create turbine noise that will exceed the limits set for homes by the PSC. The easements would also allow such things as trenching for laying cables and transmission lines needed to connect the turbines along with other rights We Energies may need. The duration of a contract of this sort is usually a minimum of 40 years and runs with the land.
 
Some residents who have refused to sign contracts say they are still being hounded by We Energies representatives who won’t take no for an answer.
 
“They’ve tried to make contact with me three times already in the last several days” says Kristine Novak, whose home would be inside of the project. “They are going house to house.”
 
We Energies representatives may not find a lot of welcoming faces in a sharply divded community still reeling from the PSC’s decision to approve the project.
 
 “I guess the best way to describe the feeling in the area is shock,” said the resident who wished to remain anonymous. “Hard feelings that developed earlier have now become worse.”
 
Those hard feelings may well extend to the We Energies Representatives who are now desperate to make deals. Says the resident, “Landowners are telling them to ‘get the hell off my property.”
 
He believes the tension in the community is so high that should We Energies decide to force the project through by use of eminent domain the consequences would be serious.  “People around here will only take so much,” he said.

Better Plan invites residents affected by the Glacier Hills wind project to contact us with their stories.

We hope reporters in our state will follow up on this news-tip and find out more.

SECOND FEATURE: